A Crude Awakening
By Mark Groubert Saturday Jul 28, 2007 4:31pmC&L July Film of the Month: A CRUDE AWAKENING The Oil Crash
Documentary by Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack
“Oil is our God. I don’t care if someone says they worship Jesus, Buddha, Allah, whoever – they actually worship petroleum.”
Mathew David Savinar, Lawyer and Founder of Lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
If An Inconvenient Truth could be considered The Wizard of Oz of environmental documentaries, then A Crude Awakening would have be considered the Rosemary’s Baby of that same genre.
Global warming. So what? Melting polar icecaps? Call me later. A Crude Awakening paints a picture so much grimmer than anything Americans have seen in their lifetimes. Or in the movies this summer, for that matter. It is dark. It is primordial. It is terrifying. It is - The end of oil, as we know it.
While technically speaking, oil is running out, for it to go bone dry will take a few lifetimes. But do not dare exhale a sigh of relief. That fact is not relevant to this splendid documentary. It seems there is a bigger problem. One that is arriving faster than Netflix. That problem is global peak oil. Say it over and over, folks. Say it until your tongue gets used to saying it. Write it down. Tell your children. Open the windows of your Ford Explorer and scream it out into the dark abyss. You will be seeing and hearing about it for the rest of your lives – possibly beginning today.
Written, produced and co-directed by Basil Gelpke, from Switzerland and Ray McCormack, from Ireland, A Crude Awakening will scare the living Bush out of you and at the same time leave you dumbfounded. If you’re like me, you’ll be grasping at straws for a logical way out of this oncoming runaway train that some experts have already dubbed the “post-industrial stone age.”
Now that, my friends, is an inconvenient truth. It is a truth so scary, so inconvenient, that few will even utter its name. Once again, for the record, its name is Peak Oil. And no one seems to have the slightest idea what to do about it.
You might not know about it but THEY do. The heads of the ‘Seven Sisters’ oil companies. The Saudis. OPEC. Dick Cheney’s secret Energy Task Force. Bill and Hillary – they ALL know about Peak Oil. Everybody but YOU! Maybe its time YOU found out? Huh? Curious? End of the World? Saving for your toddler’s college education? Uh, sorry, that won’t be necessary.
The world as we know it is coming to an end soon.
That doesn’t come from a religious cult like the Moonies or conspiracy lunatics with tin foil hats in Idaho. Rather it is the uncontested scientific conclusion of the world’s most widely respected geologists, physicists, oil executives, bankers and politicians.
Gelpke, with a background in anthropology and economics, worked as a war correspondent before becoming a scientific filmmaker. His partner, McCormack who has a history in corporate filmmaking also holds an Honors Degree in Environmental Policy and Management. These guys know their stuff, are extremely serious and bring on-camera expertise to back them up. A parade of renowned academics, scientific experts and corporate advisors from across the political and economic spectrum enter and re-enter this shocking film. Each time they reappear they bring with them overwhelming amounts of irrefutable evidence that the world as we know it is about to go through some very savage changes.
And they mean NOW.
I don’t want to alarm anybody but you should be afraid. VERY AFRAID. Not of bin Laden. Not of AIDS. Not of global warming. Not of George Bush. But of global Peak Oil and what that represents.
For the uninitiated, in order to understand this movie one has to understand peak oil. It is not very difficult.
Peak Oil, also known as Hubbert’s Peak was named for the Shell Oil geologist, Dr. Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, M.K. Hubbert accurately predicted that America’s domestic oil production would peak in 1970.
His peers laughed at Hubbert at the time.
He had successfully examined the amount of new discoveries of oil in the United States from the 1930s onward. Those rose and fell like a bell curve. After a huge spike, they were simply running out of places in the U.S. that held oil fields. He figured that if the discovery of oil supplies formed a bell curve, then the production of the oil would form a matching bell curve soon afterwards.
He was dead right.
By 1970, U.S. oil production had peaked and the decline was in rapid freefall. Using the same extrapolations for the entire world, Hubbert predicted that world oil production would be peaking by 1995. It would have been spot on accurate, had the politically motivated oil embargoes of 1973 and 1979 not been enacted, setting back world oil peak by just 10-15 years.
In other words...NOW.
“The United States had been the largest oil producer on earth for nearly 100 years and nobody thought it would ever end,” explains Mathew Simmons an energy investment banker and advisor to president George W. Bush.
The last new frontiers in oil discovery were in the Alaskan North Slope, Siberia and the North Sea. That was in 1967, 1968 and 1969 respectively. All have peaked since then. The North Sea oil finds were indeed massive and quite unknown at the time. A huge discovery. It peaked in 40 years. Next year Britain will actually have to import oil for the first time since the discovery.
The world has been so thoroughly explored with massive new technological devises that most experts feel there is no new oil out there. In fact, advanced engineering technology has created in effect, “super straws” to suck all known oil out of the ground faster than ever before believed possible.
The desperation of the oil companies have led them to oil shale fields in Canada and steaming old well sites for the very last drops of “the devil's excrement.”
Two thirds of the known oil fields today are in the Persian Gulf. In 1978, Iran was producing 6 million barrels a day. Today? 3-3 ½ million barrels a day. This is indicative of the downward slope of oil production following a peak. The Saudis have found only one new oil field since 1967. They pump 12 million barrels a day yet each year they claim their reserves are exactly the same. How is this possible? It’s not. In the late 80’s all the OPEC countries simply increased their “known” oil reserves by 50% for political reasons and quota busting.
With the massive industrialization of India and China already underway, it is becoming quite obvious that oil production will not be able to keep up with demand. In fact, we already see this happening with the doubling of our own gas prices in just the past few years. Experts believe that those same prices will rise steadily and quickly to $15 per gallon.
And that’s when things will really and finally get hairy. Once oil peaks, the downward crash is fast and furious as the entire world scrapples for the remaining apples.
Our entire civilization has been built on cheap oil. Not only are we reaching the end of the artificial American dream, peak oil experts also feel we are on the precipice of a massive worldwide Age of Depression. We have become the victims of our own success. Huge population booms have occurred due to the mid-century “green revolution” in farming that produced enough cheap food to feed the entire world. Our cities and society grew at staggering rates because of the use of the cheapest fuel source ever discovered.
Oil.
“One barrel of oil for $100, will produce as much energy as you would get from 12 people working all year,” says Roscoe Bartlett a scientist and U.S. Republican Congressman from Maryland.
But the times they are a changin’.
Ten or fifteen years ago, the per capita income of the average Saudi was $28K. Today its down to $6K. There has been a huge drop in the standard of living for the average Saudi. Strap yourselves in folks. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride. We’re next.
There seems to be two solutions:
1) Multinational resource wars. Militarize our population to allow them to continue to drive SUVs. Tell them what the stakes and go for it. Invade till the last drop.
2) Begin to prepare for the end of cheap oil and adjust to available alternatives as soon as possible. As bleak as they may seem.
Just so you understand what we’re up against.
If we hybridized every stinking car on the road today, we would still be consuming the same amount of gasoline as we are now in just 5-7 years. With each year demand grows enormously. With no end in sight.
The alternative fuels everyone has been jabbering about lately don’t cut it. If you added all the alternative fuel sources up, that is if they were even ready and functioning at massive levels, it wouldn’t even make a dent in the loss of oil.
Oil is that cheap.
“We pay more for a bottle of drinking water than we do for a gallon of gasoline,” explains David L. Goodstein, professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology.
If you went nuclear alone, we would need 10,000 new nuclear plants immediately and then the damn uranium would run out in 10 years anyway. Unless you’re France. Their entire country is powered by nuclear power. Just watch were you put the trash, Jacques.
The most fascinating chapter of the film is entitled, Life After The Peak. This shows us the other side of the Hubbert Peak. The downward slope. Ouch. We got a snippet of it in 1973, when OPEC turned off the U.S. oil spigot because of the Israeli War. Cars lined up for miles to get the last drop of gas. Everyone freaked, but quickly forgot about it when the man hooked them up again with the Persian Black.
In the near, near future, driving cars and flying by plane will be a luxury reserved only for the Super Rich. The financial markets will shrink due to the elimination of petro dollars. The stock markets will collapse worldwide. Populations will shrink immensely as hunger and starvation sweep the globe.
An apple will cost $7.
Hydrocarbon Man’s days are severely numbered.
Oh, and if you think hydrogen is gonna save you, think about this: It currently takes 3 – 6 gallons of gasoline to make enough hydrogen to drive a car the equivalent distance that one gallon of gasoline would drive it.
Coal? Too dirty. We’ll choke to death. Wind power? Keep blowing. Hydroelectric? Every river is already dammed. Biomass? Too much energy to create it.
In fact, the only science that seems to have any chance in hell is solar. How ironic. But there is a catch. A huge catch. It would take a field of solar panels half the size of California to power the country. The sun. Of course. How could we miss it?
When Jonas Salk found the cure for polio, he was asked if he had filed a patent on his new vaccine. Salk looked quizzically at the reporter and famously said, “No. After all, could you patent the Sun?”
