Peak Oil- what it is and how it will impact your life

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

Goldman Sachs says global oil crunch coming.

"Global crude oil production is over 1 million barrels per day lower than last year, while demand is over 1 million bpd higher."
The International Energy Agency, adviser to 26 industrial nations, said last week that consumption of energy would outpace new production for the next five years, leading to a supply crunch in 2012.
U.S. oil could rise to $95 a barrel by the end of the year, from just over $75 now, if OPEC does not or cannot raise output to help meet growing demand, Goldman Sachs said.

For the complete article;

http://www.newsmax.com/money/archives/st/2007/7/17/115854.cfm?s=mo

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

Posted this in another thread but thought I should add it here also. Resource wars are a very real and possibly imminent result of oil depletion.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6344


The Coming Conflict in the Arctic
Russia and US to Square Off Over Arctic Energy Reserves
by Vladimir Frolov
Global Research, July 17, 2007

Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush spent most of their time at the "lobster summit" at Kennebunkport, Maine, discussing how to prevent the growing tensions between their two countries from getting out of hand.

The media and international affairs experts have been portraying missile defense in Europe and the final status of Kosovo as the two most contentious issues between Russia and the United States, with mutual recriminations over "democracy standards" providing the background for the much anticipated onset of a new Cold War. But while this may well be true for today, the stage has been quietly set for a much more serious confrontation in the non-too-distant future between Russia and the United States – along with Canada, Norway and Denmark.

Russia has recently laid claim to a vast 1,191,000 sq km (460,800 sq miles) chunk of the ice-covered Arctic seabed. The claim is not really about territory, but rather about the huge hydrocarbon reserves that are hidden on the seabed under the Arctic ice cap. These newly discovered energy reserves will play a crucial role in the global energy balance as the existing reserves of oil and gas are depleted over the next 20 years.
Russia has the world's largest gas reserves and is the second largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia, but its oil and gas production is slated to decline after 2010 as currently operational reserves dwindle. Russia’s Natural Resources Ministry estimates that the country’s existing oil reserves will be depleted by 2030.

The 2005 BP World Energy Survey projects that U.S. oil reserves will last another 10 years if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not opened for oil exploration, Norway’s reserves are good for about seven years and British North Sea reserves will last no more than five years – which is why the Arctic reserves, which are still largely unexplored, will be of such crucial importance to the world’s energy future. Scientists estimate that the territory contains more than 10 billion tons of gas and oil deposits. The shelf is about 200 meters (650 feet) deep and the challenges of extracting oil and gas there appear to be surmountable, particularly if the oil prices stay where they are now – over $70 a barrel.

The Kremlin wants to secure Russia's long-term dominance over global energy markets. To ensure this, Russia needs to find new sources of fuel and the Arctic seems like the only place left to go. But there is a problem: International law does not recognize Russia’s right to the entire Arctic seabed north of the Russian coastline.

The 1982 International Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes a 12 mile zone for territorial waters and a larger 200 mile economic zone in which a country has exclusive drilling rights for hydrocarbon and other resources.

Russia claims that the entire swath of Arctic seabed in the triangle that ends at the North Pole belongs to Russia, but the United Nations Committee that administers the Law of the Sea Convention has so far refused to recognize Russia’s claim to the entire Arctic seabed.

In order to legally claim that Russia’s economic zone in the Arctic extends far beyond the 200 mile zone, it is necessary to present viable scientific evidence showing that the Arctic Ocean’s sea shelf to the north of Russian shores is a continuation of the Siberian continental platform. In 2001, Russia submitted documents to the UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf seeking to push Russia's maritime borders beyond the 200 mile zone. It was rejected.

Now Russian scientists assert there is new evidence that Russia’s northern Arctic region is directly linked to the North Pole via an underwater shelf. Last week a group of Russian geologists returned from a six-week voyage to the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater shelf in Russia's remote eastern Arctic Ocean. They claimed the ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia's claim over the oil- and gas-rich triangle.

The latest findings are likely to prompt Russia to lodge another bid at the UN to secure its rights over the Arctic sea shelf. If no other power challenges Russia’s claim, it will likely go through unchallenged.

But Washington seems to have a different view and is seeking to block the anticipated Russian bid. On May 16, 2007, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made a statement encouraging the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, as the Bush Administration wants. The Reagan administration negotiated the Convention, but the Senate refused to ratify it for fear that it would unduly limit the U.S. freedom of action on the high seas.

Lugar used the following justification in his plea for the United States to ratify the convention: "Russia has used its rights under the convention to claim large parts of the Arctic Ocean in the hope of claiming potential oil and gas deposits that might become available as the polar ice cap recedes due to global warming. If the United States did not ratify the convention, Russia would be able to press its claims without the United States at the negotiating table. This would be directly damaging to U.S. national interests." President Bush urged the Senate to ratify the convention during its current session, which ends in 2008.

