This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: As Things Fell Apart, Nobody Paid Much Attention

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform

As Things Fell Apart, Nobody Paid Much Attention

The American way of life – which is now virtually synonymous with
suburbia – can run only on reliable supplies of dependably cheap oil
and gas. Even mild to moderate deviations in either price or supply will
crush our economy and make the logistics of daily life impossible. – Jim Kunstler –
The Long Emergency

  

Here we stand
Like an Adam and an Eve
Waterfalls
The Garden of Eden

Two fools in love
So beautiful and strong
The birds in the trees
Are smiling upon them


From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?
Now, it’s nothing but flowers

                        Talking Heads – Nothing but Flowers

America was a Garden of Eden with nothing but flowers, trees and
vegetation. We bit into the forbidden fruit of oil over a century ago.
It has been a deal with the Devil. Oil brought immense wealth, rapid
industrialization, 2.7 million miles of paved roads, and enormous power
to America. But, now the SUV is running on empty. In the not too distant
future the downside of the deal with the Devil will reveal itself.
America was the land of the free and home of the brave. Now it is the
land of the Range Rover and home of the BMW. In a few years it could be
the land of the forlorn and home of the broken down. Our entire society
has been built upon a foundation of cheap oil. The discovery of oil in
Titusville, PA in 1859 turbo charged the Industrial Revolution in the
U.S. The development of our sprawling suburban culture was dependent
upon cheap oil. Americans could not survive for a week without oil.
Commerce in the U.S. depends upon long haul truckers. Food is
transported thousands of miles to grocery stores. The cheap Wal-Mart
crap is transported thousands of miles across the seas from China.
Americans believe it is our God given right to cheap oil. We are the
chosen people. Kevin Phillips, in his brilliant book American Theocracy describes our love affair with cheap oil:

Americans constitute the world’s most intensive motoring culture.
For reasons of history and past abundance, no other national population
has clumped so complacently around so fuelish a lifestyle. For many
citizens the century of oil has brought surfeit: gas-guzzling mobile
fortresses, family excursions on twenty
thousand-thousand-gallons-per-hour jet aircraft, and lavishly lit
McMansions in glittering, mall packed exurbs along outer beltways.
Against a backdrop of declining national oil and gas output, Americans
consume 25% of world energy while holding just 5% of its energy
resources. As the new century began, Americans enjoyed a lifestyle
roughly twice as energy intensive as those in Europe and Japan, some ten
times the global average. Of the world’s 520 million automobiles,
unsurprisingly, more than 200 million were driven in the United States,
and the U.S. car population was increasing at five times the rate of the
human population. How long that could continue was not clear.

John and Jane Q. Citizen mostly ignore these trends and details,
and know nothing of geologist Hubbert’s bell-shaped charts of peak oil.
Senior oil executives sometimes discuss them in industry conferences,
but elected officials – many with decades of energy platitudes under
their belts – typically shrink from opening what would be a Pandora’s
Box of political consequences. Oil was there for our grandfathers, they
insist, and it will be there for our grandchildren; it is part of the American way.

Ignoring the facts and pretending that we can count on cheap oil for
eternity is delusional. It is also the American way. The age of oil is
coming to an end.  

  

    

There are consequences to every action. There are also consequences
to every inaction. Over the next decade Americans will experience the
dire consequences of inaction. The implications of peak cheap oil have
been apparent for decades. The Department of Energy was created in 1977.
The Department of Energy’s overarching mission was to
advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United
States. In 1970, the U.S. imported only 24% of its oil. There were 108
million motor vehicles in the U.S., or .53 vehicles per person in the
U.S. Today, the U.S. imports 70% of its oil and there are 260 million
vehicles, or .84 vehicles per person. Jim Kunstler describes our bleak
future in The Long Emergency:

 ”American people are sleepwalking into a future of hardship and
turbulence. The Long Emergency will change everything. Globalism will
wither. Life will become profoundly and intensely local. The consumer
economy will be a strange memory. Suburbia – considered a birthright and
a reality by millions of Americans – will become untenable. We will
struggle to feed ourselves. We may exhaust and bankrupt ourselves in the
effort to prop up the unsustainable. And finally, the United States may
not hold together as a nation. We are entering an uncharted territory
of history.”

The land of the delusional has no inkling that their lives of happy
motoring are winding down. The vast majority of Americans believe that
oil is abundant and limitless. Their leaders have lied to them. They
will be completely blindsided by the coming age of hardship.

Factories & Shopping Malls

     

     

There was a factory
Now there are mountains and rivers
you got it, you got it
 
We caught a rattlesnake
Now we got something for dinner
we got it, we got it
 
There was a shopping mall
Now it’s all covered with flowers
you’ve got it, you’ve got it
 
If this is paradise
I wish I had a lawnmower
you’ve got it, you’ve got it

                                     Talking Heads – Nothing but Flowers

If Americans had any sense of history longer than last week’s episode
of Dancing with the Stars (how about that Bristol Palin!), they may
have noticed that the modern age has lasted a mere 150 years and has
been completely dependent upon cheap plentiful oil. This is a mere eye
blink in the history of mankind.  American exceptionalism refers to the
opinion that the United States is qualitatively different from other
nations. Its exceptionalism is claimed to stem from its emergence from a
revolution, becoming “the first new nation” and developing “a unique
American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism,
populism and laissez-faire”. This feeling of superiority stems from the
belief that we have a moral superiority and God has chosen our country
to be a shining symbol for the rest of the world. It is the ultimate in
hubris to think that we are the chosen ones. An enormous amount of
credit for the American Century (1900 – 2000) must be given to pure and
simple luck.