Hey, New Mexico. Let’s go. Everybody out! That means you.
See A Crude Awakening before there are no more petrochemicals left to even make DVDs.
A screenwriter/producer/journalist based in Hollywood, California, Mark Groubert is the Senior Film and Book Reviewer for CrooksandLiars.com. As a filmmaker he has produced numerous documentaries for HBO. Groubert is also the former editor of National Lampoon Magazine, MTV Magazine and The Weekly World News. In addition, he has written for the L.A. Weekly, L.A. City Beat, Penthouse, High Times and other publications. He is currently at work on his memoirs…or so he says.
Login or Register to post comments.
maybe this will finally motivate them to research an alternative source of energy.
Second!
The laugh in the end was funny and scary at the same time. Nice!
The hysteria of this article is unnecessary and unwarranted.
If true - and quite frankly, this is so over the top it makes me doubt it - but if true, the data and theory speak for themselves, and do not need apocalyptic arm waving.
already knew of it
this article is more than a decade late
Oh yes. The end is near but not exactly the way the Khristians dreamed it.
you will see a conflict that will reduce world population by 80% in the next 20 years.
This might be a touch of hysteria, but it's true. Oil WILL run out and the world is at the point of oil no longer being easy to get and cheap to process. Think of what life will be like in 20 years when oil is freeking expensive and the price of everything will be sky high because EVERYTHING has to be transported in this country - - food, clothes, and other "necessities" like mp3 players and TV sets.
Hey Jim D: watch the movie, take two vicodins and call me in the morning!
Fear is the Enemy
Innovate, don't retreat.
God gave some of us a brain.
And not all brains are created equal.
At the rate this planet is pumping it out of the ground there is no way it can replenish itself.And as long as we have been pumping it out,I believe it
Hey Me: Sorry I couldn't write this artice for you 10 years ago. I was busy sifting through tons of meaningless propaganda. Now we have no years left. Better late than never, huh?
It is possible to make crude oil out of biowaste, and what makes it better than digging it out of the ground is:
-- It takes less energy than extracting it out of the ground and refining heavy sour crude.
-- There are far less hazardous substances such as benzene and sulfur compounds.
-- It's from a readily renewable source. Even if the abiogenic oil theory is true, it would still take hundreds of years for new oil to be produced from the Earth's mantle.
-- Byproducts of this process are easily alternative fuels such as methane, ethanol, and butanol.
If we're to survive the slow transition out of oil, more research needs to be put into thermochemical conversion of biowaste.
Mark Groubert @ 11:
The meek shall inherit the Earth.
Can't wait.
Here are various forecasts of oil production. Most of them predict a peak within the next decade. This is just production, and doesn't take into account current reserves or consumption trends.
Buddha - sorry to inform you that biowaste production uses far more oil to produce it than it could ever produce and its not even close - as for the "slow transition out of oil" - it will be and is becoming fast and furious.
This article is interestingly dissmissive of a lot of the alternative energy sources out there and doesn't even mention several that haven't been explored thoroughly.
Major ocean currents are easy to predict in their locations and use incredible amounts of energy to move water.
Harnessing the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio and most importantly, the West Wind Drift would create massive amounts of energy.
I'm not saying we aren't in crisis, I'm typing on a big 'ol hunk of petroleum product right now. I'm just saying this look a little 'Chicken Little'ish to me.
But...I'm no expert.
National Geographic did a nice job covering this topic in 2004.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/fulltext.html
Mark Groubert @ 16:
Well thank you for the defeatist attitude. At least some people are TRYING instead of sitting on their ass while about to roll off the cliff.
This is an excellent film. My husband and I watched it the other evening. You can order it from Netflix.
Tim in japan
You are right, but they are all theoretical concepts. Fine for a laboratory. Our entire social/economic/political/physical world is run on petroleum. Everything is made of petroleum by products. Our society was created by it. All food comes from it via pesticides and harvesting machines on a massive scale.
Tim in Japan @ 17:
I've heard that a desalinization plant in Holland uses nothing but wave energy from the ocean, and is still operational since the late 60's. Also, either Spain or Portugal was testing the use of train-like objects floating offshore to generate electricity.
There is plenty of oil. It might not be as easily (cheaply) accessible as some of the old Saudi oil fields, but there is plenty of it. It is my understanding that with the current prices, places such as the Orinoco Belt (Venezuela) is profitable to extract. I saw the trailer for this movie and the premis, peak oil = no more oil or much more expensive than today, is wrong. Find any serious oil analyst that support this.
Buddha - the truth is not a defeatist attitude. This is not about attidude, Dude. There is science and there is falsity. Watch the movie. Rent it from Netflix. Try sitting on your ass and watching a movie. Is that too hard? C'mon you can do it. Go to Netflix on your computer. That's it, you're almost there....
Please daddy Republicans, I just want that narcissistic candy... Let me just have my SUV and my toys and not think about how many people have to die to feed my needs.
I can just stay with you daddy and not think. We can go back to the '50s. And I can say, whoa, how come we got blown up?
Oh, you mean there's some oil dictatorships that are attached to my SUV in some way? That we trained and armed? Who knew?
(Adapted from the special features commentary of the movie, "I (heart) Huckabees")
I like oil
I weep for what big oil has done to the world and how the politicians kept taking money from them for their campaigns. We need public financing of campaigns and an apollo project for renewable energy
I thought C&L did not like to post conspiracy theories.
I agree this article is a little late. While I have my doubts about some of the cataclysmic repercussions of peak oil (think y2k) I do believe its very real and have known about it for quite some time. While I don't think the world as we know it is going to turn into Road Warrior overnight. I think it will surely have an inconvenient effect on the daily lives of most Americans. Maybe its what many Americans need to put their arrogance in check. A few years of oil and energy rationing would be a real slap in the face wouldn't it?
The shame is that we have a backwards thinking gov't led by an oil Man who's most likely going to get very rich going down with the ship. The more time spent preparing for the inevitable shift away from oil dependence would only make the transition smoother. Instead its going to be the problem of our next President or whomever follows them. It's a shame because one of the few good things about Kerry's campaign in '04 was his energy plan and we all know how Gore is on board with alternative energy...it's easy to be left wondering where we'd be today with 8yrs of Gore or Gore/Kerry. Instead we're completely unprepared and the Neocons seem intent on taking the last bit of oil by force.
Don't worry children, I will nuke Iran and TAKE the oil!
I will slaughter these stupid backward Iraqis ans TAKE the oil!
I subdue these ridiculous Saudis and TAKE the oil.
Only our friends will share and if the Chinese don't like it, GOOD! We will end the world in a hail of ICBMs! They will not threaten, they have no God. Unlike Christians whom have an after life, the chinese fear death!
Haaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......I will be Emperor of the World!
Back before 9/11, when King George was ridding the treasury of that bothersome surplus by giving tax "relief" the the wealthiest humans in history, all in the name a stimulating the economy, friends and I complained bitterly that the money was better spent building a 21st century transportation infrastructure for the next 50 years, one capable of addressing the dispersed nature of the American population. Our best guess was rail of some contemporary sort; our hedge against the oil bet.
It seemed to us that it was the single most important thing the country could do to secure economic prosperity over what was sure to be a tumultuous period. It also would have infused the stuttering economy with money while strengthening the middle class by creating good paying jobs during that recessionary period. Instead, we got tax reform that fuels the greatest disparity in wealth than even the British Class System. Add an unfunded $1,000,000,000,000 war to secure Iraq's oil reserves, a war likely to produce the opposite effect, and I fear we've missed our moment.
Let's just say that when the chickens come home to roost, as they surely will, there will be political hell to pay. My guess is the two competing forces will be for a police state or socialist oriented reforms. Given our track record thus far, I'm not optimistic.
Good to see this posted on C&L.
At the start of the energy crisis in the early 1970s the country of Brazil saw the writing on the wall and did the smart thing by starting their own little internal nationwide Manhattan Project and successfully switched the country off of petroleum based fuels and today enjoys not only the world's hottest Super Models, but also complete energy independence, as of this year.
Who knew?
While we here in the United States, as we now know, went in the complete opposite direction.
What I'd like to know, in a world where almost every body else is paying for a gallon of gas what we Americans pay for bottled water, about $10 a gallon, what makes us Americans so super extra *special* that we get away with paying so little for our gas?
(The only worser offender than the USA is Venezuela, where they pay between 15 and 25 cents a gallon for their gasoline, but, then again, everybody know that Hugo Chavez fights dirty.)
$3.50 a gallon is an abomination, it needs to closer to $10 a gallon, and we should have been paying that much a decade ago.
$10 a gallon gas in The United States of America will drive more innovation towards getting the most we can out of every drop of fuel faster than if everyone in the country switched over to driving hybrids, and cheap collapsible electric scooters in urban areas.
No time like the present.
