Hi,

My name is Joe Kelley. I think that it is important to introduce myself at the beginning of this book discussion because of the importance of the topic and how I am involved in it.

I have worked on this subject matter steadily for over a decade with some success; perhaps even more than some success, possibly: very significant breakthroughs in accurate perception. I have managed to boil down the entire economic/political (divided by) perspective into a one sentence base camp; from which any puzzle can be moved under this lens so as to be deciphered.

My introduction includes an economic/political viewpoint or measure of reality offered as a concise and understandable sentence; I call this way of measuring economic/political reality: Joe’s Law (because no one else has yet to own up to this way of measuring economic/political reality).

Joes Law:

Power produced into a state of oversupply will reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

The book titled The Myth of the Oil Crisis will be discussed by me from a Joe’s Law perspective, and the reader may be asking why – or perhaps not?

I’m telling anyway.

Oil is a form of currency. Oil currency contains actual power. Someone who has control of oil currency, with its self contained power, has the power to purchase other currencies, so long as the controller of oil power controls oil power.

As soon as the controller of oil power no longer has control of oil power is as soon as that controller is powerless – by that exact measure.

This is significant news, even more significant than news concerning the power to control other forms of currency such as, say, The Dollar, which as a legal form of currency and a form of currency that has no self-contained power, all the power to purchase with legal paper (and digital) currency depends upon another power, a power other than the paper power or the digital power which is held, owned, or controlled by the current owners of legal currency (promises to pay).

Why present a book discussion in this way, one might ask, or one might prefer to just read, and not ask anything, just read.
If the object in view is entertainment, to just read, and not ask questions, to merely be subject to the medium, then I’m going to offer those readers a bone. I’m going to link something I found in my working on this topic, and I hope the reader who is seeking entertainment will appreciate the link wholeheartedly – as I did. For me it was akin to comic relief, and I’ll explain why as time goes by – perhaps.

Here is the comic relief (and vital for understanding my angle of view on the book being tabled):

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-52676 ... 741878159#

I think of this effort more like a round table discussion between fellow human beings who have a great interest in knowing the truth about significant current events, so as to be better prepared to deal with those events, to survive, and to survive well, not simply as an individual, not simply as a family, but more importantly to survive and survive well as a species.

What could be more important than entertainment? To those who have time, and energy, power - really, to those who have power I speak now.

I present my side of this Oil story before offering my angle of view on the book, so as not to appear like someone who criticizes, or argues, for the sake of argument. My angle on this is not specious, shallow, or without power, not powerless.

Two more links, a few more comments, and then on to a specific reference to the book.

Link A and B are twins, two studies that are powerful on their own, but the two studies together combine to bring into view a much more powerful understanding, not an epiphany, perhaps, a slower realization of actual reality.

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html

reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshe ... index.html

Investing in destruction is a powerful but risky venture; the costs must be borne by the intended victims completely for the return on the investment to be realized fully, completely, and without any reduction in personal power.

Again, the realization may arrive slowly, not suddenly, so my effort to present my side of this view can proceed without dwelling to much on the individual parts. Please know at this point of a deal made between Standard Oil of New Jersey and I.G. Farben of Germany before and during the build up to the horrible thing that was later called The Second World War. That deal passed on the rights to produce synthetic oil exclusively to Germany.

Germany could not have executed their part in that war without oil power. Germany had to import all oil power, or make it at home. Germany made oil at home.

Synthetic oil was made in Germany, economically, in large quantities, fueling their military power, and that was done in the mid 20th century, here on earth.

From the book "The Myth of the Oil Crisis" I can pull an abbreviation now.

EROEI
Energy return on energy invested; the energy yielded by a process divided by the energy consumed.

Keep that in mind, please, as this part (my part) of this book discussion progresses. It was said by someone, in my reading, I’ve lost the link to it, that the German methods of “cracking” the synthetic oil puzzle was made profitable by subsidizing slave labor – otherwise the power required far exceeded the power produced. In other words the “profit” of synthetic oil was gained at the expense of specific people.

Here is something I made sure of keeping close at hand:



Adding the following from the same source:



The reader may not be totally confused as to what my angle on this book is all about and to those who may be in that powerless state I offer a return to base camp.

Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Economy is to politics like oil power is to military power. I can break that down even simpler, using Joe’s law. Economy is to physical power as politics is to psychological power.

Economy/Politics

EROEI
Energy return on energy invested; the energy yielded by a process divided by the energy consumed.

The quote about “Nazi morality” and how the Political Police (the past versions, SS, KGB, and now the current versions like The CIA, Mossad, MI6), how the Political Police were out done in cruelty by the corporate police (lower case = not officially existing) can be found in this book:

amazon.com/Crime-Punishment-I-G-Farben/ ... 0029046300

Again, back to the base camp, please:

Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Answer this (before I offer a viable answer - or clue - or piece of the puzzle):

Why do reasonable people destroy power production devices regularly, as if on a schedule?

If you think the question is way out there, something some nut job would ask, then I’m aghast, dumfounded, as to why you are reading this at all, please return to whatever entertains you.

Example:
War making planners, the bosses, decide to target power plants during their war making ventures.

The answer could be obvious.

Please link the answer to the present discussion of a book.

The book title:

The Myth of the Oil Crisis

What is the purpose behind destruction of power producing devices?

Let me loan out my brain to the curious ones at this table. A pretend Oil Crisis is not a real Oil Crisis unless the pretense gains currency, is believed, and is bought (hook , line , and sinker?), like the Brooklyn Bridge fire sale.