The United States has been jealous of Russia’s attempts to project its dominance in the energy sector and has sought to limit opportunities for Russia to control export routes and energy deposits outside Russia’s territory. But the Arctic shelf is something that Russia has traditionally regarded as its own. For decades, international powers have pressed no claims to Russia’s Arctic sector for obvious reasons of remoteness and inhospitability, but no longer.

Now, as the world’s major economic powers brace for the battle for the last barrel of oil, it is not surprising that the United States would seek to intrude on Russia’s home turf. It is obvious that Moscow would try to resist this U.S. intrusion and would view any U.S. efforts to block Russia’s claim to its Arctic sector as unfriendly and overtly provocative. Furthermore, such a policy would actually help the Kremlin justify its hardline position. It would certainly prove right Moscow’s assertion that U.S. policy towards Russia is really driven by the desire to get guaranteed and privileged access to Russia’s energy resources.

It promises to be a tough fight.

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

jash, I understand how all of this seems overwhelming. I get tired of posting such negative stuff. But to paraphrase Patrick Henry (IIRC)
"As for me I would rather know the whole truth and prepare for it"

The following article is another doom and gloom, and a little conspiracy theory also(which all of peak oil was considered a few years ago)but if you follow the link at the end it will take you to a discussion forum which has a lot of good advice on practical things that we can do to prepare.



Let me explain what they want
by ResponsibleAccountableSun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:02:25 AM PDT
[hello and welcome to readers of theoildrum.com]

I saw a diary the other day asking "what do they want?". Simply put: why are Bush/Cheney et al doing what they are doing when all obvious logic dictates that any of a list of possible goals would be better achieved with other courses of action. Predictably much of the commentary was taken up with suggestions that they are intrinsically evil people who just want to control things... which actually sorta missed the point of the question I think - which was that surely there is a better explanation than that.
There is. It is frightening. Not enough people talk about it seriously enough. One part of me even likes it this way as I feel it buys me more time to prepare my own exit plans. I just thought I'd turn my comment into a diary to get a feel for who may actually have any awareness of this sort of thing yet, on here.
The reason: They want to survive. They understand Peak Oil better than you. They understand its true implications - the die off. They are planning to do whatever they can to help their elite make it through. What are you doing for your family?
<DIR><DIR>ResponsibleAccountable's diary :: ::
</DIR></DIR>Peak Oil. Survival.
Bush and his cabal are oil people. They know a thing or two about the oil business - regardless of personal success or otherwise in profitable business decisions.
They have known for a long time about Hubbert's Peak and Peak Oil. They have had time to think it through while it was barely on the radar screen of even the most thoughtful lay person.
Peak Oil is frightening because of the consequences and the general public's basic misunderstanding of where the threat lies in a world without oil. And that is what we are talking about. In 100 years we have used up more than half the world's total oil. Some believe we have passed the peak, others that we'll do so within 5-8 years. None knowledgeably predict a much later date.
This leads to an assumption the world's oil runs out in around 2050. Except the truth is that the crunch will come much sooner - the oil left is the hardest and most expensive to get to. Supply will falter. Major powers will fight over control. Shocks and dislocations will happen much earlier that will wake up the world to the problem, shatter the economy and in turn prevent much of the production being fulfilled and distributed.
So why the big worry? Well it isn't just automotive. Let's grant the technologists a win on that one even (though not really likely globally in time). It isn't the air travel - though the physics just don't allow you to replace petrochemicals as you can in a car - its a thermodynamics problem. But let's say we can get by without air travel. It is the food.
Virtually all of the world's food production is dependent on fertilizers based on oil and natural gas products. Without these chemicals food production collapses.
The world's sustainable population with pre-oil technologies was about 1-1.5billion. It is over 6billion today. Given that there isn't the old farming techniques, land and capacity available to shift back to these methods (and modern fertalizers having made much of the land infertile to these methods), and given that modern societies do not have everyone living within walking distance of food production, experts predict that under a collapse the planet is more likely going to be able to feed only about 500million people. Again there are 6 billion today, roughly.
How do you get there from here? A lot of people dying. Imagine 95% of the world dying and you are close to the mark.
And what do you think happens to a society during things like that?
The elites on behalf of whom Bush/Cheney work have figured this out. And their view is that those that get to survive are likely to be those that can gather the most resources in advance of fighting for survival. This is why they concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. This is why they continue an official policy of trying to seize control of oil resources to provide as long a lifeline as possible to prepare before the US collapses.
Why wouldn't rewarding those that already had most in society with more be the best way of choosing winners from losers in this? If your view is that financial means are the rewards for being a superior person in every way, as our society has come to view such things in every practical way?
These people are preparing the lifeboats. Only there ain't going to be many of them.
Sure, we'll pray for a miracle - science to the rescue. We'll fight to control resources as long as possible to allow the numbed masses to stay deluded for a bit longer. But make no bones about it a dark night is coming. And these people expect to be the ones with the torches.
I think that makes far more sense than just people being bad and evil for the sake of it. If you have to resort to nonsense explanations like 'they are just megalomaniacs who want to control things with no real end' then you are probably wrong. I am glad the question is asked. I wish more people would instead of falling back on cheap digs at serious people.
Personally - I am transitioning into the lifeboat building business. Anyone care to join me?
...Global warming...pah...real men have restless nights over Peak Oil...