~Nyc
It would seem that in order to survive Peak Oil a self sustaining farm might be in order. a place to grow crops, a cow or two for milk, cheese and butter, hens for eggs and meat, a horse or mule, and a whole ton of hand tools. (a tredle sewing machine.) Learning to dry and smoke meat (no refrigeration) a root cellar for storage of veggies. Hunting and fishing. Gathering wild berries. Freezing in the winter and sweating in the summer. A private well and an outhouse. We had better learn a whole lot of new skills.
Greg Pallast, the author of "Armed Madhouse", says otherwise.
lafin gas @ 28:
You sir/madam, were mistaken!
Jo @ 34:
You just described HEAVEN.
I'm disappointed it will take a few lifetimes to run out. I wish it was this time next year.
Jo @ 34:
but a man with a gun will take it all from you.
If you have not done so already, take the time to watch Robert Newman's 'History of Oil'.
It is a thought-provoking comedy routine, well worth one hour of your evening.
Many innovations, like plasma gasification, make me very unafraid of the future.
George W. Bush @ 38:
crazylove @ 37:
George W. Bush @ 30:
No!
You shall do what we say! You do not have free will, you are but a puppet!
We neo-cons are your masters!
And when all the stock on Wall Street is finally sold? What then?
What will we do?
What will be the next worthless scrap of nothing can we dream up to glean the multitudes of their money....to make them our slaves? What will it be......?
bkwrd_dog @ 18:
Thank you for that... This looks like a superb article. I've set it aside for reading and researching this evening but a quick skim of it shows it to be comprehensive.
Mark... Welcome to C&L! I'm not sure if I've seen you guest post before but your post has a very clear voice. The tension such topics instantly engenders amongst the vast majority of a civilization who would be traumatically impacted by such events will push back with great hostility and resistance to such obvious "Heresy". It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for the InfoGanda-PropaTainment media to re-brand logically and mathematically certain scientific data and re-package it as "heralding the apocalypse" against the benevolence of free-market capitalism.
Be great when the age of Gluttony ends won't it?
Imagine the possibilities.
George W. Bush @ 38:
Wow. I am really disappointed in C&L for publishing this. "Former editor of the World Weekly News"? Yeah, I can tell.
People have been running around screaming about so-called "Peak Oil" for years, and it's no closer than the Rapture.
Hubbard wasn't some renegade geologist who stumbled on the truth, he produced exactly what Shell for: a justification to raise the price of their oil. It worked.
The fact is this: there's more oil under the ground than we could use in 10 generations of SUVs. I'm certainly not in favor of us burning it the way we do, but not because it's running out. I think we need to change because of the environment, and because of where the oil money goes...two very good reasons.
Everyone who believes this bull, go read Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse". He debunks this theory at length. And he works for the BBC, not the Weekly World News.
C&L, I love your site, but do your research before you go panicking people. Stories like this will shoot your credibility.
SoS @ 39:
Outstanding video... The indomitable Sans-culotte did an extraordinary research article on the specific video verifying most if not all of it's assertions.
Thanks Sans... (wherever you are)
Ugh, should read,
"but a man with a gun will take it all from you"
"That's what COMMUNITIES are for. Armed communities, that is"
then there's always vacating the worst countriesand having communities there.
Too many unforeseen variables to speculate. Maybe a merciful giant asteroid.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Chinese Proverb
No that didn't originate from the Bible y'all
GOP trying to figure out a way to cut and run from Bush's Iraq war and trying to have their cake and eat it too at the same time. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/ap_on_go_co/republicans_iraq
Mr. NeoCon @ 36:
Well here is the most outlandish conspiracy theory of all!
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
Michael Rupert made a pretty compelling case about Peak Oil in his book "Crossing the Rubicon, Peak Oil in the Post Industrial Age". Peak oil is behind all sorts of events. This book should be required reading.
Why don't we just Nationalize the oil companies right now?
End of problem.
"Settling Sunni-Shiite rivalries over who occupies what street in Baghdad is not in the vital interest of the United States," said Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who said she is considering her options. "And we should only have Americans in harms' way where there are U.S. interests at stake." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/ap_on_go_co/republicans_iraq
Meaning the Texas oil regime went in their to steal Iraq's oil, not to bring peace and stability to the country and the region. God knows they failed in that.
Jo @ 34:
Thrilling. Maybe if people just learned to behave and cooperate on this planet things might be more promising?
One way to cut our dependence on foreign oil would be to eliminate all the grease the Big Oil lobbyists spread on our politicians.
Another would be to render the fat asses of the Washington politicians and bureaucrats.
TDoff @ 58:
LOL that alone would probably fuel hyper heavy industry at least for a day.
L.A. Confidential @ 51:
Well, not quit, there are:
Books, Tuition, Room $ Board, transportaion, tutorial fees, lab fees, project costs, locker rental, exam cheat costs, library fees, pizza delivery, bully payoffs, etc...ect...
teach? not so much.
Walker@48,
If that's true the environment of the earth itself will put an end to it. This greed spiral is unprecedented. It can't be maintained. Countries will have wiped out one another way before the end of oil.
Humanity is too fucking stupid.
hubabubba @ 35:
Google "Jan Lundberg Palast" (no quotes, of course). Greg is great, but he has been answered on this one.
"That problem is global peak oil."
I do not see this issue as some tin foil hat conspiracy theory. I see it as an ever increasing supply and demand issue. Right now, you have many economies around the globe expanding at double digit rates and that is projected to continue. With that expansion you have more and more oil consumption that will continue to compete directly with those already established economies such as the United States. We are already seeing China and India just to name two that continue to make large oil deals with other nations. Next you have those oil producing nations at already peak oil production levels. If the demand continues to rise as projected and no other easily accessible oil fields come on-line then we do have a problem. In other words, supply may not be able to keep up with demand at the present rates.
For some reason, people here in the United States still think folks in China and India for example ride around on ox carts or elephants all the time. That simply is not the case. These are fast moving economies consisting of billions of people with large manufacturing bases.
lafin gas @ 53:
Indeed. The horrendous acts of terror, carried out by Islamic Extremists. At one point in time Americans would have considered that horrific conspiracy "outlandish," but today we realize that Islamo-Fascism is a serious problem.
What if it was not true. (edited by site moderator) Your post before was flame-baiting and factually wrong in more than one area. If you wish to debate your assertions, do so as individual comments, challenges, issues etc. This is not your soapbox to spout your "counter-spin".
[...] Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article george w bush A Crude Awakening » Posted at Crooks and Liars on Sunday, July 29, [...]
Like our Congress and the Iraqi government, Gonzales is not expected to be in his office this August. He's not going on vacation, though, he's going to be working at his new part-time summer job.
Starting this August, 'Berto will travel to all the Water Worlds and Slip 'N Slides around the US, riding all the slides and chutes and making sure they're slippery enough for the customers.
Which is why, starting in September, Bush's nickname for Lil' 'Berto will change to 'The Greaser'.
Don't worry Ron the Rich People famous or not will bail out humanity from all the problems they created for us.
Okay I'm running for President Damn IT.
I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of getting the hell out of the middle east, and leading the world out of oil dependency by 2017.
Walker @ 48:
The curve accurately models peak oil for the US (we hit that in 1972, and it's been sharp downhill ever since). I see no reason why the rest of the world will work differently, and it's not likely that we're going to find massive reserves that we haven't already discovered.
Just a note about Greg Palast and "Armed Madhouse." I love the book but his cynicical attitude regarding Peak Oil is breathtaking. That is until you realise that the source of all is info is his expensive lunches with Lewis Lapham of Harper's Magazine. It seems that Greg is being wined and dined and fed b.s. by Lapham. Who is Lewis Lapham? Why would he debunk Peak Oil? Hahahahah. His family were the founders of Texaco, now part of Chevron. Thanks Greg.
DAR
I am a skeptic and a founder of a skeptic's group (160 members) in Arkansas. I gave a presentation on this at our library yesterday and we also played this movie. I don't pass along tin-hat conspiracy theories I debunk them. And I must say after researching this topic for the last few weeks, the situation is quite dire and seemingly unrefutable. The people above who say otherwise simply do not know what they are talking about and this is in fact quite easy to show. I can go through and answer their questions line by line if time allows.
Perhaps a good start would be for the doubters to read the handout I gave at my presentation. It can be read here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9277#9277
All referenced of course.
I also recommend this article which shows the consensus is now mainstream and accepted by all the major oil companies:
http://tinyurl.com/242sac
Darrel
THANK YOU DARREL!
Mr. NeoCon @ 64:
Islamo-Fascism now a serious problem thanks to the bush admin, you mean, right, Neo?
I'd rather take my chances with "Islamo-Fascism" (a fear tool) than the kind of Neo-Fascism bush and his band of Zombies like you have in mind.
C&L... please don't jump the shark
Thanks for your concern, we're just fine.
Mr. NeoCon @ 64:
Are you just a moron or are you kidding me?
crazylove @ 73:
I think you may have read my comment wrong.
In no way do I support a kind of "Neo-Fascism," in fact, I believe that America should help promote Democracy throughout the world.