Why decide to employ an Oil Crisis and why not decide to employ a dollar crisis?

Are the gears turning?

Economic/Political

What is the purpose behind destruction of power producing devices?

Borrow Joe’s law again:

Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Suppose you have a lot of friends and I’m in that bunch, fantasies can be instructive, and now suppose that one of us invents a method of producing a whole lot of power at a very low cost, and suppose that the device is very easy and cheap to build, and suppose that the device can spread like wildfire among or friends so at to make all our friends more and more powerful in a very short time.

What happens?

I’ll return to this discussion on this book alone or with some powerful help later.

If I am reading you the right way Joe, I think you are saying that forces are conspiring to make more money from energy supplies than is warranted, and that there are actually lots of those supplies left, so much so that there isn’t a big problem in the near future at least. Correct me if I am wrong.

I think there is no doubt that manipulation has gone on in the past. If memory serves me, that was one of Enron’s dirty tricks. I wouldn’t be surprised at more.

That said however, I think the energy situation will present some very real problems for us in the next few years. Crisis may be too strong a term, but dislocations could be fairly dramatic. You mentioned synthetic oil, and no doubt this will take on importance in the future. But from what I have read, all of these kinds of alternatives are problematic.

Coal can be burned cleanly by injecting the waste products underground. It can also be distilled into a liquid. And of course there are alternates like the oil sands in Alberta. But there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on how much it will cost to implement these strategies, or even if they are feasible on a large scale.

Just saying damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead is not going to work in the long term. We could just burn coal and get our energy that way (as China is doing), or go back into nuclear in a big way, but we would likely be setting ourselves up for an environmental disaster. The first would hike global warming horribly, not to mention the insult to our lungs, and the second would…well put it this way, would you want to live downwind from Chernobyl?

There may be grave constraints on all of these alternative energy sources, from technical, environmental, and financial standpoints. Today we still have oil in the ground, but how much? To put it more precisely, how much in relation to increasing demand, particularly from the third world? One simple calculation might give some perspective. Saudi Arabia claims by far the largest oil reserves in the world. Some consider these numbers suspect. Anyway, the official figure is about 260 billion barrels of oil. Divide that by the average annual world usage, and you get 8.4 years of oil. That’s not considering the increasing rate of demand. In other words, if we were to find another Saudi Arabia today, the largest deposit of oil ever found, never repeated again in that quantity, and something most in the field seriously doubt is possible, then it would give the world less than that time before we are behind the eight ball again.

It is likely that something will have to give, either the aspirations of all those millions in the third world who just want a reasonably comfortable life, like we have in the west, or it will be our environment, or maybe it will be us, and we will have to chuck the SUVs and buy some bicycles.

It is also likely that we will live through what the Chinese call “interesting times”.

etudiant,

I am just beginning to read the book, so my comments on the book are limited at the point.

On the subject matter I have much to offer, including important questions that could be answered accurately, or left open.

As to the actual measure of oil power available, the accurate measure, I can at least one source that questions the official measure known as Peak Oil.

Here is one of many sources:

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Here is a quote:

+++++++++++
Then suddenly the excitement was wiped off his face as he looked back at me and said, "I hope the Federal government doesn't pose any difficulty over this because of the fact that it's located on the very edge of the designated area from which we can produce." Then he looked back again and said, "Chaplain, if this is allowed to be produced, we can build another pipeline, and in another year's time we can flood America with Alaskan oil, our own oil, and we won't have to worry about the Arabs. We won't be dependent on any nation on earth. Chaplain, if there are two pools of oil here this big, there are many, many dozens of pools of oil all over this North Slope of Alaska." He went on to say, "Chaplain, America has just become energy independent." I must repeat that ... this high official of ARCO said, "America has just become energy independent."
+++++++++++

That is the tip of a very large ice burg of data.

Here is another very interesting link on a related angle:

http://www.waterfuelcell.org/

The truth can’t be both extreme ends of the possible truths.

Setting those things aside, think about this:

A production electric car can be purchased today (soon all the major manufacturers will be adding to the list of electric cars on the market) and the cost of fueling an electric car at current electricity prices is 2 cents per mile.

A gasoline powered car at today’s gasoline prices is approximately 10 cents per mile.

If the electric car person (or company with a fleet of cars) makes electricity by investing in solar panels the cost of electricity at today’s Solar Panel prices is even lower than current electricity prices.

Setting that aside, look into algae biomass fuel, just to add to the data that challenges the CRISIS ideology.

Right now in Brazil I have an on-line friend who says that Sugar based ethanol is available at the pumps in Brazil alongside gasoline (petroleum).

Sugar takes much longer to reproduce than algae by a very wide margin, which means that the return on investment will be much higher for algae biomass fuel than sugar can ever be, and sugar is already a current alternative to petroleum.

Setting that aside, there is already ample evidence that proves the viability of synthetic oil, which was the German military example during those crimes called World War Two (wars of aggression, total war, whatever words are used to describe what was done “legally”).

Setting that aside, the link between economic power and political power is rapidly becoming more visible because of the tearing down of political walls that were previously maintained by the suppression of information. In other words; the concept of abundant physical power, at the finger tips of the human species, is locked up due to the scarcity of political power, and so the key to unlock physical power is in unlocking political power; both locks are being opened in our time.

You raise some interesting points Joe. But I think a close examination shows that we have no easy answers to the energy dilemma.