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/4/24813/90088

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

The entire article can be found at the link. It is very good and thoughtful reading. Dealing with how market forces are conditioned to ignore peak oil or the depletion of any product and how by the time the false euphoria bubble of denial is finally burst it will result in economic and social chaos. In other words "there's a bad moon on the rise". The following is the summation at the very end.


http://dieoff.org/page185.htm

HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE?
"What becomes of the surplus of human life? It is either, 1st. destroyed by infanticide, as among the Chinese and Lacedemonians; or 2d. it is stifled or starved, as among other nations whose population is commensurate to its food; or 3d. it is consumed by wars and endemic diseases; or 4th. it overflows, by emigration, to places where a surplus of food is attainable."
-- James Madison, 1791

For want of a nail the shoe is lost, for want of a shoe the horse is lost, for want of a horse the rider is lost.

Worldwide, more than 10 million hectares of agricultural land are abandoned annually because of serious soil degradation. During the last 40 years, about 30 percent of total world arable land was abandoned because it was no longer productive. About half of the current arable land now in cultivation will be unsuitable for food production by the middle of the twenty-first century. [[34]]

Within the first decade of the 21'st century, industrial activity will rise high enough for it to seriously degrade land fertility. This will occur because of contamination by heavy metals and persistent chemicals, climate change, salinization, topsoil loss, falling water tables, and increased levels of ultraviolet radiation from a diminished ozone layer.
Global oil production will peak soon and the spike in oil prices will quickly exacerbate other major problems facing industrial agriculture. Food grains produced with modern, high-yield methods (including packaging and delivery) now contain between four and ten calories of fossil fuel for every calorie of solar energy. It has been estimated that about four percent of the nation's energy budget is used to grow food, while about 10 to 13 percent is needed to put it on our plates. In other words, a staggering total of 17 percent of America's energy budget is consumed by agriculture! [[35]]

By 2040, we would need to triple the global food supply in order to meet the basic food needs of the eleven billion people who are expected to be alive. But doing so would require a 1,000 percent increase in the total energy expended in food production. [[36]] But the depletion of oil will make it physically impossible -- thus economically impossible -- to provide enough net energy to agriculture: "A recent review of the future prospects of all alternatives has been published. The summary conclusion reached is that there is no known complete substitute for petroleum in its many and varied uses." [[37]] Global food production will drop to a fraction of today’s numbers: "If the fertilizers, partial irrigation [in part provided by oil energy], and pesticides were withdrawn, corn yields, for example, would drop from 130 bushels per acre to about 30 bushels." [[38]] Obviously, death certificates have already been issued for billions of unsuspecting people.

The dependence of industrial agriculture on fossil fuels, the declining fertility of the land, and the positive feedbacks imposed by declining net energy will force the economy to divert much more investment into the agriculture and energy sectors as part of a desperate attempt to maintain agricultural output. Government budgets must also decline in real terms as greater and greater fractions of the economy are diverted into the resource sectors.

As resource quality and land fertility continue to fall, society will be forced to allocate more and more capital to the agriculture and resource sectors, otherwise the scarcity of food, materials, and fuels would restrict production still more -- it's circular, there is no way to avoid the positive feedback. Ultimately, industrial capacity will decline rapidly taking with it the service and agricultural sectors, which depend upon industrial inputs.
Constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, the availability of life-supporting resources will go into a permanent, steep decline.

In less than 20 years, the self-regulating market system will have "run out of gas" and vanished. With the market system gone, the ruling elites will fall back on the good old-fashioned means of control: a police state. In the US alone, 200 million guns in private ownership guarantee that this police state will quickly devolve into rebellion and anarchy.