Perhaps "Islamo-Fascism" was a poor word choice on my part, I apologize.
Blue Buddha @ 13:
DAR
Sorry Blue, biowaste doesn't amount to a hill of beans, or a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the amount of energy from oil we are dependent upon. Oil is incredibly energy dense and we burn over 85 million barrels a day. Nothing, including solar, wind, bio-diesel even nuclear will get you close to replacing even a portion of the energy we get from oil without a HUGE change in our energy strategy. Coal will keep the lights on for a while but it won't drive your car (without gassification which is very expensive, dirty and wastes most of the energy).
Darrel.
lafin gas @ 75:
Well, there is no need for name calling. Perhaps I was mistaken, for I was under the impression that one could have a civil conversation here at Crooks & Liars.
Good day, sir/madam.
Mr. NeoCon @ 76:
Ha! Ha! Ha! promote democracy throughout the world! Your underwear still stink, Neo!
Was that strictly necessary? Whose side are you on?
99 @ 80:
In this case it doesn't matter what side he's on. He'll understand that soon enough.
crazylove @ 79:
Yes, I feel strongly that oppressed peoples across the globe have God given rights, they deserve a voice that only a Democracy can provide.
Additionally, after America assists these oppressed nations, we will have Allies to help promote the strategic and economic interests of the USA.
Please, was the underwear comment necessary?
You need to abandon L.A.
Thats where peak oil will hit the fan first.
L.A. will be a ghost town by 2020.
You'll need to learn to speak with a Drawl. Depending on what part of the former United States you move to.
iv'e been telling anyone who will listen about this for a few years now. most people just laugh at me. i think people have a hard time grasping how quickly things can and often do change.
It's wonderful that you're giving this film some publicity, but listen:
It is too late to mitigate the effects of declining oil flows.
Here's an interview with a man who started warning people decades ago, but gave up after his retirement:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2364
Actually the Peak Oil frenzy and doomsday predictions began back in the 70's.
Tim in Japan @ 17:
DAR
It's dismissive of them because if you add all of them together you barely get one percent of what we get from oil. But lets pretend with overwhelming effort we brought it up to ten percent. History shows you only need disrupt the supply v. demand by a little as 5% to have dramatic (4 fold) increases in price. And by the time you adjust to the new lack of production it is down even further (it's a slope). Bottomline, no known alternatives are going to give us a tiny fraction of what we are used to getting from oil. And the oil is on decline. We have not experienced this before.
TIM says:
"Major ocean currents are easy to predict in their locations and use incredible amounts of energy to move water."
DAR
And such generating stations are easily wiped out by storms. And we have no experience building these enmasse. Perhaps if we had started several decades ago.
TIM says:
I'm not saying we aren't in crisis, I'm typing on a big 'ol hunk of petroleum product right now. I'm just saying this look a little 'Chicken Little'ish to me."
DAR
I think the movie does show the more pessimistic out come. We have so much waste, especially in this country (and still quite a bit of coal), that we will have some time to adjust to the downward trend. But not much time. Probably not enough to avoid huge catastrophic hits to our economy, transportation and standard of living.
Darrel
third wave solar is coming soon with 10 times the efficiency of todays solar so only 1/20 of California needs to be covered but hey we got lots of rooftops right? Humans are agents of change and will change to adapt to these situations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no2uvhgGQX4&mode=related&search=
The polar bears are drowning. The polar bears are drowning. The polar bears are drowning. The polar bears are drowning. "Call me later"?
knud @ 23:
DAR
Your suggestion does not address the concerns of Peak Oil, which are that the first half, the easy half, has already been retrieved and now we are on the decline slope of an ever decreasing supply. Consider regarding Saudi Arabia:
"Then of course there is the world's largest oilfield, Gharwar in Saudi Arabia, which at 4.5 million barrels a day accounts for 40% of Saudi Arabia's total output and has been in production for over 60 years. Gharwar is believed by most serious analysts to now be in decline; it has an enormous water cut with the Saudis pumping in 7 million barrels a day of seawater in an uphill struggle and sagging effort to try to maintain the pressure of the oil in the field, for only 4.5 million barrels a day of oil that they're getting out.” --Charles Whalen http://tinyurl.com/8eo36
KNUD says:
"It is my understanding that with the current prices, places such as the Orinoco Belt (Venezuela) is profitable to extract. I saw the trailer for this movie and the premis, peak oil = no more oil or much more expensive than today, is wrong. Find any serious oil analyst that support this."
DAR
No one says "no more oil." That will take generations. But we are used to having a steady increase. We will now have, shortly, a steady and increasing in speed decrease, and we are not remotely ready for it.
A fellow in Europe just finished his dissertation on this specific topic. Here is a quote:
***
Giant Oil Fields and their Importance
for Future Oil Production
“A giant oil field contains at least 500 million
barrels of recoverable oil. Only 507, or 1 % of
the total number of fields, are giants. Their
contribution is striking: over 60 % of the 2005
production and about 65 % of the global ultimate
recoverable reserve (URR).
However, giant fields are something of the past
since a majority of the largest giant fields are
over 50 years old and the discovery trend of less
giant fields with smaller volumes is clear. A
large number of the largest giant fields are
found in the countries surrounding the Persian
Gulf.... In all scenarios, peak oil occurs at about the
same time as the giant fields peak. The
worst-case scenario sees a peak in 2008 and the
best-case scenario, following a 1.4 % demand
growth, peaks in 2018.”
--Robelius, Fredrik, Doctoral thesis, http://tinyurl.com/2hcy33
How has exploration going recently? Consider:
ASPO-USA says, "The returns are coming in on how well exploration for new oil and gas fields fared in 2005. Overall the picture is disappointing despite the expenditure of some $15 billion by publicly traded companies alone. There were no significant (billion barrel or more) discoveries announced in 2005. Worldwide, total new oil discovered during the year comes to 4.5 billion barrels -- a 53-day supply at current rates of consumption. New discoveries in 2004 and 2005 were the lowest recorded since World War II."
http://www.crudeawakening.org/AboutPeakOil.htm
D.
It is the wealthy that is draining us dry. The poor go without or use only the minimum necessary to survive while the wealthy have huge mansions, sometimes several that they keep heated, use electricity and have a staff live in "just in case" they want to drop in. They have gas guzzling automobiles, private jets and all the toys they want that use up resources. They don't care, they can afford it because they also get rich off the backs of the poor and off of the blood of our military.
What we need is a huge use tax on excess use of resources. Let the rich pay an obscene amount of money for all the resources they waste. Basically, we need to figure what is needed and make that affordable for all, anything over that tax the hell out of them. That would tend to equalize us all!
Let those used to having several homes and vacation homes, private jets, toys that use up our resources cry if they want. They have to stop having this free ride on the backs of the rest of us!
L.A. Confidential @ 86:
DAR
Yes they did. And they predicted world peak about now, which is what we are experiencing. Oil in 1999 was as low as $10 a barrel, today it is mid-$70's. You haven't seen anything yet.
“Given the ongoing runup in global petroleum prices, the notion of peak oil hardly needs defending these days. We are seeing the phenomenon unfold before our eyes as one nation after another moves from the column of "oil exporters" to that of "oil importers" (Great Britain made the leap this year). At some point in the very near future the remaining nations in column A will simply be unable to supply all of the nations in column B.” --http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm
--Richard Heinberg, Core Faculty member of New College of California in Santa Rosa.
See Heinberg’s excellent summary of Peak Oil, video (10 min) here: http://tinyurl.com/29yjx7
D.
1 Megawatt Fuel Cell Power Plant
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure of the universe!
Albert Einstein
Neo@82, (shortened in the interests of bandwith)
"Yes, I feel strongly that oppressed peoples across the globe have God given rights, they deserve a voice that only a Democracy can provide.
Additionally, after America assists these oppressed nations, we will have Allies to help promote the strategic and economic interests of the USA.
Please, was the underwear comment necessary?"
Possibly you could have the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe what you are saying. There are a million dead in the middle east who would tell you they'd rather pass on the "democracy" thing, thanks. If the u.s. so strongly wished them well then why has the u.s. closed it's doors to the Iraqi's seeking refuge in our country??Hmm?
Once Saddam was out 2 1/2 years ago, why did we stay and build disneylands for the occupying u.s.? Why did a contractor signed up under Halliburton Iraq in '03 have a contract good until 2012? I am personally acquainted with this person.
Why does the u.s. have the unmitigated GALL tell other countries how to live?
If the CURRENT brand of democracy in the u.s. is so goddamed wonderful why do we leave the GENOCIDE in Darfur quiet as we do NOTHING to help them? Why doesn't the u.s. give these desperate people a chance to have a democracy? because there's no money in it, that's why.
why does the u.s. brand of democracy strike fear into the hearts of every country in the world AND why does the bush admin now call this the fucking HOMELAND
Mark, once you've studied this for awhile, you'll be more careful about making such statements as this.