The reserves in the North Slope of Alaska have been bandied about for some time. Conservatives have suggested that this is salvation for the US, and will help free it from foreign sources of oil. But the North Slope follows the patterns of many other relatively recent discoveries of oil. It is this: discoveries are getting, by our best estimates, smaller and smaller. Production from existing wells is diminishing. Demand is growing. Exponentially in the third world, somewhat less so in the first, but not inconsequential. At some point, these two lines on the graph are going to diverge. The break may be sudden and clean, or it may be (in my opinion) choppy and prolonged. If the marines went into the remaining areas of the North Slope tomorrow, shot all the caribou, ravished the environment, and drained the last nano-liter of oil from its caverns, with a straw if necessary, well, where would it get us?

The example of Saudi Arabia was for 260 billion barrels, or approximately 8.4 years worth of world consumption, not factoring in increasing demand. The North Slope may contain 10-20% of this amount of reserves. Where does that leave us? That’s about enough time for me to read the next dozen or so Book Talk non-fiction book selections, before trashing my car (a Honda Civic), because it is now too expensive to run.

The electric car, I would guess, is going to loom large in our future. But right now, here are the facts. Plugging in the electric car means more stress on the power grid. Today, 50% of power generated in the US comes from coal. Dirty coal. The figure for China is much higher. There are still major problems with battery powered travel, including limited range, battery operation in cold weather, the disposal of toxic products from batteries, and lack of infrastructure. Hopefully these will be addressed. But to date, it has been a long road. And the attitude in China has been: damn the environment, do whatever enables growth. In the US, it has been: damn the future, do whatever makes money. These aren’t policies that will lead us to nirvana.

I am not sure what you pay for a loaf of bread in your corner of the world Joe, but up here it has gone from about $1.50 a loaf to about $4.00 a loaf. Why is that? One of the big reasons is that so much land has now been set aside for biofuel production. Instead of producing grain, now corn production is in vogue, to offset the cost of fuel. In other words, we can pay much more for food, and the poor in the world can damn well starve, so that we can drive around in our SUVs and minivans for a little while longer. Not a recipe for nirvana, especially when countries like China are buying up farmland all over Africa because they are desperate for a steady source of food supply, which they can not supply for themselves because of increasing population, and a trashed environment.

To bring the discussion back to Germany again, yes they did pretty well with synthetic fuels. What choice did they have? At the time, it was life or death for them. And of course they did have the economic advantage of working slaves to death, rather than paying union rates and benefits to their “employees”. But it was a dire emergency. How many Americans, or Europeans, would today accept the severe restrictions on life necessary to support such a crash program? Up in my corner of the world, people are outraged if they can’t find a parking spot at their local mall, rather than walking a half mile or so.

Jim Morrison of “The Doors” said: no one gets out of here alive. I think no one is going to get out of the energy conundrum without paying at least a small amount of dues.

etudiant,

I stopped reading your reply there, I see a need to respond before moving on.

What if you are wrong? You say this, and you say that, and I respond with a specific question that will either be answered accurately or the answer will not be accurate.

How accurate is the answer?

What if you are wrong?



When I first heard of “Peak Oil” not too long ago, I began taking the steps to run for congress, again. The last time I ran for congress was after watching Federal troops burn babies alive in WACO Texas.

Before actually getting on the ballot this time, due to the “Peak Oil” scare, I began looking into the matter. This time I didn't get on the ballot, the scare became an obvious con job by my own measure. The last time I ran for congress I actually got on the ballot and even performed something similar to a political campaign (while holding down a 70 hour week job, and raising two young children, and helping my wife survive a crippling post partum depression) including an interview with one of the survivors of WACO around the time of the campaign.

I’ve kept track of all the links I’ve found since my scare concerning “Peak Oil” where I’ve found evidence that supports the opposite facts. I didn’t know then that Oil is abundant in Africa, Russia, Alaska, and I didn’t know then that new discoveries would become news items on a regular basis since that initial scare of "Peak Oil" (as official as it seemed then, and now for that matter), but I began to look. If you don’t look, the thing may not be seen, and I know this to be true; hence my skepticism concerning your viewpoint as quoted:



Who is in that set of people you point to with the word “our”?



I’ve read where empty wells are abandoned and later tested to find the wells full again; which lends data in support of the abiotic theory of oil production. My contention is that the facts are not “our” best estimates; the facts are what they are.

Who is doing the estimating?

Since I’ve been on this road my estimates include some of the things I’ve already linked. Demand for oil is declining as electric cars gain market share as the power to run those cars can be produced relatively less costly using solar generating devices.

2 cents per mile compared to 8 cents per mile is not an insignificant difference. Millions of people will refinance mortgage loans for the savings of a few percent of interest, to help put the measure in perspective 2 is 25% of 8 and is a savings of 75%.

What happens to the demand for petroleum (not “fossil”) fuels when petroleum is 75% more costly than the competition, and the competition does not produce pollution (or a pollution savings rate to be more precise)?

Algae fuel actually consumes CO2 in the process of making Algae fuel (and it produces a waste product called oxygen).

Currently the leverage of politics (actually the punishment arm of politics) is moving from punishing people for not using oil toward punishing people for using oil as fuel (and I can expand on that theme as needed).

Demand is growing for reason X and reason Y; while demand is diminishing for other reasons. What is the actual aggregate rate, what is the projected rate, are “we” in a position to know the accurate truth right now, or are we speculating, gambling, and what exactly are we gambling on?

Are you planning on buying an electric car and solar panels to power it? If not why not, what exactly is causing you to avoid saving all that money, you can afford not to right now?

The cost of electric cars will go down, and what does that do to the cost of oil powered cars, when so many Petroleum (not “fossil”) cars are already on the shelves?