If the anarchy scenario were to reach its natural conclusion, the global elites would be eliminated by the angry masses. Those who managed to escape would die more miserably than the poor since they are unsuited for day-to-day survival because they lived their lives like queen bees.
But when the above scenario seems inevitable, the elites will simply depopulate most of the planet with a bioweapon. [[39]] When the time comes, it will be the only logical solution to their problem. It's a first-strike tactic that leaves the built-infrastructure and other species in place and allows the elites to perpetuate their own genes into the foreseeable future: "War is a male reproductive strategy. All that is needed for the strategy to evolve, is that aggressors fight and win more often than they lose". [[40]]

The global genocide will be rationalized as a second chance for humanity -- a new Garden of Eden -- a new Genesis. The temptation will prove irresistible:
"Strangelove said, 'Offhand, I should say that in addition to the factors of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included, to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.'
"The arrow had not missed its mark, and around the table there was an outbreak of sober, nodding heads. Attention was concentrated more than ever on Doctor Strangelove.
"Strangelove went on. 'Naturally they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time and little to do. With the proper breeding techniques, and starting with a ratio of, say, ten women to each man, I should estimate the progeny of the original group of two hundred thousand would emerge a hundred years later as well over a hundred million…'"

How could it be otherwise?

WHAT YOU CAN DO!

#1. Move out of the city! Sometime in the next couple of decades, civil authority in large US cities will simply disintegrate. And when authority goes, we know exactly what's going to happen.
Remember the Rodney King rebellion? All that old class hatred and jealousy comes boiling to the surface. It's really going to be ugly -- you don't want to be there!
Go somewhere where the climate is warm, with plenty of rain (just don't come here to the Kona Coast.) I don't think "ethnic cleansing" will be a big problem except in the cities (at least, not to start with).

#2. Prepare yourself to survive without municipal power, water, or sewer services. You won't have to live without hookups initially, but you will be forced to do without them sometime in the next few decades.
Most of the country's groundwater is already contaminated, and once sewage systems and dumps are abandoned, it will ALL become contaminated. Without power to pump or chlorine to disinfect groundwater, you really have no option except to rely on rain catchment for drinking water.

#3. In order to survive, you are going to need a large garden. An oversized garden would allow you to exchange your extra produce to your neighbors for hard goods -- like ammunition.

#4. Remember that you will not be able to rely on complex technology, because once supply lines break down, you won't be able to get spares. So limit yourself to technology that you can fix with a hammer and forge. (If you don't know what a "forge" is, go see an old cowboy movie.)
Beyond these four points, just try to fit in with your community as best you can. Perhaps join a church, lodge, or club -- find someone who is willing to help you in case you are attacked.

Obviously, I don't follow all of my own suggestions, but it's something to think about.

Good luck,
Jay

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

I am pleased to present this non-commented non-post:

$100 Oil Price May Be Months Away, Say CIBC, Goldman (Update1)
By Mark Shenk
A woman pumps gasoline into her vehicle