I'd advise not making predictions at all. I never talk about the future. The present is scary enough:
Cantarell field, largest in western hemisphere, Mexico--the US's #2 exporter--in confirmed decline
Burgan field, Kuwait, second largest in world--in confirmed decline
Ghawar, Saudi Arabia, largest field in the world: uncertain, but being drilled up with horizontal well bores and pumped full of brine to keep pressures up
World spare capacity: gone since 2004.
Oil prices at 25-year highs (one penny shy of new record at Friday's closing).
Demand: NOT SLOWING DOWN. Crash likely.
[...] Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article dick cheney A Crude Awakening » Posted at Crooks and Liars on Sunday, July 29, 2007 [...]
LJM @ 40:
DAR
Not likely to provide, even in best case, more than a tiny percent of what we get from oil (1%). But a good idea even if it mostly provides some relief for the land fills. The volume of water that goes over the Niagra Falls in about 24 minutes is the equivalent amount of oil the world burns every day. The amount of energy contained in a single barrel of oil is incredible. We have nothing else like it.
D.
-----------------------
“The oil producing areas of UAE, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia form a triangle whose area about equals the state of Oklahoma. That triangle contains 75% of the world's oil.”
I read Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler regularly....
....just in case.
Just in case this isn't some conspiracy theory.
Read The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg.
Also, the video The History of Oil by Robert Newman.
...
For those who have been wondering how common are advanced technological civilizations in the universe at any given time you might have some significant new evidence to consider.
AConfederacyofDunces @ 99:
Newman video is linked above...
crazylove @ 95:
You raise many important questions, although not all pertain to this thread.
I will say that the long term USA presence in Iraq will help the Iraqis rebuild their economic infrastructure, which is primarily focused on oil revenue. I think once the sectarian conflicts have been resolved, Iraqi and American business relations will stimulate both of our respective economies.
Darrel@97,
Africa. Don't they have quite a bit of untapped oil? Very fine quality oil at that, easy to refine? I'm not sure we even know how large their pool is. Venezuela too, do you know how much these countries have?
I screwed up the link 1 Megawatt Fuel Cell Power Plant
Just think...one of these in every home for ALL your fuel needs, no more being under the thumb of big oil/electric.
Mr. NeoCon @ 102:
End of conversation, Neo.
You are the one that began off-topic and just pissed me off.
Peak oil is not the end of the world and the sky is not falling. Neither Lundberg nor Palast are correct and as with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We will run out of oil...someday but what both authors need to emphasize is that the planet might not be able to take 40 or 50 years more of oil consumption at the rates we are using it today- rates that are rising. We will adapt to the rising seas and heat but at what cost? Technology can save us IF we use our resources wisely and make a massive and multinational effort to find the solutions to these problems. Imagine how far along we would already be if six years ago we had used the money we have wasted in Iraq for energy research. Unfortunately that's not very likely to happen, is it? So instead, our children will suffer unnecessarily. Congress just doesn't get it and the masses have their collective heads up their asses. Now if Gore ran....
I learned about peak oil in chemistry class in 1955-56.
http://www.prosefights.org/shattuck/shattuck.htm#agerter
Transportation consumes two thirds of the oil we use in the US. The French have a prototype car that runs on compressed air, does 35mph, produces no emissions other than air and will go about 100 miles between refills. The Italians are working on an even more efficient design that uses a rotary instead of a piston engine. Besides being cleaner, the energy and infrastructure costs of producing compressed air are much less than what is required to produce gasoline. There is still time to save ourselves if we have the will.
What will Col. Feehan do?
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9014#comment-68221
Well, How about some day people really consider what they have to do to control their OVERPOPULATION???????? We are only running out of resources because we have literally swamped this poor groaning planet with monstrous swarms of unnecessary, polluting, consuming humans. Billions of whom don't give a Tinker's Damn about the future beyond filling their bellies and buying an SUV.
Birth Control, folks UNIVERSAL!
crazylove @ 103:
I was in Nigeria last year, in Rivers State. Port Harcourt.
Think Road Warriors.
Road Warriors on crack.
And that's NOW, not when oil goes up even more and becomes much much much more "strategic"....
Whoever published this failed to get my website address correct:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
It's simple. Just slap solar panels on every available rooftop, and then use them as awnings to create shade, like at bus stops, there are all kinds of solutions besides doom and gloom. We have a solar panel factory in town. There is even a solar powered ferris wheel in California.
This is no time for hysteria. It's time to do a lot with a little, like how most creative people already live. People will step up, if everybody does their part and has a little faith.
Oh, and one other thing, Africa is being wooed, in a very very big way, by China.
Walker @ 48:
"If you cannot learn to live with Nature, Nature will come to live with YOU"
Under another name, I have been writing about this for a very long time. (none of your damn business...)
The strong rhetoric in the movie is necesary, as it accurately describes what will happen if NOTHING is done, and frankly right now, nothing is being done.
The film misses one huge point, which is population - oil permitted the population explosion (and that is indicated) but a population reduction will also result in demand destruction.
The film is NOT Bullsh*tting about the downside.
Resource wars? Already underway (viz. Middle East) for more on that, read this: Resource Wars by Prof. Klare
This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. Both are horribly horribly guilty of skipping down the petroleum lane, tra la la la la.
If you want a look ahead, look here DIEOFF.ORG
It doesn't need to be doom and gloom. This is what inspires me:
In 1941, IIRC, the USA built 490,000 automobiles. In 1942, it built 127. Yup. 127. The production was dedicated to building tanks, aircraft, trucks, halftracks, etc. And it was the efforts of the USA that helped win the war (combined with the slaughter and sacrifice of the USSR). If we so dedicate ourselves, we can easily do the same for energy efficiency. Instead of 1 Cadillac Escalade, we could build 100 electric assist trikes or 200 bicycles.
Also, one important thing to remember about peak oil: if we've pumped 1 trillion barrels out so far, then there is still another trillion left. That's a shite load of oil. And as it gets more expensive it will become less and less tenable to piss it away on crap like SUVs or worthless cities like Las Vegas.
Combined with global warming, there will be a mass migration northward to the arctic circle, where the last humans will live.
We could have used the energy for so many good things. Instead we pissed it away in traffic. Brilliant move.
Many nations do the same, but America perfected it.
Get informed. One really good email list that I like is on yahoo, called Energy Resources. Read it and learn.
Now, go and prepare. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
What to expect in the net 20 years:
1. Oil over 100, then over 200 dollars a barrel.
2. radical resturcturing of the economy from energy wasteful service industries to energy frugal local manufacturing of durable tools and clothes.
3. the car, as we understand it, will disappear. Replaced by electric assist bikes and trikes.
4. More people engaged in food production.
5. An explosion of urban and suburban food gardens.
6. the common raising of chickens in all neighbourhoods.
7. The gradual abandonment of the suburbs to the poor, increased gentrification of the cities, and a gradual exodus by those who can afford it to the countryside to build small self-sustaining communities around small towns that have rail links to larger cities.
8. The explosion of CSAs all over America
9. Massive increases in the use of Rail for transport of both goods and people
10. the gradual disappearance of the airline industry and the tourism industry - airlines will continue consolidating and disappearing. The number of airports in the USA will shrink from 420 to about 50 or less. The number of flights will also shrink, and they will be on huge aircraft crowded with people. Eventually they too will disappear and the only people who fly will be the govt, the military, and the extremely wealthy.
11. At the same time, innovations in communications will continue, and with fiber optics, extra-ordinary audio and video will be available using relatively little energy, given the quantity of entertainment offered.
12. Govt will overtly and consistently subsidise grid tied solar panels on homes and offices.
13. billions will starve to death, mostly in Asia and Africa.
14. There will be no "Mad Max" scenario. People will cheerfully starve in place waiting for the next train of grain.
That is what is going to happen. In 40 years there will be as much oil coming out of the ground as there was 40 years ago. That's still a shitload of oil. But with 3x as many people demanding it it will be 20x as expensive. Too precious for cars, but necessary for farming.
Electric-assist trikes and bikes are more efficient calorie for calorie / watt for watt than pedal bikes because every calorie you burn pedalling yourself requires 10 calories of food (Heinberg). So you are better off using that energy directly for transport, and use your food energy for productive work.
It's not the End of the World. But for the first time in human history, outside of a nuclear war scenario, we can really see it from here. It's right there. Coming fast. We don't have to go over the cliff. But we need to stop the monster NOW.
tweakerbell
Revolution Happens
by John Merryman
Humanity is rapidly approaching a crossroads, where we will begin cooperating on a scale that we never have before, or we will descend into a state of warring tribes like we have never seen before. Appeals to the conscience only work on those willing to listen, while it is the less altruistic who need to pay the most attention. If there is one thing that does get people's attention, it's the money.