Can you see, soon, someone finding his 5 year loan on a petroleum powered car being severely upside down (like the current home mortgage situation)?

Please note how I link petroleum power with legal money power; because there is a link.



I cut that out to focus attention on that word “exponential”.

The number 70 works out as a helpful number in figuring out when something good (or bad) will double in size; due to compounding or increasing the numbers that add to the numbers being added or compounding.

Example:

100% more stuff at 2% growth rate per year could be calculated as taking 50 years to get that doubling of size.

Use the number 70 to get a more accurate time frame because the things that are producing become more things that are producing in time.

70 divided by 2 equals 35
It takes 35 years to double (or reduce by half) the size of the thing being expanded (or contracted) exponentially.

What is the rate of expansion of the solar panel market's share of the power production market?

What is the rate of expansion of the electric car share of the power production market?

Cars are a “get someone somewhere quick” powerful device. Walking takes a lot of time.

Time is money.

I took time to search for NEWS on the growth rate of the Solar Panel part of the power market:

seekingalpha.com/article/85370-solar-gr ... revolution



Look around you. Do you see more Solar Panels? How about wind mills? One huge windmill is now reaching up into our skyline here in my home town.

What is the accurate rate of increase in market share (there is only so much demand for power) being taken away from petroleum power by solar (wind is solar) power electric producers right now?

How about tomorrow? What about Joe's Law? What happens when power reaches that condition of diminishing demand?

2 cents per mile compared to 10 cents per mile (or 8 cents for an efficient petroleum car) is significant.

What are oil prices going to do? Will petroleum (not “fossil”) fuels go up or down?

Will ‘central’ power plants charge more or less for electricity (the 2 cent per mile figure on electric cars is calculated for ‘central’ power plant prices not home produced prices of electric car fuel)?

Will the return on investment for solar panels (price per watt) go up or down as solar power becomes more and more efficient (it is just beginning on that path)?

What was the price of the first cell phone? What is the price of a better cell phone today?



Ok, well, here is where I am inclined toward posting gruesome pictures of innocent babies being tortured to death in Iraq because oil is in Iraq, but you can focus on what you think is important and I’ll restrain myself from doing what I am inclined toward at this moment.



Because you do not see something doesn’t cause something to disappear.

I picked up this book in question because the person writing it claims to be an authority on the subject, as you are now claiming to be, with your claims of percentages of petroleum supplies being what you claim they are; where did you get your data?

Why is your data accurate and why is Lindsay William’s data inaccurate?

I’m just a old worn out laborer who now pushes paper for meal or two; I prefer sources, paper trails, logical progressions of thoughts and actions, reasons, understanding, accurate perception, before belief, before conclusion, before moving on from a conclusion.



So now you are in a position to bring me into the light of facts on the power grid? I’m becoming severely set back on my heals as the subject matter turns toward areas I am not a novice on. Although your statement is factual on it’s face it avoids the specific point being placed at your feet.

The grid, as you put it, is what I call ‘central’ power producers. The grid is merely the connection, and if you would look at the controls on that connection you might find out something significant. I can make power at home cheaper than I can buy power from the ‘central’ power producers. I can push power into the “grid” and offset the price charged to me. What I cannot do is sell power back to the “grid”, why not?

Please think about that question before handing me the facts again.

If the laws (the controls) on the “grid” were such that any producer of power can sell power back to the grid, what happens to the “stress” on the “grid’ then?

Unlocking the political barriers to power are the first locks to be opened with the keys that unlock barriers to physical power. Politics is to psychological power as economics is to physical power.

Please understand my position here, as I read your offering to me, when you couch your offerings as “facts”, or lessons that I am now to be taught. I have not just fallen off the tuna boat, or I wasn’t just hatched yesterday.



Sources, please, sources, if all you do is plop on the table these “facts” (ambiguous facts at that), then all I am left with is a requirement to trust you at your capacity to discover the facts. That alone may not be so difficult; however I’ve been on this path for some time now

A. Limited range

When I sent a letter to Elon Musk’s company e-mail TESLA MOTORS on the subject of range I suggested to them two possible range solutions (the range of their sports car is already at 244 miles)

1. Quick change battery packs (that is already done by them according to them I think the time was 5 minutes)
2. Range trailers (like U-Haul trailers, and more on that later if I find the time = "infrastruture")

http://www.teslamotors.com/

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/perf_specs.php

That is my time for today. I read chapter one in the book and when I get time I will try to return to continue this discussion (I have to finish reading the last offering and respond in kind) and comment on the first chapter.

Joe- It sounds like this is a subject that you feel very strongly about, and have looked into closely. It’s an important subject, and so I think it is a good thing to have some energy around it (no pun intended).

Sometimes communicating by text only can lead to misunderstandings, as we miss many of the non-verbal aspects of communication. So I hope you will not think that I am merely throwing out presumed “facts” in an arrogant or inflexible manner. This is not my intent. I think all any of us can do is to read and listen, and of course to apply critical thinking to all that we take in. Short of having the authority and resources to go on fact-finding missions, or to take a course of studies in the relevant fields, I think this is what we have. In fact I think one of the best things about this kind of forum is the exchange of ideas, and the challenges that can keep us thinking.