July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The $100-a-barrel oil that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said would prevail by 2009 may be only a few months away.
Jeffrey Currie, a London-based commodity analyst at the world's biggest securities firm, says $95 crude is likely this year unless OPEC unexpectedly increases production, and declining inventories are raising the chances for $100 oil. Jeff Rubin at CIBC World Markets predicts $100 a barrel as soon as next year.
``We're only a headline of significance away from $100 oil,'' said John Kilduff, an analyst in the New York office of futures broker Man Financial Inc. ``The unrelenting pressure of increased demand has left the market a coiled spring.'' New disruptions of Nigerian or Iraqi supplies, or any military strike against Iran, might trigger the rise, Kilduff said in a July 20 interview.
Higher prices will increase revenue for energy producers from Exxon Mobil Corp. to PetroChina Co., while eroding profit at airlines including EasyJet Plc and railroads such as Union Pacific Corp. The U.S. and other oil-importing nations risk accelerating inflation, while higher energy costs threaten to restrain growth.
Benchmark crude oil futures ended last week at $75.57 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 51 percent since mid- January and twice the level of early 2003. A record number of options have been sold that give the buyer the right to buy crude oil at $100. The contracts, covering 50 million barrels, only pay off should oil go above the target price. September crude futures fell 89 cents to $74.90 at 11:16 a.m. in New York today.
Goldman's View
Arjun Murti, a New York-based Goldman Sachs analyst who covers oil producers and refiners, roiled markets in March 2005 with a report saying prices could touch $105 a barrel during a ``super spike'' period because demand was stronger than anticipated. Price swings might also go as low as $50, Murti said at the time.
Currie, Goldman's global head of commodities research in London, is predicting that oil prices will probably touch a record and stay at unprecedented levels for months or years. The all-time high for Nymex crude futures is $78.40 a barrel on July 14, 2006.
``Ultimately, the key to the outlook going forward is when will Saudi Arabia ramp up production,'' he said in an interview. ``If you have a situation in which inventories globally get drawn to critically low levels, the volatility in this market is likely to explode, which significantly increases the probability of $100 oil.'' Oil might slip to $73.50 if OPEC were to start producing more now, he said.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is scheduled to next meet in September. No members have called for a gathering before then. A decision to raise output at that time would lead to greater supplies toward the end of the year.
Accelerating Demand
The failure of near-record fuel prices to restrain global oil demand growth is what concerns Rubin, chief strategist at the brokerage unit of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in Toronto.
``Prices have doubled, and demand is alive and well and accelerating,'' Rubin said in a July 18 interview. ``The argument that rising prices would choke demand and bring increased output is falling to the wayside.''
A National Petroleum Council study led by former Exxon Mobil chairman Lee Raymond, released last week, predicted a growing gap between production and demand for oil and gas during the next two decades. As recently as 2005, Raymond said oil prices had probably peaked and dismissed the possibility that supply and demand could not be brought back into balance.
``There are questions about whether the oil industry can keep up with demand,'' U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said last week, commenting on the Petroleum Council report.
Gasoline Sales Rise
Gasoline pump prices averaging more than $3 a gallon across the U.S., the consumer of 25 percent of the world's oil, haven't dented sales. Deliveries of gasoline were a record 9.23 million barrels a day in the first half of this year, according to a July 18 report from the American Petroleum Institute in Washington.
``It appears that high prices are acceptable to the American consumer,'' said Robert Ebel, chairman of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``People want the house with a yard and white-picket fence so they are moving further and further out of the cities. They have to just get up earlier and drive further.''
Outside the U.S., demand increases are being led by India and China, where growing economies mean more cars and trucks and more factories that burn oil and gas.
Consumption between now and the end of the year will increase by 3.6 million barrels a day because of seasonal shifts. The rise is equal to the daily production of Kuwait and Oman combined, and it comes after OPEC twice in the past year cut production to support prices.
Rising Costs
The cost of finding and pumping oil is rising steadily, convincing analysts such as Rubin and Deutsche Bank AG chief energy economist Adam Sieminski that higher prices will last. Shortages of deepwater drilling ships and rigs has pushed daily rents to records, and the skilled workers needed to run rigs, weld pipes, pilot vessels, fix refineries and build oil-sands projects command ever-higher wages.
``Three years ago we were calling for $30 oil, then $35 and then $40 oil,'' said New York-based Sieminski, who last week raised his forecast for the average price of oil in 2010 to $60 a barrel from $45.
``I've gotten tired of increasing these forecasts in $5 increments,'' Sieminski said in an interview. ``Something has happened. Costs have continued to escalate, and the geopolitical situation has gotten worse.''
The $60-a-barrel forecast for 2010 is 15 percent higher than the average analyst forecast, Sieminski said. The projection probably will turn out to be too low, he said.
Oil prices could triple in three months to more than $200 a barrel, given the right circumstances, according to Matthew Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co., a Houston investment bank.
`Still Cheap'
``Oil is still cheap,'' Simmons said. ``In the 20th century, with a few exceptions, oil was almost free. The only exceptions were during 1973, 1979 and when Iraq invaded Kuwait.''
Prices rose in 1974 after an oil embargo that followed the Arab-Israeli war and from 1979 through 1981 after Iran cut oil exports. The average cost of oil used by U.S. refiners was $35.24 a barrel in 1981, according to the Energy Department, or $79.67 in today's dollars.
While crude oil prices are approaching the records they set at this time last year, not everyone is convinced $100 crude will happen. From their peak, oil futures began a six-month slide. They got below $50 on Jan. 18 before rebounding.
``The risk parameters are somewhat different than a year ago, however the overall situation is similar,'' said Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citigroup Inc. in New York who correctly predicted a year ago that oil prices were at a peak. ``We've priced in a shortage that is not evident yet.''
Pickens' Opinion
A pullout from Iraq may be the event that pushes oil to $100 a barrel, according to Boone Pickens, the Dallas hedge fund manager who has joined Forbes Magazine's list of billionaires because of his bullish bets on energy prices. Pickens predicted a year ago that $100 oil would probably occur by now. Today he is looking for $80 within six months, and he says growing chaos in Iraq would be a bad sign. ``That could run prices pretty high,'' he said.
Goldman Sachs's Currie also notes similarities to a year ago, with global inventories at about the same level and U.S. government data showing an increasing bet on higher prices.
``At face value this market is strikingly similar to a year ago,'' Currie said. ``What is different? Supply is down a million barrels a day, demand is up a million barrels a day. The market is in a deficit.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Shenk in New York at mshenk1@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: July 23, 2007 12:50 EDT

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

This is from a newsletter i subscribe to. There is a lot of good info on this site. Check it out. The link is to an article in this months newsletter, predicting what the future of oil and gasoline prices will be from now until 2015. The author admits, and I think he's correct, that the predictions will probably fall far short of the eventual reality. A good read.

http://www.electricitybook.com/peak-oil/

This is the text of the article but a lot of graphs won't copy over so it would be worth your time to follow the link to the website.


