Silence Dogood

In the weather we have tropical waves, tropical depressions and tropical storms. From some people's perspective, peak oil is still like a monster tropical wave coming off of Africa that everyone is predicting to be the biggest hurricane in history. Quite a long shot if you understand the way hurricanes form.
But many peak oil pundants understand the economics and physics and politics of the whole thing and realize that some serious fallout from peak oil is certain. These people are currently standing in an awkward place. There is an elite club of good ole boys running the United States who do not want any real discussion about peak oil and are currently able to silence the entire government on issues they do not favor. They will not address these issues;

1) Transparanecy and Validation of Reserves from world oil producers

2) Why production growth has slowed so seriously in the face of known strong demand growth as to allow prices to climb as high as they are.

3) Why a growing number of petroleum geologists claims that one half of all the oil in the world has or will have been produced soon.

4) Why the major peak oil critics all have strong links to the Administration and/or President Bush himself.

A few secret handshakes away from these facts are a small cadre of insiders in fields like economics who keep using their good names and heritage to pump the public full of free market rhetoric. But friends you must understand the free market does not care about the loss of human life unless we care. We must care enough to insist that our government do what is right, even if it appears inefficient at the moment. Peak oil is an economic catastrophe in the same manner as those described by formal Catastrophe Theory. If economies are best described by systems of stochastic differential equations then fold catastrophes are possible.

If the political hucksters are going to call us a cult I would have to say the American economy and it's current leadership is "Out on a Limb." Let's have the guts to shake things up in 2006 and 2008 and vote for people outside the Yale loop.

Notice the politics of the moment. The war on terror and the Bible somehow calls us to be involved in solving the problems of the Middle East. But a focus on alternative energy at home might actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our need to fight in foreign lands. Once we are cut free from dependence on foreign oil our decisions to support Israel can be based with all honesty on help for a friend and the moral balances in the matter.

The message of peak oil has to get out to everyone in the United States. If American domestic politics adopts peak oil as a platform the George Bush's of the world will have no chance of getting elected and going out conquering and to conquer. But the concepts of peak oil are eay to grasp but hard to believe, we need to recruit the hidden economists who have been so far frightened by the in crowd rhetoric and threat to their reputation. Peak oil faces an uphill battle in the current political climate, but you can make a difference even if you are not a geologist or an economist. Talk about peak oil with your friends, grasp the basics and ask people if it seems reasonable. Above all else take back again the power of your vote and arm yourself with knowledge. We need an invigorated and empowered middle in American Politics again, not billionaires investing in extremist platforms at the expense of balance and wisdom.

American voter you hold the world in your hands! Insist that your candidates be peak oil aware in 2006 and in 2008. Insist upon it!

This message brought to you by the Energy and Peak Oil Council 2006 (EPOC 2006).

gunnut

I don't know jack about peak oil, nor do I care. But this question is easy to answer.

What would you say if I want to drill in ANWR, coastal regions of US Atlantic, and coastal regions of US Pacific?

Just recently the Senate defeated a bill that would have allowed drilling off the east coast and the west coast. Who were the staunch opponents of offshore drilling? None other than DEMOCRATIC Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein from California.

Bush wanted to drill in ANWR. What happened to the bill that would have allowed drilling in ANWR last year? Defeated by the environmental lobby.

You want more oil? Drill for it. You want to protect the environment by not drilling for oil? Suffer the consequences.


Oh yeah, hi Ben.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Gun Grape

I have to throw in a plug for my favorite Gov. He ensured , through his brother, that the coast of Fl will never see oil drilling either. And they are both Republicans.

gunnut

Nothing wrong with that. Just don't complain about how expensive oil is. Much like pro-drilling people shouldn't complain about the lack of views or the damage to the environment.

My little car gets crap for gas mileage and I knew it when I bought it. I don't complain about how expensive gas is because I'm paying for the performance and the convenience.

TopHatter

"Ben"
I always knew Indiana had more than it's fair share of crackpots...and not just because I grew up in Illinois either.

Normally One Post Wonders that show up with a manifesto get dropkicked out of here and the thread trashed.

But what the heck, we've let Russfag stay, so why not you too?

My WAB Zoo continues to grow...I'll need a proper name for it...something completely unique that has never been thought of before...