You would like to see some references, and I don’t have them. Maybe you are a better record keeper than I am Joe, but I don’t tend to keep track of these things. Just sitting here at the keyboard and trusting memory, I can come up with a few general things. Mathew Simmons, a financier in the oil business, wrote Twilight in the Desert, a book about the oil industry. Jeff Rubin, an economist formerly at the CIBC bank, also wrote a book recently on the same topic. The geologist Colin Campbell has of course written extensively about this subject. Paul Krugman, economist and NY Times columnist has, if I remember correctly, written several columns about this. The historian Gwynne Dyer has taken an interest in this subject, and has written a book, and also several columns in his online blog. The environmentalist David Suzuki has also commented on, and written about this subject frequently. The IEA, the International Energy Agency, monitors these issues and reports to a number of governments. I do recall the bit about the electric car, because that was very recent. Jeremy Cato, a Globe and Mail contributor, was interviewing Bob Lutz, a Vice Chairman at GM, who made the comment that the lithium ion batteries in cars would not work well in cold temperatures, maybe not at all if it was cold enough. This is a big consideration in my part of the world.

It sounds like you are adamant that new discoveries of oil are not getting smaller in relation to past discoveries. I stated this in a forthright manner, because from my readings this is one of a limited number of non-controversial items in this debate. There are quite a few that are controversial, but this didn’t seem to be one of them. In fact there seems to be an overall general agreement in relation to this. Certainly new fields have been found, some of them substantial, but no new Saudi Arabia’s, no new North Sea’s. And furthermore, what is being found today is often in very difficult to get at places, like several miles under the ocean floor, in the hurricane prone Gulf of Mexico, or other such spots.

The figures for exploration by western companies are not too difficult, as they are published and open to challenge, from the news media, regulatory bodies, or concerned individuals. The big producers in the Middle East are a different story. I said earlier that their estimates of reserves are suspect because of an event back in the ‘80s. The OPEC producers had a formula for deciding who could produce how much oil. Obviously, the more they produced and sold, the more money they had. At that time the formula was changed; it was now proportionately based on the amount of reserves a country had. Well surprise surprise, some OPEC members found that their reserves of oil went up by a factor of two or even more, overnight. All clerical errors perhaps. The Middle East stills contains a huge percentage of proven oil reserves, and so if these numbers are really off by quite a bit, the world is in much more dire a situation than has been thought. It is hard to know for sure, because the said countries do not allow public scrutiny.

Also, the depletion of wells seems to be, in general, not a controversy with geologists. New deposits are found, and this generally means there is more in the area. Wells are sunk, the going is good for a while, and then it gets a little more dodgy. The bottom half, so to speak, is tougher to get out, and requires various technologies to get at. Eventually, even with the advanced technologies we have today, production tapers off, and then becomes uneconomical, even though there are invariably some dregs left. Represented on a graph, this looks like a line going up steeply, a choppy plateau for a while, and then a line going down again pretty steeply. Some think that even newer technologies may allow more extraction, but we are talking about ever smaller amounts here. The North Sea, for example, was a bonanza at first, then required more technical intervention, like pumping in seawater to the oil deposits to lift it out, sideways drilling, etc. Despite this, there was an inevitable decline, and the fields by some estimates are depleting at a rate of 4% per year.

I didn’t have too much to say about renewables, because again, and this of course just my take on it, there seemed to be two points on which all commentators agreed on. One was that renewables were an extremely good idea, were making slow but steady progress, and would undoubtedly be much bigger in our lives in the future. The second point was that without profoundly changing our lifestyles, there is no way they can provide more than a small percentage of power requirements at the present time. And I have to stop right here and tell you that I live in one of the greenest parts of the world. People here still wear tie-dyed t-shirts with peace signs, Green Party members are prominent in local government, and people still using plastic bags are looked on with a mixture of pity and disgust. Personally, I would like to see a shift in lifestyles towards the greener end of the spectrum. But I also realize that it is not going to happen. How many people do you know willing to scrap their SUV or minivan, and buy a mountain bike? Because that is the magnitude of shift that would be required with little to no oil, coal, or nuclear.

We probably have less disagreement when it comes to cars. Certainly electric, or hydrogen, or some sort of hybrid will certainly be the future. Our neighbours just bought a hybrid and are very happy with it. But again, my understanding is that renewables just will not be enough for an electric car fleet. Which means that we will have to burn more oil, or coal, or go nuclear to accommodate a wholesale changeover, at this time and stage of development.

As I said, we are not going to get out of this without paying some dues, and likely some big ones. Here in the developed world, we will have to get used to less consumption and luxury. We will have to bite the bullet and spend huge amounts on things like cleaner coal plants, conversion to renewables, and safe disposal on nuclear waste. Those in the third world may have to temper their expectations of the future. To what extent any of the above does or does not happen will contribute to our living through “interesting times”.

+++++++++
Sometimes communicating by text only can lead to misunderstandings, as we miss many of the non-verbal aspects of communication.
+++++++++

etudiant,

What I do during discussions on forums is to read and respond, sometimes I get behind and fail to read the entire message from someone I am connected to like this, I didn’t read past that quote above yet, and I didn’t read much of your last reply. I can be sorry about my offensive text, it is meant as defensive, but I’d rather be free to speak freely, rather than being sorry, I can learn to be less aggressive, which I have learned to do.

For my part I prefer knowing that I am wrong about anything rather than being wrong for any reason whatsoever, that doesn’t stop me from arriving at conclusions, so as to move to testing those conclusions, etc.

I’ll read on.

+++++++++
I think one of the best things about this kind of forum is the exchange of ideas, and the challenges that can keep us thinking.
+++++++++

I picked this book to review because the author has claimed to be in a position to find facts. It is already evident that he has found facts in the second chapter where he offers a list of opponents on this issue as such:

1. The Geologists
2. The Economists
3. The Militarists
4. The Environmentalists
5. The Neo-Luddites

Robin M. Mills may be a woman; I have yet to know the author’s gender so I use the default masculine.