In 1996, Bob Dole had a campaign slogan, "We want you to keep more of your money in your pocket." The first thought to cross my mind was, 'Thank God it's not my money, or it would be worthless.' The logic of this is that the actual currency doesn't belong to the holder, only its value. The monetary system is a function of government, which in a democracy is the people. Therefore money is actually a form of public commons, similar to a public road system. Instead of transportation, it's a system of economic exchange. While you are in total possession of the section of road you're driving on, its value is due to it being connected to those everyone else is on. So is the value of the money in your pocket due to its broad interchangeability. It is not an issue of socializing wealth, but of understanding what money is to begin with. Your home, business, car, etc. are private property, but the roads linking them are not. Money is more like the public road system, than private property. It provides a broad economic connectivity, without which the economy could not function.
Money has always been a form of public utility (Render unto Caesar...), but because it evolved out of barter and for much of history was minted out of precious metals to gave it inherent value, the issue of function has been confused with the issue of possession. Now all monetary value is a matter of public trust in government accountability and this is being abused to the breaking point. It was only a generation ago that the wealth of governments were still symbolized, if not based on the gold in the treasury. For many countries, it's now how much US dollars and debt they are holding. This is not a stable situation. When the liquidity bubble does burst, faith in the concept of printed money will be shaken to its core. In order to restore faith in an invaluable economic tool, it would be useful to emphasize this public function. There is no longer a gold standard and it is the taxpayer who bears ultimate responsibility for government obligations.
Here is a little history to consider in understanding why we are where we are.
The money supply has to grow along with the economy. Inflation is caused by the supply of money growing too fast, so the law of supply and demand makes it worth less. Interest rates are raised to slow the growth of the money supply, when the economy is reaching peak potential, since the amount of money might expand faster then the economy is able to grow. During the late sixties and seventies, the money supply was allowed to grow faster then the economy in order to pay for Great Society programs, the Vietnam War and the oil crises. By the end of the seventies, inflation was spiraling out of control and Paul Volcker was given the job of taming it by raising interest rates as much as it would take to do the job. This led to a serious recession, but by 1982 inflation had peaked and he could take the pressure off.
There is a minor logical hitch to this scenario, though. By raising interest rates to the point of causing actual economic harm, he was reducing the growth of the economy and therefore the need for money. How do you reduce an oversupply, if you also reduce demand?
The Federal Reserve fine tunes the size of the money supply by buying and selling government debt. To put money into circulation, they buy government debt with fresh money and to take money out, they sell debt they are holding.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected on a platform of what his primary opponent, George Bush, referred to as "Voodoo Economics," i.e. increased spending and tax cuts. The result was a serious increase in deficit spending. Now ask yourself, if the Federal Reserve sells debt to reduce the money supply, wouldn't the Treasury issuing fresh debt have the same effect? By 1982, the deficit was getting close to 200 billion and that was real money in those days. The dramatic growth in deficit spending by the US government was a significant factor in bringing inflation under control.
The borrower/producer/spender is the engine of the economy, with the saver/lender as the fuel tank. While it seems inflation is propelled by those who want to be paid more, both producers and labor, taking it out on borrowers doesn't bring supply in line with demand. Inflation is caused by the government putting too much money into circulation and the reservoir of surplus money in the economy is what is held by the saver. Earnings are taxed more then savings, so tax cuts put money into production, rather than savings. Government borrowing draws money out of savings and spends it in ways that increase and support private sector investment, through increases in services, infrastructure, security, etc. This compounds the demand for money.
At the time, economists were concerned government borrowing would crowd out the private sector, but the government issues whatever people are willing to borrow at the short term rate it sets, by buying back government debt. The problem is long term rates are set by the market and with inflation, people are more inclined to buy assets, than lend money, so the supply of money to borrow is limited and the cost , interest rates, goes up. If there is a lot of money around, but inflation isn't a concern, people lend it for whatever the market pays and long term rates go down. So the secret of our unstoppable prosperity is to have lots of money running through the system, to keep rates down and production up, but not have any start to clog the arteries and cause inflation to rise. The question is finding ever more places to invest and spend it, but the long term productivity of all this growth tends to decline. The result is fewer small business cycles in exchange for a large one.
Normally only as much money can be saved, as can be effectively invested, otherwise it causes inflation of asset prices. So where would all the money the government borrows be going, if the government didn't borrow it? The stock market? Real estate? Inflate the derivatives balloon a little more? The economy is flooded with about as much money as it can hold. If the government wasn't borrowing lots of money and recycling it through the public sector, there would be a lot less money needed all the way around and this would be inflationary. Government debt serves to support the value of the money, as well as the economy.
What will be the long term effect of this borrowing and how will it get paid down? Recently some mid-western states have sold public highways to private investors and they have been turned into toll roads. How soon until Yellowstone goes on the block? Private armies buying surplus warships? It would make sense to tax more savings from those most able to afford it, but this usually causes such people to find other ways of storing wealth. If we were to understand money as a public utility, it might better define how to manage wealth to help the larger community and environment.
In the seventies, the national economy was mostly based in the US, and inflation percolated through it, with prices and wages increasing together. Today the global economy keeps prices and wages in check, so consumer inflation is moderate, but low interest rates are creating an enormous speculative bubble among investors. Eventually it will pop and send a tidal wave of surplus money back into the regular economy, driving up prices far more then wages. Until then the gap between the rich and everyone else will continue to expand at ever increasing increasing rates, as inflated asset prices turn investment capital ever more rapidly into play money and more is needed.
In some third world countries, the politicians skim off enormous wealth, and we can see it is economically unproductive and socially destructive, yet those running our financial and industrial institutions to do the same and claim it is simply a cost of doing business. Only as much total money can be saved as can be effectively invested, otherwise it is inflationary. So these oceans of private money reduce the ability of the average person to save and invest. Endless wealth accruing to those in positions of power will eventually come to be understood as economically barbaric, and we will climb one more step up the evolutionary ladder.
Everyone needs some amount of wealth in order to both be secure and to have a commitment to the larger system. Some need more then others, like a truck needs more road then a car. Those with none have less consideration for society and are governed more by fear than respect. Those at the top need to remember that a stable society is as important to them as to everyone else. If money were thought of as a public utility, it would have definite psychological effects. People might be less inclined to define their personal ego in terms of the size of their bank account and start leaving natural wealth undisturbed, while investing more effort in their communities and environment. A healthy economy, a healthy society and a healthy environment do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Growth is bottom up, not top down, so capitalism is at its most vibrant when wealth is most evenly distributed. The problem with treating the economy like a game of Monopoly is that when one person controls everything, the game is over and you start again. In real life this stage is called revolution.
Money is a public utility, not private property. Pass it on.
although no magic fits-all solution appears forthcoming.... it certainly looks like there are numerous alternative strategies in the works that cumulatively can finally put an end to this insane dependence upon a finite resource... personally, i think there's nowhere enough pressure being exerted on govt to address this (and these related) issue(s)... i don't see how, if a single president can sound a rally cry to successfully put us on the moon, that a similar concerted effort could accomplish an otherwise seemingly insurmountable task within a (relatively) short while... i agree with the poster who stated that if we (paraphrased) hadn't pissed away valuable resources on an unnecessary war with iraq and had focused those same resources on this problem, the US would be well on its way to leading us into a new age of heretofore unmatched prosperity by now...
here's another group that's working on their own solution (with a potential for some spectacular results):
http://www.steorn.com/
Solar-powered trolleys! I want to see that happen because it CAN and should.
Solar soundstages for music festivals, solar waterfountains, ovens... why not. I have seen the past three work, as well as solar-powered fans, and batteries that can run small vans and cars. Time for some good ol'fashioned sun worship.
Floridiot @ 104:
DAR
I do think local and small energy generation will be a necessary way of the future but the above example (making hydrogen with natural gas) cannot be the answer. Please understand this very important concept:
"Hydrogen, touted by many as a seamless solution, is actually an energy carrier, but not an energy source. Hydrogen must be produced using an energy source such as natural gas or nuclear power. Because of energy losses in transformation, the hydrogen will always contain less energy than was invested in it."
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
So in the above video, the fellows would have been better off using the natural gas to directly power something (a vehicle) or even to make electricity rather than to convert to hydrogen (loss) and then again to electricity (loss). Using Hydrogen to make electricity via fuel cell is actually quite efficient (about 90%) but it making the hydrogen, there's the rub. It's a loss, and you HAVE TO MAKE THE HYDROGEN. That requires an energy source. Hydrogen may have limited applications but remember, it is not an energy source, it has to be made. Then it is an energy carrier. And it has lots of problems with transport (takes a lot of space), storage (leaks out of practically everything).
Unfortunately, the vast majority of what gets passed around about hydrogen is complete nonsense.
Darrel
Of course, why else would the Bush administration and oil companies be pushing it?
Brodix@118
There's too much trickle down bullshit in that for me to be buying John Merrman's argument.
crazylove @ 103:
DAR
I found this crazylove:
Where are the reserves?