How about The New Zoo Revue?

Silence Dogood

I would look into the actual amount of oil they expect to get from those drilling projects. ANWR is expected to yield about a six month supply. We use over 20 million barrels per day in the US. So that is the trade-off I am hearing from people more in the middle on the issue. What is the benefit-cost look like under the majority of scenarios. I think that alot of folks feel the possible risk to a precious natural resource is too great to risk on six months worth of oil. Finding more oil is important but there are important arguments being set for by guys like Colin Campbell who suggest that discoveries has left us where money spent on disocvery is almost a complete waste. The last credible estimate I heard was it takes more oil to search for oil than what is being found. Check it out, this site get's it going from all angles, peakoil.com.

So I guess what I am suggesting is that the money we are going to spend on ANWR could go into subisidizing some huge solar arrays, like the nifty ideas being done by http://www.stirlingenergy.com/ Their solar technology is not hindered by the silicon boundary that solar cells are and they could power the US using about 500 square miles of arrays.

Options, trade-offs and consequences, that's all I'm saying. It's just that the clan in power now has sort of picked their favorite options and hell or higher water they are gonna give it ago it seems.

Parihaka

With the increases in oil prices it's now more than viable to open up the Great South Basin in NZ which we're currently doing. That should yeild 10 -20 Bn barrels plus god knows how much gas, so chill.
The best thing about the high prices is that it also makes alternative energy sources competitive in the development phase, that's the nice thing about letting the market operate without political interference.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Confed999

Necessity is the mother of invention...

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Silence Dogood

Do I need to tell you that twenty billion barrels is less that one year's worth of global consumption? Would that affect your assessement at all? And there are not that many new projects coming online in the whole world. The end of the oil age is upon us. I would recommend New Zealand use that oil for itself only, then yes, you guys are going to have enough for a very very long time, you consume now about 2 million barrels per day? So that 500 days per billion barrels, about two years lets say so if you get 20 billion that another forty years. Well, wait only half of that can be extracted from the ground so about twenty years. Now as wise as that is using the oil for yourself, you'll notice that the only companies in the world with the capital to exploit the oil sucessfully are...? I hope you guys hold onto it because in the face of global depletion even 100 billion barrels gets the global economy maybe ten years further down the highway. Of course before then technology will come in and save us!? But maybe we should actually make plans about how best to transition from oil to alternatives now. I mean a little planning could'nt hurt right? We know the oil won't last forever, don't we?

Confed999

We can make oil from trash. We'll always have trash.

Gun Grape

Not sure where you get that much claimed "6 month supply" quote from. But I guess if you keep repeating it over and over it may some day be true.

U. S. Geological Survey’s mean estimate of economically recoverable oil and gas reserves under the coastal plain of ANWR is 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil. This would increase proven U. S. crude oil reserves by 50% and is equivalent to approximately a quarter century of current imports from Saudi Arabia.

So where will we put this 500 miles of arrays?

How will we transfer that power throughout the country?

Got about 20 more questions on that note if your interested
I agree that Ethanol and the governments backing is pretty stupid.

Silence Dogood

Yes high prices leave incentive for alternatives but unless subisidies are provide to alternatives the industries (biofuels, solar, geothermal, etc.) will never attain economies of scale because they are going to have to be built upon oil which. At some point it becomes more expensive to invest in alternatives then to use expensive oil in existing infrastructure.

Also the trash is a great idea, but no way in the world will it replace 85 million barrels per day of cheap oil.

I'm not trying to preach, just out trying to get some folks to take an interest in peak oil and see if you can debunk it if you like. Check out peakoil.com and see if after understanding the arguments you still think it is nonsense.

That's all I'm saying. I'll keep posting here too and answer any questions as best I can.

Confed999

I was only addressing what I quoted.

Parihaka

Even your own conspiracy theory debates whether we've reached peak oil, as the price increases new fields become viable, whether New Zealand or Alaska or Timbuktoo. Much more importantly So yes, technology, or rather Science, will come in and provide new forms of energy, now that the market conditions are ripe.
Sorry to burst your doomsday bubble, I know how enjoyable it is to run around screaming "we're doomed, we're doomed" and saying "it's all their fault"

Parihaka

Ah, you're the taxman
Welcome to the board by the way.