I recently spent some time in a 3rd world country and it made me think... who would be better off if the price of gas hit $6.00 a gallon?...

Group A - Grows most of their food locally using mostly manual labor, rides tricycle taxis or 150cc motorcycle taxis, walks a lot, uses mass transportation to travel farther distances, and doesn't seem to mind if the electricity goes off for most of the day.

or Group B - Depends on big agribusiness and transportation for their food supply, heavily dependent on fossil fuels in every aspect of their lives, wouldn't walk to the corner store if their life depended on it, is very dependent on gas guzzling personal vehicles for transportation, has no problem with driving 1 mile or 1000 miles by themselves, and wouldn't know what to do without electricity and air conditioning!

It's pretty obvious that Group A would fare better when the price of oil skyrockets. I know you don't want to hear it and probably don't believe it, but a lot of people in Group B will not survive a real oil crisis. Not true you say! Well, would you be surprised if I told you it has already happened and is happening as we speak?
Just look at what happened in North Korea after the Soviet Union collapsed. North Korea was a highly industrialized country unlike the mostly agrarian South Korea at the time. After the USSR collapsed, the supply of oil to North Korea and countries like Cuba dried up. The farm machinery would not run, the manufacturing and processing plants shut down, the transportation trucks sat idle, there was not enough electricity to run irrigation pumps, and the soil was ruined due to bad farming practices. Of course, there was no more artificial fertilizer because the fertilizer plants all depended on oil. Does this sound familiar? The whole system crashed and millions of people died as a result.

Those Who Do Not Study History Are Doomed To Repeat It

If there are oil shortages in the US or even if the price just gets too high, you are going to see all these things happen right here in your own back yard! Your food is produced by big business. Guess what?... those businesses like to make a profit. If it becomes unprofitable, those businesses will park their tractors and combines so fast it will make your head spin.

Why is milk $4.00 a gallon?

Because of the high price of oil. And... they are making ethanol from all the feed corn! It won't be long before Americans stop buying milk and they send all those milk cows out to pasture. Well, you can probably do without milk, but what are you going to do when the same thing happens to cereals, bread, vegetables, drinking water, beer, etc?

What will it be like in 2015?

That's just a little over 7 years away. It's within all of our lifetimes (hopefully), so you can't ignore the problem and let the next generation deal with it. This will happen to you - not your children or grandchildren. This is simple mathematics folks... Currently, the world uses 87 million barrels of oil a day (mbpd). And currently, the world produces about 81 mbpd. It's interesting to note that we are producing less than we are consuming right now. I honestly don't know what is going on with that. We are either dipping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR), or the slack is being taken up by alternative fuels, or someone is doing without. Not sure what is going on there, but I suspect it's a little of all three. It sure doesn't look good though!


Now on to 2015... given a 2% rise per year in world consumption, we will be theoretically consuming about 101 mbpd in 2015. And here's my description of what will happen on the production end... for the next few years or so after 2007, you'll see a slight increase in production. Then you will see a steady decline in production from then on out. After all, there is only so much of the stuff in the ground. In 2015, the production level will be at about 74 mbpd. Now with that kind of supply and demand in 2015, oil is going to be very expensive and only the rich will be able to afford to drive and eat. That leaves you and me to fend for ourselves.

Year Millions of Barrels per Day Consumed
-----------------------------------------------------------
2007 87,000,000
2008 88,740,000
2009 90,514,800
2010 92,325,096
2011 94,171,600
2012 96,055,032
2013 97,976,128
2014 99,935,648
2015 101,934,360
2016 103,973,048
2017 106,052,504
2018 108,173,552
2019 110,337,024
2020 112,543,760

There are only 1.3 trillion barrels of oil in the ground.

If the demand continues at 2% each year and if the supply could meet that demand, oil would completely run out around 2037. Now, don't get too worried... there is no way production will ever keep up with demand, so there will always be oil available way past 2100 if you can afford it. And remember... this whole scenario can be pushed up to tomorrow with another terrorist attack, oil embargo, hurricane or other natural disaster, oil refinery fire, etc.

So now that you know it's going to hit the fan very shortly and in your lifetime, what are you going to do about it? My next series of newsletters are going to help you with that. Topics will include...

Generating electricity

Securing drinking and irrigation water

Growing your own food

Security - there will be riots and people who will steal from you. Can you really blame them? They will be fighting for their lives. In drought stricken areas like India and Africa, this is already commonplace. The poor will kill the rich and take their belongings to survive.

Should you relocate and where?

(I would add "Strategic Relocation: a guide to safe places in North America by Joel M. Skousen and The Secure Home by the same author. Both books are pricey but well worth the investment. MM)

Right now, you can start by reading these books...

Electricity - Make it, Don't Buy it (eBook & paper version) - Learn how to set up your own electric company in your back yard. Bonus books on methane, free energy notes, and solar energy.