Proved oil reserves are those quantities of oil that geological information indicates can be with reasonable certainty recovered in the future from known reservoirs. Of the trillion barrels currently estimated, 6% are in North America, 9% in Central and Latin America, 2% in Europe, 4% in Asia Pacific, 7% in Africa, 6% in the Former Soviet Union. Today, 66% of global oil reserves are in the hands of Middle Eastern regimes: Saudi Arabia (25%), Iraq (11%), Iran (8%), UAE (9%), Kuwait (9%), and Libya (2%).
http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
As pointed out in the movie, Venezuela has already burned through most of it's oil (it does/did have quite a bit respective to it's size). But this is all tiny in relation to the 75% or so that comes from a triangle in the middle east about the size of Oklahoma. It so dwarfs the rest of the world, when it peaks, the world peaks. Signs are that it is peaking. This is a very big deal. Ask Dick Cheney (for those who think peak oil is quackery):
“Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day.” --Dick Cheney
http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf
Do we have the additional 50 million barrels a day coming on line? Not, even, close. See the material I have already posted above. We burn 4-5 barrels for every new barrel we find.
Darrel.
Darrel, hydrogen can be produced by solar electrolysis in tandem with natural gas
If you watch the clip, they will tell you this.
The big con is you saying that its an energy loss, this is something that big electric/oil does not want you to know, because it leaves them out of the picture.
You produce your own at home eliminating the middle man.
No fuel is being burned producing the hydrogen or the electricity.
Watch the flick.
The people who feel they must drive an SUV to go to the grocery store are the ones to blame. The ONLY solution is a HUGE tax, based on how many miles per gallon your car gets, both at the car dealership, AND at the pump, when you buy gas.
Example: 45 mpg or more car: no extra tax at dealer or at pump
25 mpg to 44 mpg car: 25% extra charge at dealer, 50% more charge at pump
less than 25 mpg car: 100% extra charge at dealer, 200% extra charge at pump
That ought to solve the problem. So basically, ONLY the rich should drive gas guzzlers... and I'm not rich, but I think that's fair. And also people should pay HUGE extra taxes IF they own more than one car per person. The taxes can go to pay off the deficit, build roads, health care, and ANYTHING for public transportation (rail, busses, airports, etc.).
And if you feel you must use a private jet, that jet and jet fuel should be taxed at 500% or more.
sulphurdunn @ 108:
DAR
What matters here is how much energy was used to compress the air. And that step probably produced emissions. I get 27 mpg in my 4x4 Honda SUV (wish I had a Prius, next car will be electric), so 35 mph is no big deal.
SULPH says:
"The Italians are working on an even more efficient design that uses a rotary instead of a piston engine.">>
DAR
Mazda has been using a rotary engine in their RX series for decades. A nice engine but still a gas burner and I think mileage is comparable.
SULPH says:
"Besides being cleaner, the energy and infrastructure costs of producing compressed air are much less than what is required to produce gasoline. There is still time to save ourselves if we have the will.">>
DAR
I think it is better than hydrogen. Much safer, easier etc. But like hydrogen, compressed air is just an energy carrier not a source of energy. You still have to make it (compress it) from some source of energy (just like hydrogen). We need a substitute for the many tens of millions of barrels of incredibly energy dense oil that we now burn every day (85 million) and supplies of which are now dwindling. There is no substitute.
Darrel
Darrel @ 115:
Actually, we probably agree about many things. But I think your logical error is your emphasis on "new discoveries" keeping pace with growing demand. Oil companies do not WANT to pump more oil, they want to keep prices high. OPEC imposes quotas for the same reason. This imposed "scarcity" + growing demand does this quite well; thus the $50/barrel jump in recent years.
As previously stated, I do not want to encourage people to party on in their SUVs while the earth is sucked dry. But post-apocalyptic fear-mongering is not the way to encourage intelligent alternatives.
Hubbard was way off (wasn't the earth supposed to by bone-dry of oil by now?), and Palast pretty well nails it. I read the Lundberg piece and found nothing new. Yes, Virginia, oil is a limited commodity. Didn't we always know that? So let's be responsible and act for change without the whole end-of-the-world nonsense.
But, yeah, you're right, the Venezuela comment was pulled out of my butt, purely for effect. There is a hell of a lot of oil there, but I have no idea how many "generations of SUVs" it would fuel. What is a "generation of SUVs" anyway? Oh yeah: this generation.
And to the writer who implies that Palast is owned by Big Oil because he writes for Harpers...read his book for 10 minutes and I highly doubt you'll stick with that theory.
How about 50% tax at the dealer AND at the pump for 25 o 25 mpg cars... and how about 200% tax at the dealer and at the pump for cars that get LESS than say 25 mpg?
"hehe...and uh, switchgrass," smirked their leader to comfort a worried flock as his world became more "addicted to oil." And with a distant gaze lofted over their heads he vowed to continue the spread of democracy, that march of freedom. Forever forward their addiction lead them, consuming peace wherever it rested on their fix.
Floridiot @ 125:
DAR
You're right, I didn't watch the whole thing. Once I saw they were using natural gas I knew it was a energy loss because you always lose (2 law of thermodynamics) when you convert energy. I am about half way through it now and the fellow says they are more efficient than a coal plant (natural gas plants always are). The fellow in the clip say they are running at 43% efficiency, which means they are losing 57% in the conversion. He says they are 80% or so when you consider they are trying to recapture the heat (to heat their swimming pool). I don't buy that but it doesn't really matter.
FLORIDIOT says:
The big con is you saying that its an energy loss, this is something that big electric/oil does not want you to know, because it leaves them out of the picture.>>
DAR
You ALWAYS lose when you convert energy (usually in the form of heat). No exceptions.
FLORIDIOT
You produce your own at home eliminating the middle man.
No fuel is being burned producing the hydrogen or the electricity.
Watch the flick.
DAR
I will finish it, but I can tell you already that they are using natural gas to make hydrogen and then the hydrogen to make electricity via a fuel cell and necessarily wasting a lot of energy in the process (all that heat he mentioned). It's basic physics. Any solar input will be negligible. I have a neighbor who is proud of his $400 dollar 100 watt solar panel (He uses it to charge an electric scooter I sold him). A full day of sun will capture about 10 cents worth of electricity. I think solar is great. I think electric vehicles are the way to go. But this is all a tiny fart in a hurricane compared to the energy we get from oil.
Now I'll watch the rest and report back.
D.
L.A. Confidential @ 14:
I dunno, Frank Zappa said, "The meek shall inherit..... nothing", and he's been right way more than he's been wrong.....
King of Mean @ 126:
What does this do to the trucking industry, which is responsible for delivering over 90% of everything?
Is this not a conspiracy theory in and of itself? Does this site not continuallly say "no conspiracy theories"??
Darrel, I agree it's a loss but I'm thinking like them that this is something we can use now to get off of some of the oil/electric that we're using from the big boys.
a nice 12-15kw fuel cell in every home would eliminate them dictating our electricity and pump prices for fuel.
When Bush talks about this, he is talking about building an infrastructure to deliver the hydrogen and rip us off again. I don't want that either, I just want to be off the grid so they can't pull anymore shit on us. (except for the Nat gas of course)
Floridiot @ 125:
DAR
It's as I thought. The debunk of your (and the video) claim is contained with the comment section of the video.
"Would be better off just burning the natural gas, as natural gas, at 65% effeciency[sic] in a combined cycle power plant."
All this putzing around with hydrogen is a fun and important science project but it wastes a lot of energy. The fellow has a little natural gas power-plant that is wasting extra energy by converting an extra step to make hydrogen. Every time you convert, you lose. They also lose again when they convert from DC to AC (you always lose, no exceptions).
Hydrogen "energy", as we are being sold it, is really a scam. It is not a form of energy but simply a form of storing energy. You have to make it. We would be better off compressing air in a bottle which is another way to store energy. You have to make hydrogen (at a loss) and making it takes a lot of energy (more than you put in, by law) and it is really hard to store. Once you have it a fuel cell can convert it to electricity with great efficiency but even batteries are far more efficient right now (lithium, expensive).
Darrel.
Paul @ 54:
I've been reading it and completely agree. If a CL reader could read one book this year, Crossing the Rubicon would be it. Using meticulously documented evidence, it provides the reader with an understanding for the war in Iraq, exactly how the drug trade, banking, and oil are related, as well as what to look for with the impending war in Iran. Unlike many other books and films, it actually seems honest in the presentation of material while providing a reasonable explanation of 9/11. Expect another.
Floridiot @ 136:
DAR
You don't think the natural gas boys are "big boys?" Oh by the way, the natural gas peak is not far behind the oil peak. See the charts here:
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
We get a vast amount from Canada. It is not limitless. I don't understand why we don't have more natural gas vehicles. This would be much smarter than converting to hydrogen then electricity then using this to drive a motor.
FLORIDIOT
a nice 12-15kw fuel cell in every home would eliminate them dictating our electricity and pump prices for fuel.>>
DAR
I *think* we would be better off trying to generate electricity directly from the natural gas rather then with the expensive and complex hydrogen conversion. But at best, if we were already there and hydrogen fuel cell systems were cheap and durable (they are NOT), it would only gain a couple percentage points. The energy source is natural gas. Hydrogen is never an energy source.