I endeavor, and perhaps succeed, in addressing the text read, and I try not to address any inferences I may add in between the lines of text. I will misunderstand, that is one fact that is difficult to disprove.

+++++++++++
Maybe you are a better record keeper than I am Joe, but I don’t tend to keep track of these things.
+++++++++++

Here is my record keeping effort:

http://www.power-independence.com/

I also have a library strewn about my house, mixed in with the books read by the other residents here. I don’t leave many notes in books but some books I have bent pages marking them as being significant.

Here, for my memory, is the text you wrote where I spun off on defense mode:

+++++++++
It is this: discoveries are getting, by our best estimates, smaller and smaller.
+++++++++

My personal experience is such that discoveries are continuing to occur. One resent one was in Russia, I’ll Google for such a thing.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/oil ... ng-to.html

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

MOSCOW -- Swedish oil company Lundin Petroleum announced it has made a major oil discovery in Russia's north Caspian Sea. The discovery was made during exploratory drilling on the Morskaya-1 well on the Lagansky block, which has estimated reserves of more than 800 million barrels of oil.

I remember seeing that as it broke into main stream (Global, not U.S.A. Inc. Main Stream) news.

Your experience, as you remember it, may be much more accurate than mine, how do I know which is more accurate? Is this important stuff?

Did you experience the economic effects of increased oil prices (decreased oil availability) in the 1970s?

I’m reading your reply again, and I am comparing your list of people writing on this subject with the list in the second chapter of the book.

Colin Campbell is listed as a Geologist.
Mathew Simmons in listed in the Index

I don’t see Rubin.

Search:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5439

I’m hearing unsupported conclusions.
A. The true aggregate cost per barrel of oil (Rubin speaks of 50 dollars per barrel oil costs – as far as I can tell)
B. “There can be no energy bail-out”

That is as far as I’m going with Rubin for now, and he is no longer on my list of authorities. That B statement would be demonstrably false or true if it weren’t ambiguous to a degree of near uselessness, other than the use of terrorizing the listeners – perhaps.

Krugman isn’t listed in the index of the book; searching:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... l-numbers/

N.Y.Times?

Any “main stream NEWS” people who do not know about or write about CAFR or Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports is not on my list of authoritative NEWS people. If someone is at the top of authoritative NEWS, they get those reports, they know about CAFR – why don’t they tell us about those reports.

Putting that aside I will still read the oil numbers listed.

Ok, the guy says that oil production has stalled. How does that data compare to the data where the oil producers confess, willingly confess, to cutting oil production so as to cause oil scarcity so as to cause higher oil prices?

Which is true? Are the oil producers reporting false data or are the NEWS people reporting false data, or is the seemingly contradictory data accurate?

I don’t know, I see contradiction and both sources may be true, or false, the point here is to point out how fear-mongering tends to transfer power from the fearful to those producing the fear. I could see that in the B statement:

B. “There can be no energy bail-out”

I’ll set this angle aside for more data from you.

++++++++++
I do recall the bit about the electric car, because that was very recent. Jeremy Cato, a Globe and Mail contributor, was interviewing Bob Lutz, a Vice Chairman at GM, who made the comment that the lithium ion batteries in cars would not work well in cold temperatures, maybe not at all if it was cold enough. This is a big consideration in my part of the world.
++++++++

Searching:

++++++++++
Will the Tesla Roadster work on a cold day?
Yes, the Battery has a heater that will keep the cells warm in a cold climate. Tesla performs extreme cold-weather testing on a frozen lake bed in Sweden, and we sell cars throughout Scandinavia and Canada.
+++++++++

I’ve been following Elon Musk’s work since reading Pay Pal Wars:

He has three companies now (after selling Pay Pal):

Tesla, Space X, and Solar City

I’ve been watching the move from oil to electric (hybrids are silly) for some time now, almost every major auto manufacturer is moving to electric and China has a leg up since they don’t have to re-tool, they are beginning the process of mass production automobiles and they are going electric.

Here is a quick search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sour ... f&aqi=&oq=

I go past the NYTimes and on to a global source (U.S.A. Inc censors too much data):

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Busi ... 9Cb01.html

+++++++++++
Last February, the Ministry of Finance announced a new commitment to promote alternative fuel vehicles in the country's 13 largest cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Zhangchun, Dalian, Hangzhou, Jinan, Wuhan, Shenzhen, Hefei, Kunming, and Nanchang. The mandate calls for public services to begin adopting alternative fuel vehicles in these cities and provides subsidies for production and purchasing of alternative fuel cell vehicles, including 50,000 yuan per hybrid and 60,000 yuan per fully-electric model produced by domestic car manufacturers.

While there are many different alternative fuel cars being considered (ethanol, natural gas, hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel to name a few), electric vehicles are currently the most promising. They are simply more efficient than gasoline cars, and promise a combination of lower fuel costs, lower emissions, and lower production costs compared with most other competitive alternative fuel cars.
+++++++++++

I use the word “silly” to describe “hybrids”, that isn’t very specific, but knowing what I know now I will not buy a “hybrid”; I’d be silly to do so – that is me, just me, and I’m not going to be silly that way.

We are holding off on upgrading our worn out vehicles, I am, electric will soon put all the gasoline powered stuff out of reach, unaffordable to anyone but those who can afford them. Doesn’t that make sense; about 6 to 8 cents per mile worth of sense?

+++++++++++

It sounds like you are adamant that new discoveries of oil are not getting smaller in relation to past discoveries.
+++++++++++

I need to know what that word means.