The Poor Man's Guide to Wind Power and Battery Systems (eBook) - Three new books too... welding with batteries, homemade amp meters, and a DC motor analyzing software program for wind applications! Get them all at a discount with his "package deal".

Renewable Energy Solutions (eBook) - This family has been living off the grid for 14 years! They figured that if they could not build it themselves or find it at a reasonable price it just wasn't worth doing. There are only a few books out there right now that talk about Renewable Energy and none of them talk about how to do it on "the cheap" and still keep it simple. This book shows you where to find FREE solar panels, wind towers, and batteries. Understand and Install Wind Generators, Solar Panels, Micro Hydro and more. This is a must read for those that want to save money on an alternative energy system. This book will save you $1000's!

The Oil Age is Over (paper or eBook) - A lot of the evidence for peak oil has actually come from within the oil industry itself or from now retired oil experts who have no axe to grind other than a wish to inform the world of the dire predicament we will all soon have to wake up to. The modern world and civilization as we know it is coming to an end.

From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank (eBook) - Simply the best book on biodiesel available. Period.

Other books available too in our eBay Store!

Like the Boy Scouts say...
Be Prepared!

Still don't beleive gas will get real expensive by 2015? Just look at the "average" line in this real gas price chart and you can obviously see where it is heading.

Note: I took a ruler to this chart and tried to predict where the average line would be in 2015. It's just a rough estimate, but it's in the $7.00 a gallon range. I think it will actually go higher than that. People in Europe have been paying $7.00 a gallon for about a year now, but I think $7.00 a gallon will have a greater impact in America because up until now, we have taken cheap gasoline prices for granted...

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">While the Watchdog Sleeps </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="70%" colSpan=2>Written by Daniel L. Davis </TD></TR><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top colSpan=2>Monday, 13 August 2007 </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>(Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USA’s positions; they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators.)

Every major news outlet in America gave extensive coverage to the release of the highly anticipated final installment of the Harry Potter book franchise last month. On 27 July, for example, a search of the Washington Post.com website turned up 357 stories that had something to do with Harry Potter over the previous 60 days; Paris Hilton’s experience with the US legal system still rated 269. But when searching for a story in July that has significant economic and security ramifications for every American – release of a National Petroleum Council study called “Facing the Hard Truths about Energy” – we found a somewhat smaller tally: 3.

On the surface of it, who would be surprised? Harry is one of the most famous and entertaining names in book and film, and Paris is, well, Paris. At the NPC’s Washington meeting there was no compelling action for a video photographer to capture, only a number of boring men sitting behind a table. But the major media outlets – CNN, FOX News, the broadcast networks, the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune – gave virtually no coverage to the NPC’s warnings that global petroleum supply may soon be insufficient to meet demand.

The News media frequently brags on its role as the public’s watchdog, looking out for the interests of the people, shining a light in dark places. But on what may be the most momentous, life-changing story to come along in decades, the media doesn’t even notice. Somehow the Press failed to report some of the more sobering sections of the NPC study:

• “It is a hard truth that the global supply of oil and natural gas from the conventional sources relied upon historically is unlikely to meet projected 50-60 percent growth in demand over the next 25 years.”
• “There are accumulating risks to continuing expansion of oil and natural gas production from the conventional sources relied upon historically. These risks create significant challenges to meeting projected total energy demand.”
• “Oil shales may become a commercial resource by 2020, although large-scale production is unlikely until 2030.”
• “To mitigate these risks, expansion of all economic energy sources will be required.”

And it wasn’t just the NPC that was sounding alarms. A study released by DoE’s Energy Information Agency on July 10th called Short Term Energy Outlook reported “The tight world oil supply/demand balance, which is responsible for the rising crude oil prices, is expected to continue in 2008.” International Energy Agency’s Lawrence Eagles was quoted in the July 9th Medium-Term Oil Market Report saying, “The results of our analysis are quite strong. Either we need to have more supplies coming on stream or we need to have lower demand growth.” A July 24 article from the International Herald Tribune reported that the price of a barrel of oil could hit $100 this year, quoting Man Financial analyst John Kildruff as explaining, “The unrelenting pressure of increased demand has left the market a coiled spring.”

In our current market situation it is a fact that when oil supply cannot satisfy demand, the economy ceases to grow. An economy that is stifled by external constraints will inevitably begin to contract. America is the most vulnerable nation on earth to a disruption in the supply of oil because our economy is totally dependent on an uninterrupted supply of cheap crude oil.

On Tuesday global crude inched ever closer to a record high because, according to the AP, “Investors believe (the August 1st) inventory report by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration will show that refiners drew down oil inventories as they continued to increase gasoline production last week.” No one seems to question why the inventories continue to drop. Meanwhile, OPEC member Iran fired a shot across the Western bow by suggesting OPEC will not increase production even after their September meeting. Most energy experts already warn that without an increase from OPEC swing states, global production will fall measurably below demand in which case an economic downturn will result.

