I have AIDS

[R00k]

There is way to much fucking plastic in this world that is waste.
I don't know about you but I'm sick of all this theft-proof plastic packaging that entombs everything we buy and the endless supply of plastic bags that I can't seen to get a few of or use enough to stop accumulating.
Surely we can stop wasting energy and oil making these things and go back to renewable resuorces like paper from trees that can be replanted.

We also need to go back to local manufacturing. A lot of oil is wasted shipping raw materials half way around the world so kids and adults in slave labour wage jobs can make things and then ship them half way around the world again to consumers which is a huge waste of oil.

Yep. These are all things that can be done to help reduce the impact of production peak and decline.

[R00k]

Would you believe it if you heard it from Exxon's own research experts? This was an inside report for the Dept. of Energy (which I already posted above):

US Report Acknowledges Peak-Oil Threat

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 5A9DBE.htm

It has long been denied that the US government bases any policy around the idea that global oil production may be in terminal decline.

But a new US government-sponsored report, obtained by Aljazeera.net, does exactly that.

Authored by Robert Hirsch, Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling and titled The Peaking of World Oil production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management, the report is an assessment requested by the US Department of Energy (DoE), National Energy Technology Laboratory

*SNIP*

The Annapolis Centre for Science-based Public Policy is a group which has received $658,000 in funding from Exxon Mobil since 1998. It openly disputes the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels.

But this brand new senior-level report on "peak oil" is unprecedented in US government circles. It is not just the existence of the report itself that is such a landmark in the current oil debate. Its conclusions also pull no punches.

*SNIP*

"World oil peaking is going to happen," the report says. Only the "timing is uncertain".

The effects of any oil peak are similarly not ignored. Specifically, the impact on the economy of the United States. "The development of the US economy and lifestyle has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil. Oil scarcity and several-fold oil price increases due to world oil production peaking could have dramatic impacts ... the economic loss to the United States could be measured on a trillion-dollar scale," the report says.

A US expert panel says markets
cannot solve peak-oil problems

The authors of the report also dismiss the power of the markets to solve any oil peak. They call for the intervention of governments. But also they rather worryingly point to a need to exclude public debate and environmental concerns from the process. They say this is needed to speed up decision-making.

"Intervention by governments will be required, because the economic and social implications of oil peaking would otherwise be chaotic. But the process will not be easy. Expediency may require major changes to ... lengthy environmental reviews and lengthy public involvement."

*SNIP*

Three scenarios

The report sees "a world moving from a long period in which reserves additions were much greater than consumption, to an era in which annual additions are falling increasingly short of annual consumption. This is but one of a number of trends that suggest the world is fast approaching the inevitable peaking of conventional world oil production".

The report then takes three possible scenarios and outcomes. Firstly that energy replacement solutions, or "mitigation" as the report states, are started 20 years before any "peak". Secondly that solutions are only enacted 10 years before any peak and, thirdly, that solutions are only put into practice as the peak becomes apparent.

In what some may see as an optimistic assessment, the authors believe 20 years is enough time to limit damage from any peak. However, they point out that "if mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction".

Demand destruction is a modern way of saying catastrophic recessions and shortages. But as well as these predictions, the report lays out "signals" it believes will be apparent in the run-up to any peak. This is perhaps the most worrying aspect of the report, as it seems to describe the very events that are taking place at the moment.

Supply insecurity

"As world oil peaking is approached, excess production capacity ... will disappear, so that even minor supply disruptions will cause increased price volatility as traders, speculators, and other market participants react to supply/demand events," the report says.


One scenario says energy prices
may become more unpredictable
"Simultaneously, oil storage inventories are likely to decrease, further eroding security of supply, aggravating price volatility, and further stimulating speculation ... oil could become the price setter in the broader energy market, in which case other energy prices could well become increasingly volatile and unpredictable."

*SNIP*

But in its conclusion the report makes troubling reading, noting that "the world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary. Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary."

[Massive Quasars]

They'll try something else.

[Maiden]

Peak oil stuff

actually, at this point I don't buy it. These experts can conclude that the consequences will be abrupt and revolutionary, but they can't come to a conclusion if it has already happened, will happen next year, or 2007,2013,2020,2030 or beyond.
we can produce oil from shale today at $75 bucks a barrel, if they can't predict when its going to happen, how can they have an idea of alternative fuel sources and costs when it does?
biodiesel
bioplastics
fuel cells
nanotechnology
hydrogen
natural fibers
shale oil
all these things are well under way. together they be the mitigating factors they are looking for.