+++++++++

unshakable or insistent especially in maintaining a position or opinion
++++++++++

That is not accurate. If no contentious data existed; why would I disbelieve the official version?

I’m going to offer some Latin:

Cui bono

Who benefits from fear-mongering? If there is something to be concerned about, the thing to do is know the facts, and then address the facts reasonably.

++++++++++++
stated this in a forthright manner, because from my readings this is one of a limited number of non-controversial items in this debate.
++++++++++++

What is the true quantity of petroleum? Why do the producers of the ready stuff, the petroleum that is on the shelf, or being shipped to the shelf, why is that quantity restricted?

Why is the oil supply being constricted?

Example:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/disp ... 7/pm_opec/

++++++++++
Alarmed by the plummeting price of oil, OPEC ministers today announced a record cut in future output -- 2.2-million barrels per day beginning January 1st.
++++++++++

When OPEC cuts production, why doesn’t a non OPEC producer take over market share?

You may think that I am dodging, or you may be actively trying to understand the questions, the relevance of the questions, etc. I’m doing what I think is my part in this discussion.

++++++++++
the world is in much more dire a situation than has been thought
++++++++++

If I lived in Iraq, having my life destroyed, what would be my version of this impending direness? What if the true reason for being in Iraq is to stop Iraqis from taking too much market share, flooding the market, and driving prices lower?

What if your view is wrong and what if my view is accurate? What is going to happen to the Iranians, as they flood the market with oil, once they can afford to do so when they get on-line with Nuclear Power and greater supplies of Natural Gas and once they no longer have more surplus oil production for sale?

Why was Iran covertly overthrown by the U.S.A Inc. and the British corporate entities in 1952 – 1953? Were the corporate criminals bring democracy to Iran in the form of a the so called Strong Man the ever so notorious Shah of Iran?

Did you know what constitutes the link between oil power and legal money – specifically the link between OPEC and what is known as The Dollar Hegemony?

Am I too “out there”?

The official version of what happened in Iran in 1952 – 1953 can be referred to if needed.

The official version of who supported Saddam Hussein’s rise to power can be referred to if needed.

The official version of who supported Osama Bin Laden’s rise to power can be referred to if needed.

Those events are consequences of the CAFR story.

The fear-mongering story is a consequence of the failure of honest productive people in their capacity to avoid being victimized, by such things as the story behind CAFR.

Setting the past aside, if it is too heavy, or too burdensome, or too confused, or too ambiguous, or to messy, or too torturous, or too mass murderous, can offer the perceiver a powerful future. What happens when power is abundant?

Now I’m wandering, so I’ll return to your offerings.

++++++++++
But I also realize that it is not going to happen.
++++++++++

Well, I’m not seeing much point in my continuing this discussion. I have seen specific moves in my lifetime, drastic changes, not the least of which is a huge change in the flow of data, from a very restricted flow, to a wide open abundance of data. The mind must be free before the body can be directed toward greater freedom, or liberty, or power.

I’ll stop here, mull things over, and I will move on – somewhere.

I can’t even find the inspiration to edit this draft.

As luck or providence (or willfully being in the right place at the right time by the power of a productive mix of intuition and earned wisdom) I've managed to get a copy of something that offers me, and perhaps a reader or two, a few words of sympathy.

Here is the link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26415787/H...w-it-all-works

Here are the words:



Truly, I just found those words this morning, on my morning search routine, and I find those words relevant and sympathetic - whatever else may be in that link I can't criticize since I'm just now reading it.

To someone reading the topic book please know that my estimate is that the book offers a measure of optimism in the face of much pessimism; so far as I’ve read of it to date.

Joe- I read an from the Manchester Guardian that you might be interested in:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -oil-close

etudiant,

Thanks; but I read very little of that link. What is the point of spreading only doom and gloom? Why not point out how the same power behind oil profits is investing that power to eliminate the competition?

Why not show how the competition continues to compete despite the power being invested toward the destruction of competition?

Why not show how doom and gloom can not only be avoided, show how it is being avoided?

What is the point of failing to see the productive path?

What is the point of only seeing the destructive path?

Which is worthy of investments in time and energy (power)?

Who profits, whose best interest, are doom, gloom, and destruction?

My interest is in living, and living well, to get there, to be there, I must help my fellow human beings gain that power - not destroy it.

Hey Joe, it sounds like you're working around the simplicity of the problem. It seems actually fairly straightforward. We have ever-increasing energy consumption in the world which is heavily reliant on petroleum. I think it's a fact that the world's oil fields are being pushed to the limit and new oil fields are few and rely more on more difficult and expensive means of extraction. Regardless, there will come a point of peak oil production. There's simply no question about that. Whether it's happening now or will happen 5, 10, or 50 years from now is the biggest question. Not if but when.

I remember first reading about peak oil about five years ago and it was deeply, deeply disturbing. The ramifications are huge for the human species. We are living now in a bubble that relies on cheap energy. When that cheap energy runs out, our economies will come apart at the seams. Indeed we can only hope that alternative energy sources will be developed in time, but it seems likely we'll see a very difficult period of transition.

I stummbled onto a great article a few months back about a project William and Mary University has started regarding harvesting algae for fuel. A group was conducting this project in the Chesapeake bay. Actually, Robert Tulip turned me on to it. Actually, Robert Tulip has a great site on algae production for fuel. Sorry, I no longer have the links Robert provided me. I also remember months back, there was a dicussion about placing windmills on Martha's Vineyard. This idea was met with opposition from the residents, including the late Senator Ted Kennedy. The residents claimed that the windmills would interfer with their beautiful veiw. Also solar heat is an excellent alternative, however, the cost of installing the materials needed is steep. I have friends who installed solar panels to their existing home, cost them over 50K.