If there is insufficient crude oil to meet global demand, then non-conventional and bio fuels are the only available alternatives (with the notable exception of conservation and efficiency measures), but how much would these alternatives cost? The NPC report contained the answer: “The IEA Reference Case estimates that the global oil industry will need a total investment of about $4.3 trillion between 2005 and 2030, or about $164 billion annually, to meet projected demand.” And yet at present the major oil companies have not begun to invest anything close to this amount. Therefore, supply disruptions in the coming months are very possible, and along with that, a global economic downturn. The longer we delay in making these investments, the greater the potential damage to our economy. Yet despite these dangers, the mainstream news media remains curiously silent.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

A lot of people are starting to wake up to this. Those in the Oil Industry have been some of the most ardent deniers. But the evidence is beoming overwhelming.


Entering the Tough Oil Era
The New Energy Pessimism
By Michael T. Klare

When "peak oil" theory was first widely publicized in such path breaking books as Kenneth Deffeyes' Hubbert's Peak (2001), Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over (2002), David Goodstein's Out of Gas (2004), and Paul Robert's The End of Oil (2004), energy industry officials and their government associates largely ridiculed the notion. An imminent peak -- and subsequent decline -- in global petroleum output was derided as crackpot science with little geological foundation. "Based on [our] analysis," the U.S. Department of Energy confidently asserted in 2004, "[we] would expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century."

Recently, however, a spate of high-level government and industry reports have begun to suggest that the original peak-oil theorists were far closer to the grim reality of global-oil availability than industry analysts were willing to admit. Industry optimism regarding long-term energy-supply prospects, these official reports indicate, has now given way to a deep-seated pessimism, even in the biggest of Big Oil corporate headquarters.

The change in outlook is perhaps best suggested by a July 27 article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, "Oil Profits Show Sign of Aging." Although reporting staggering second-quarter profits for oil giants Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell -- $10.3 billion for the former, $8.7 billion for the latter -- the Journal sadly noted that investors are bracing for disappointing results in future quarters as the cost of new production rises and output at older fields declines. "All the oil companies are struggling to grow production," explained Peter Hitchens, an analyst at the Teather and Greenwood brokerage house. "[Yet] it's becoming more and more difficult to bring projects in on time and on budget."


"... For every SIX barrels of oil currently consumed, only one new barrel is discovered. And that number is getting worse there were only 13 major oil finds (over 500 million barrels in reserves) in 2000, six in 2001 and two in 2002. There hasn't been any major oil discovery since then! And when the reality of higher prices hits with full force and I think it's coming very, very soon no one is going to find it more difficult to swallow than the spoiled, overconsuming United States. The crisis is truly devastating in scope and could end life as we know it in the United States."

 

Re: Peak Oil; what it is and how it will impact your life

There are several good books and DVD's out that adequately paint the picture of just how important oil is to the world. And how it has influenced political and or military decisions since WWl.
Hitler invaded Poland and Eastern Europe to secure the oil fields there, the Japenese bombed Pearl Harbor to cripple the only force that could stop their march to the West Indies to secure those oil fields. The Germans invaded Russia to obtain the Baku field, which supplied the oil to the Russian army to turn the Germans back. Rommels Afrika Corp was pushing to the Suez Canal to stop the supply oil through there to the allies.
The impact of oil on all political decisions cannot be ignored. It has been a driving force behind foriegn policy for most of the last century.

The first Gulf war and the current war in Iraq are and have been driven by oil. That is the bottom line. We are running out and we must do anything neccessary to protect our access to what's left. That is the rationale of this and previous administrations.

This article released today;

Greenspan Says War About Oil; Gates Disagrees


U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's statement that the Iraq war "is largely about oil."

With Democratic lawmakers apparently short of the votes needed to force President George W. Bush to change course, Gates defended the war, now in its fifth year, and said it's being driven by the need to stabilize the Gulf and put down hostile forces.

Gates's defense came a day after thousands of anti-war protesters marched in Washington. A spokeswoman for one of the groups who organized the march said more than 200 protesters were taken into custody, including at least 10 Iraq war veterans, when they attempted to cross a police barrier near the U.S. Capitol.

Greenspan, in his new book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war is to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.

"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy," Greenspan wrote.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil," added Greenspan, who for decades had been one of the most respected U.S. voices on fiscal policies.

After more than 18 years at the helm, Greenspan retired in January 2006 as chairman of the Fed, the nation's central bank, which regulates monetary policy.

The full article here;

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/greenspan_oil/2007/09/16/33065.html?s=al&promo_code=3A0E-1