I'm with you on the fact that we need to get off our ass though...

[R00k]

Well, that's kinda my whole point. I think it would be completely possible to avoid a lot of the problems, but every day we don't do anything makes it that much less likely.

And with our current technology, most of the alternative sources still require crude oil in some form just to make.

And these are industry experts finally saying the same thing I've been saying for well over a year. That's enough to convince me it's a real problem.

[Maiden]

i think we will make it, at least i hope we do. Maybe I am a dreamer, but i have quite a bit of faith in man's ingenuity to overcome these problems. After all, it took us to the point where we almost killed every whale in the ocean before someone got off their ass and invented kerosene.

Sad thing is, as much as I want to do my part, by occupation, I am doing nothing but the opposite selling yachts that consume over 20 gal/per hr. :/

[R00k]

Wow, I just came across this tonight:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031505G.shtml

Four years ago, the analysts at John S. Herold Inc. were the first to call bullshit on Enron. On Feb. 21, 2001, three Herold analysts issued a report that said Enron's profit margins were shriveling, the company had too few hard assets, and its stock price was way too high. Less than ten months later, Enron filed for bankruptcy.

Today, the analysts at Herold -- a research-only firm that issues valuations on several hundred publicly traded energy companies -- are making predictions even bolder than their call on Enron. They have begun estimating when each of the world's biggest energy companies will peak in its ability to produce oil and gas. Herold's work shows that the best minds in the energy industry are accepting the reality that the globe is reaching (or has already reached) the limit of its own ability to produce ever increasing amounts of oil.

Many analysts have estimated when the earth will reach its peak oil production. Others have done estimates on when individual countries will hit their peaks. Herold is the first Wall Street firm to predict when specific energy companies will hit their peaks.

Since last fall, Herold has done peak estimates on about two dozen oil companies. Herold believes that the French oil company, Total S.A., will reach its peak production in 2007. Herold expects 2008 to be critical, with Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., BP, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and the Italian producer, Eni S.p.A., all hitting their peaks. In 2009, Herold expects ChevronTexaco Corp. to peak. In Herold's view, each of the world's seven largest publicly traded oil companies will begin seeing production declines within the next 48 months or so.

Executive vice president Richard Gordon, who heads Herold's global strategies team, says the firm's goal in doing peak-production estimates for individual oil companies is simple: "If the dinosaurs are going extinct, we are trying to figure out which ones are going to go extinct the soonest."

Herold's projections have enormous ramifications both for stockholders in the major oil companies and for every energy consumer on the globe. If Herold is correct, and the world's biggest oil companies cannot increase their production in the coming years, then several things appear certain:

* Oil prices -- which are already at record levels -- will continue rising as demand outstrips supply. In a few years, gasoline prices of $2 per gallon could seem like a bargain.

* State-owned oil companies like Mexico's Pemex, Venezuela's PDVSA (Petroléos de Venezuela) and Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco may be unable to increase their production enough to meet burgeoning global demand.

* The producers who belong to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and Saudi Arabia in particular, may have even more leverage over the global oil market in the coming years

* The United States will be ever more reliant on oil imported from countries filled with people who don't like George W. Bush or his policies.

While Herold's projections provide ammunition to the growing chorus of analysts who believe peak oil is imminent, they are not being welcomed by the oil companies. Last month, when I asked ChevronTexaco's chairman and CEO, David J. O'Reilly, to respond to Herold's projection that his company would reach its peak production in 2009, he replied snappishly, "I'm not going to comment on that."

*SNIP*

Furthermore, spare oil-production capacity has largely disappeared. Oil producers are running their wells at maximum capacity. Indonesia, a member of OPEC, cannot meet its OPEC quota of 1.4 million barrels per day. In February, Indonesia was able to produce only 942,000 barrels per day, its lowest level of production in 34 years. And last week, Algeria's energy minister, Chakib Khelil, said that OPEC "does not have the production capacity to increase its quotas."

All of these factors are sending oil prices to record highs. Monday's NYMEX closing price for light sweet crude was $54.95 per barrel. Last week, the Department of Energy issued a report saying that it expects prices to stay near or above $50 per barrel for the rest of this year. That's a big change for an agency that has always been conservative in its price projects. At about this same time last year, the agency was predicting that oil would cost about $29 per barrel throughout 2005.