No kidding it's disturbing. It just seems to me that inconveniences will be needed to be tollerated, such as the inability to enjoy a beautiful view on Martha's Vineyard, or driving smaller and slower moving cars, before mere inconvenience becomes disaster.

I agree, Suzanne. We'll need to train ourselves to see wind turbines almost everywhere and think, "How beautiful." Wind turbines are an issue for the Appalachian Trail, too. I love the trail (and my wife works for ATC), but I just wonder if concern about the "viewshed" is productive if it means lobbying against wind installations that can be seen from the trail. (I argue with my wife about this.)

As you seem to think, I think we are fooling ourselves about the prospect of maintaining our style of living just by switching to another energy source. Every next miracle source turns out to have downsides--big ones. I'm sure algae farming would be no exception.

When we look at the future of energy supply, I think that like many things there are almost always favorable and unfavorable aspects to look at. If oil really is about to go into short supply, personally I think these are some items that will be positive:

We may end up with more livable communities. Less cars, less blacktop, along with more green space and more public transit may be an outcome of declining oil and a consequent spike in prices. Would you rather live next to an eight-lane freeway, or a bicycle and pedestrian path?

If food products become too expensive to transport all over the world, some items (like maybe coffee for example) may become more expensive, but we also may become more self-reliant, growing more food near cities where it is to be consumed, or even in cities. It may even be fresher.

Transport costs may also make some manufactured products much more costly to be carried long distances. This may have the effect of returning some manufacturing jobs to places like North America, which has seen a drain in this type of employment in recent years.

Global warming may be mitigated somewhat with less oil burned. That’s as long as no one caves in the easy solution of just burning tons of coal to generate power. This brings us around to the negative aspects of possible oil shortage.

By denying any problem with supply, we could be setting ourselves up for greater consequences than would otherwise be the case. Building more freeways, ever larger cars, decentralized cities, and energy inefficient houses, might mean more (expensive) backtracking in the future.

When I mentioned living through “interesting times”, I was thinking of the possible political response to a sudden sharp decrease in the availability of oil products. There would be an awfully big temptation to go for the easiest and quickest solutions. Politicians have, what, a four year time-frame? What is well known to present day science is coal powered energy generation, and also nuclear technology. These could be expanded without much thought. And it would indeed be thoughtless. Dirty coal would accelerate global warming, and nuclear, although it has a reasonably good record overall, would need only one more major accident to not only wreck a good part of the landscape, but probably also put an end to the enterprise.

In other words, no easy fix. A lot of people are going to have to have a major psychological adjustment, one way or the other.

As for corporations conspiring to pump up prices by claiming shortages, I’m not so sure about this. There is some evidence now that price is now beyond the control of organizations like OPEC. Saudi Arabia used to claim to be a “swing producer”, meaning that if prices got too low, they would curtail production to get it back to their target price. They could do this because of their vast reserves, indeed the only country with this size of reserve. And if prices were too high, they could increase production to drop it somewhat. Wait a minute, too high? Yep, that’s right too high. The members of OPEC realize that if prices go to high, they loose. Conservation will come back to prominence, and worse, the world could drop into a depression, cutting energy demand dramactly. And indeed the Saudi’s have been the most vocal in saying that there is no peak oil, and that their reserves will last another century or more.

But many informed commentators have stated that in the last few years, the Saudi’s have done nothing but attempted to keep up. In other words they are going flat out now, no chance of playing with the spigot for economic or geopolitical reasons. Demand has paced and come parallel with supply. Many Middle-East states have done little to diversify away from oil as a major income earner, and as a result are no better prepared for the future than energy hogging western countries. They really can’t reduce production now by very much, as they are a one-trick pony, and need the money, and it also seems they cannot increase it by much either. When the current recession ends, the parallel lines on the graph may start to diverge, and demand will gradually start to outstrip supply. China is financing highway construction and encouraging private car ownership at a rapid clip. Vehicle production there has already surpassed that in the US.

When it comes to the western oil corporations, I think it a safe bet that they are interested in money, and that few in their ranks have a sentimental view of oil production. If the batteries for electric cars are the way to make money in the future, I’m sure they would go for it. If liquefied coal showed the most promise for investment returns, or low-cost, safety free nuclear reactors for beginners, again, I think we would see a sharp turn in corporate strategy. With capitalism, money flows to where profit is perceived; other considerations take a back seat. If oil is tapering off, why lie about it, and potentially be embarrassed, or worse, by some crusading journalist or prying government official? Ship your money out; that’s the capitalist impulse.

I think I could imagine more people with a motivation to keep a lid on the idea of peak oil, than the opposite

geo,

I have much to respond to here, falling behind, so I see a need to be very concise.

Your signature reads:



When religious people knock on the door, I question the authority of the bible. I’m then no longer part of their discussion.

I’m questioning your belief; and I’m doing so because much data is readily available where your belief is proven wrong. At least, it seems to me, the data that proves your belief to be wrong is in need of acknowledgement – if nothing else.

Example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk

Who can be sent up to Alaska to see how much oil really does exist there?

Who can be trusted to measure accurately?

What is the truth?

What is merely belief?

How can you move on to conclude things when you must depend upon contentious belief?

Even if what you say is true, your belief, isn’t the path ahead the same path? Where can human beings gain the power required to survive well?