We have more coal than natural gas. But it's much more dirty. It alone may save us from the dark ages until we can figure this out.
Darrel
I'm glad to see the C&L community is so interested in alternative energies. However, there are a lot of scams out there and a few being touted on this thread. I think our best hope (for now) is in solar research and ultracapacitors. Just be careful about jumping on *any* bandwagon. In all scientific matters, it is wise to listen to the opposing views as they are quite often right.
Darrel, it's not just the hydrogen or the direct burning of the natural gas either.
It's a pollution thang ya know.
I still like this flick though
Stan Meyers water car
Hate to type this, because it may irritate some, but this scenario really calls out loudly for technology to save us yet again. I hope we can. Once oil peaks (it could have already happened, or it could be coming in the next few decades), life will indeed change. How can we make it change for the better? If we can't, if we can't come up with the technological miracle to save us, the alternatives are a peaceful return to some sort of pre-oil/19th century economy, or war on a scale that we have never seen before. Oil is indeed cheap, and primarily responsible for the many changes of the 20th century, including the population explosion. Without it or a viable alternative, what will happen to approximately 4-5 billion people on this planet? Mass death? Starvation? War, war and more war? I don't think humanity can handle this, which is indeed why action is needed now. My grandparents were able to survive in a pre-oil economy (and did pretty well in a petro-world). I don't think I could handle anything other than returning to a world pre-internet.
The article posted with the clip above is total bullshit. It's alarmist, ill-informed, and filled with hyperbole.
Come off it, C&L. Do you seriously claim that Mark Groubert, the author of the tract above, is a credible oil expert? A former editor of National Lampoon and MTV Magazine? A writer for Penthouse and High Times? Please - you can find any number of more credible people to quote than this guy.
Some facts:
1) Saudi Arabia stopped being the major supplier to the US many years ago. The US exports most of its oil and gas from Canada and Mexico.
2) King Hubbert did indeed accurately predict the peak year of oil production in the United States. He was able to do so because the geology of the continental US had been so well explored and documented by the US oil industry from the 1870's on.
It is important to note that Hubbert's estimates focused on conventional oil - the stuff that has been in decline for years. The full extent of US oil reserves was essentially known by the 1950s. But unconventional reserves, in other words heavy oil deposits (which exist mostly outside the United States) and coal bed methane were not part of his equation, or the estimates of Peak Oil theorists. Heavy oil reserves, though their existence and massive size (in Northern Alberta and Venezuela) is now well documented, are excluded from most official estimates of how much oil there is in the world. Under SEC regulations it's illegal for the major oil companies to include the hundreds of billions of barrels of the Canadian oil sand deposits they have staked out in their stated reserves (this rule is expected to be changed soon). The reserves of many large oil companies are thus deeply understated.
It's far more difficult to estimate how much oil (conventional and otherwise) remains globally than it was for Hubbert to estimate domestically 50 years ago. Believe it or not, there are still large areas of the world which remain to be explored for oil and gas - offshore West Africa, Siberia and the Arctic, for example.
It may be decades before peak conventional oil production is reached, even if the Saudi fields are in decline.
Current estimates of oil in Alberta's Athabasca oil sands exceeds 50 years at a rate of 20 million barrels per day. There is more oil in the region than the historic reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined. And the kicker is that production depletes at a far lower rate than conventional production. Most of the bitumen (the raw form of heavy oil in the oil sands) is recoverable, unlike the oil in conventional wells. Cost of production from oil sands has fallen over the past 25 years from $50 per barrel to about $10 due to continual improvement in technology.
3) Yes, there was an economic crisis after OPEC oil was shut off in 1973 and 1979. But back then, the economy of North America was much more dependent on oil than it is now. This may contradict the conventional wisdom, but it is absolutely true. Most cars were ridiculous gas guzzlers. Most buildings were underinsulated. Most businesses didn't bother to control energy use or treat it as a significant cost.
After the oil crisis, Jimmy Carter raised auto mileage requirements, increased energy taxes and reduced speed limits. These simple, common-sense measures brought about a large, sustained drop in US energy demand (prices fell from more than $30 per barrel to $9 by 1986 - oil prices have still not risen to the 1979 level in real terms). Carter (whatever his other failings may have been) proved that good energy policy was good for the economy, reduced foreign energy dependence (at least temporarily), and taught OPEC the expensive lesson that if they jack up prices, it would cost them more than it is worth in short-term revenue.
Bush has successfully resisted any new mileage increases or conservation measures. Everybody knows this must change. When energy taxes and mileage standards increase, as they should, oil demand in the US could fall dramatically, just as it did after the OPEC crises. Tax relief for hybrid technology will help even more (forget hydrogen cars and ethanol - they are scams).
I'm not suggesting here that oil is infinite or that there isn't an energy problem. Far from it.
But uninformed, alarmist bullshit like the post above doesn't enlighten, and doesn't lead to better public policy.
The sky is not going to fall tomorrow. This post is needless fear-mongering. Isn't there enough of this sort of thing from the Right, with reference to Terror?
What a bunch of wimps. Sure oil is past it's peak or near it. What are some of the alternatives. Short term, natural gas, there is a lot under the sea as a solid called hydrate. Above a certain pressure and below a certain temp. methane mixes with water to form hydrate. Switching to nuclear will be a short term fix unless we use breeder reactors. Then they make more fuel than they use. Geothermal energy has barely been tapped. High heat is found close to the surface under a lot of Nevada. For longer term a set of geostationary satellites with big mirrors could provide 24 hr sunlight in the desert southwest. This would make solar cells practical. Use your brain a little after all you are smarter than the President. Isn't everyone. LOL
Want a small farm? Look at Pakistan near the Afghanistan border on Google Earth. Every bit of flat ground and ground that can be made flat with terracing has a crop on it. No power lines, no cars, no draft animals, just hard work. Yea their armed. I'll take the way I live now, thank you.
The problem is that we based our society on cheap oil. Now oil will be expensive. All comes down to money. But money is just an idea. Check out this website for an understanding of another major problem which is the control of the money supply by private banks.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=money+as+d...
Floridiot @ 144:
DAR
Natural gas pollutes (lots of C02). And it pollutes more if you waste what energy it has by doing unnecessary conversions. Incidentally, it is far less energy dense than oil. I don't think there are any planes running on natural gas. Brazil has some little ones that will run on alcohol which is a pretty neat trick.
FLORIDIOT says:
I still like this flick though
Stan Meyers water car
DAR
As I said earlier, I am a founder of a skeptic organization so of course I have investigated and debunked many fraudulent claims. Stan Meyers was obviously a scammer selling memberships for his bogus perpetual motion machine. There have been many like him over the years. Fortunately he was sued, found to be a fraud and had to give the money back. Many others (Dennis Lee etc.) seem to get away with it for years even decades. Like James Randi our freethinker group offers reward for a demonstration of psychic phenomenon. I once challenged some free energy guys, like this Stan Meyers, to simply show that their machine works (under proper observing conditions). As a reward I said I would give them my house, all legally drawn up with a contract of course. They were also selling memberships to this which would pay back some day in the future. They declined, just as Mr. Meyers declined to have his machine properly examined. Standard bullshit artist.
This is explained nicely on the wiki page on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell
The degree of certainty we can have that his car was a fraud and in fact impossible by well understood laws of physics, is 100%.
Darrel.
*Peak Oil* is NOT A LEGAL REASON FOR MASS-MURDER, 9/11 COVER-UPS,THEFT, FEAR MONGERING, TORTURE, DECEPTION, GREED AND/OR ILLEGAL PROFITEERING AND UNPRECIDENTED WAR CRIMES.
* * DANGER * *
AND NOW BUSH IS SELLING THE ARABS $20 BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION????!!!! OMG!!!!
THESE CHILLING GOP EVIL-DOERS MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COST!!! CALL YOUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY NOW! THEY NEED TO BE PLACED IN A MENTAL HOLDING CELL UNTIL THEY GET CONVICTED OF THEIR PYSCHOTIC AND HORRIFIC CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!
Walker @ 131:
DAR
I don't think new discoveries will keep pace with demand. Not even close. Hence the problem of peak oil. I have posted much information above, with references, showing this. See also my Peak Oil Primer posted here, second post down:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1873
WALKER said:
Hubbard was way off (wasn't the earth supposed to by bone-dry of oil by now?),
DAR
No, not at all. That you would say this shows you don't know the issue at all. When you are finished with my little handout, go here:
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
We will never be "bone dry" and will in fact have hundreds of billions of barrels (or equivalent) of reserve in the earth for many decades if not for near a century. This is entirely consistent with "Peak Oil" claims.
WALKER
and Palast pretty well nails it.
DAR
People keep claiming this. Could someone summarize his argument/claims so I could respond to it? I have been on his newsletter list for years but I check his claims before I quote him because I find him to be a little loony at times. And he is no oil expert. If he peddles the abiotic oil theory (oil comes from the earths core and not organic matter and oil wells will refill) then it is easily refuted.
Darrel.
Login or Register to post comments.