[Fender]

i think we will make it, at least i hope we do. Maybe I am a dreamer, but i have quite a bit of faith in man's ingenuity to overcome these problems. After all, it took us to the point where we almost killed every whale in the ocean before someone got off their ass and invented kerosene.

Sad thing is, as much as I want to do my part, by occupation, I am doing nothing but the opposite selling yachts that consume over 20 gal/per hr. :/

Dammit. Thought of that last night and just came in to post that. Beat me to it.

But, yeah, I'm with you. Naive? Maybe.

The last thing we need is for the governments to get involved with this. Of course, as soon as gas goes over $2.50 a gallon everywhere, I'm sure politicians will be up in arms, claiming "we must do something!" WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

[Fender]

Wow, I just came across this tonight:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031505G.shtml
...
* Oil prices -- which are already at record levels -- will continue rising as demand outstrips supply. In a few years, gasoline prices of $2 per gallon could seem like a bargain.

Why do people ALWAYS forget to adjust for inflation? Gas and oil prices aren't really even that close to their peak when you adjust for inflation.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Infl ... lation.asp


http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl ... _Chart.asp

[Massive Quasars]

Revelation: The markets may not be able to solve all problems.

Actually, I think this particular problem may require the cooperation of multiple governments in R&D. The private sector can do it's part as well.

[Massive Quasars]

Hmmm... charts.

[R00k]

Wow, I just came across this tonight:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031505G.shtml
...
* Oil prices -- which are already at record levels -- will continue rising as demand outstrips supply. In a few years, gasoline prices of $2 per gallon could seem like a bargain.

Why do people ALWAYS forget to adjust for inflation? Gas and oil prices aren't really even that close to their peak when you adjust for inflation.

I know about adjusting for inflation. While it points out the obvious discrepancy between American prices and those of other countries over the last few decades, saying that it's SUPPOSED to be higher anyway isn't going to lessen the impact when we all have to pay $3.50 a gallon to drive. And more than that later on. If anything, I would say that it only underscores the problem.

edit: Peak Oil is not about prices peaking; it's about production peaking. With America's artificial oil prices, you can't judge one by the other, whether you adjust for inflation or not.

The inflation argument is "historical" as Condi Rice would put it. It doesn't really change anything.

If you read the work, Hubbert's Peak turned out to be pretty darn accurate for the peak of American oil supplies, saying they would peak in the 70's. And more and more evidence is starting to indicate he might have been roughly accurate about world supply as well, peaking between 2000 and 2015.

[Fender]

America's oil prices are "artificial" only in the respect that we pay MORE than we should for a gallon of gas.

Peak oil might not be about prices, but there's a direct correlation.

And I have read Hubbert's work. Will we start to consume more oil than we can produce in the next couple of decades? Probably, yes. Does it matter? No.

[R00k]

I can't continue this discussion anymore without getting worked up, because the issue seems really obvious to me, and you're dismissing it as a non-issue, so we have a huge perception gap about the effects.

I will answer your statements though:

As for the US paying MORE than we should for a gallon of gas, you should try telling that to anybody in Europe, or even the people in the countries who actually have oil on their own land, some of whom are paying 5 times the amount we are for gasoline.

Peak Oil definitely has a direct correlation to prices, but that's because prices have recently become a direct RESULT of supply. Until fairly recently, that was not the case at all. The prices are becoming a lot less artificial than they were in the past, because there is now a lot less wiggle-room for price-fixing and increasing/decreasing supply.

And we will start consuming more oil than we can produce in the next couple of years, not the next couple of decades, if places like China and India continue to make their growing impacts on the market. Hubbert did not take such a drastic increase in demand into account in any of his predictions.

As for the idea that it doesn't matter.... I think it is a completely laughable position, but I am not here to start an argument or be confrontational about the issue. I just feel that a lot of people aren't paying attention to the very real and important aspects of facing a shortage of the commodity that our modern economy depends on for growth, and even for sustainability at this point. But, as I said, we simply have a very large gap in perecptions about that.

[Massive Quasars]

Hmmm... charts.

I was cunting around when I posted this, in all seriousness, I can't see how one can deny the looming oil crisis.

And I have read Hubbert's work. Will we start to consume more oil than we can produce in the next couple of decades? Probably, yes. Does it matter? No.

Are you claiming the changes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary? As if we'll easily adapt and shift to other energy sources when oil supply consistently don't meet demand?