Everything characteristic about the condition we call modern life
has been a direct result of our access to abundant supplies of cheap
fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have permitted us to fly, to go where we want
to go rapidly, and move things easily from place to place. Fossil fuels
rescued us from the despotic darkness of the night. They have made the
pharaonic scale of building commonplace everywhere. They have allowed a
fractionally tiny percentage of our swollen populations to produce
massive amounts of food. All of the marvels and miracles of the
twentieth century were enabled by our access to abundant supplies of
cheap fossil fuels. The age of fossil fuels is about to end. There is no
replacement for them at hand. These facts are poorly understood by the
global population preoccupied with the thrum of daily life, but
tragically, too, by the educated classes in the United States, who
continue to be by far the greatest squanderers of fossil fuels. –
Jim Kunstler – The Long Emergency

Every accomplishment, invention, and discovery of the 20th
Century was due to cheap accessible fossil fuels. The American
industrial age was powered by cheap plentiful oil. One hundred and ten
years after the discovery of oil in Titusville, PA an American walked on
the moon. We harnessed the immense power of oil and rode it hard. An
empire was born and grew to the greatest in history through the
utilization of oil and oil byproducts. It is no coincidence that U.S.
GDP has been dependent upon the growth in fossil fuel consumption over
the last 150 years.  

       

The self centered delusional myopic American citizenry see no
parallel between the American Empire built on a foundation of oil and
the Dutch Empire built upon wind and water or the British Empire
established on the discovery of vast quantities of coal. The Dutch
Empire of the 1600s had 6,000 ships and 1,000 windmills generating
power. The British Empire used coal to power steam engines, pumps,
locomotives and ships and forged a great empire in the 1700s and 1800s.
Today, the Netherlands has a GDP lower than Mexico. The U.K. has a GDP
on par with Italy. You can be sure you are no longer an empire when your
GDP is on par with Mexico and Italy. The United States has grown its
GDP to $14.7 trillion by exploiting fossil fuels. The American Empire is
clearly waning as its dependence on foreign oil slowly bankrupts the
country. We consume 140 billion gallons of gasoline every year keeping
our suburban sprawl mall based lifestyle viable.   

Cars, Highways & Billboards 

     

Years ago
I was an angry young man
I’d pretend
That I was a billboard

Standing tall
By the side of the road

I fell in love
With a beautiful highway

This used to be real estate
Now it’s only fields and trees
Where, where is the town
Now, it’s nothing but flowers

The highways and cars
Were sacrificed for agriculture
I thought that we’d start over
But I guess I was wrong

                                    Talking Heads – Nothing but Flowers

Americans believe our ingenuity, brilliance and blessings from God
have led to the elevation of our country to eminence as the greatest
empire in history. But, in reality it was due to a black sticky
substance that we stumbled across in 1859. Those who believe in American
Exceptionalism scoff at the idea that our empire would not exist
without oil. They prefer to ignore and downplay the impact of oil on our
society. Too bad. Here are the facts from www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/.

  • Approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US. 
  • Pesticides and agro-chemicals are made from oil. 
  • Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas. 
  • Most farming implements such as tractors and trailers are constructed and powered using oil-derived fuels. 
  • Food storage systems such as refrigerators are manufactured in
    oil-powered plants, distributed using oil-powered transportation
    networks and usually run on electricity, which most often comes from
    natural gas or coal.
     
  • The average piece of food is transported almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. 
  • In addition to transportation, food, water, and modern medicine,
    mass quantities of oil are required for all plastics, all computers and
    all high-tech devices.
     
  • The construction of an average car consumes the energy equivalent of approximately 20 barrels of oil. 
  • The construction of the average desktop computer consumes ten times its weight in fossil fuels. 
  • According to the American Chemical Society, the construction of
    single 32 megabyte DRAM chip requires 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels.
     
  • Recent estimates indicate the infrastructure necessary to
    support the internet consumes 10% of all the electricity produced in the
    United States.
     
  • The manufacturing of one ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTUs
    of energy, which is the amount contained in about 45 gallons of oil.
     

Our entire civilization will collapse in a week without oil. Try to
imagine life if the 159,000 gas stations in the country ran dry. We are
running on fumes and refuse to acknowledge that fact. We sooth our
psyche with delusions of green energy (solar, wind, ethanol); drill,
drill, drill mantras; abiotic oil theories; and vast quantities of shale
gas. The concept of energy required to extract an amount of energy
completely goes over the head of media pundits and those who prefer not
to think. If you expend 2 gallons of gasoline in your effort to extract 1
gallon of gasoline, you’ve hit the wall. We have sacrificed our future
in order to maximize our present, as William James concluded in the late
1800s:

“The most significant characteristic of modern civilization is
the sacrifice of the future for the present, and all the power of
science has been prostituted to this purpose.”

Americans have a fatal character flaw of desiring others to think
they are successful because they drive an expensive gas guzzling
automobile and reside in an immense energy intensive McMansion in
suburbs 30 miles from civilization. Delusional Americans have convinced
themselves that the appearance of success is success. Leasing $50,000
BMWs for decades and borrowing $500,000 to live in a $300,000 house has
already pushed millions of egotistical to the edge. Of the 250 million
passenger vehicles on the road today, 100 million are SUVs or pickup
trucks. The average fuel mileage is 17 mpg. Approximately 70% of
Americans drive to work every day, with 85% driving alone. They spend 45
minutes on average commuting to and from work and drive 15 miles to
work. The average home size increased from 1,400 sq ft in 1970 to 2,300
sq ft today, despite the fact that the average household size decreased
from 3.1 to 2.6. The bigger is better fantasy will be devastating on the
downward slope of peak oil.    

Pizza Huts, Dairy Queens & 7 Elevens

     

   

 
Once there were parking lots
Now it’s a peaceful oasis
you got it, you got it
 
This was a Pizza Hut
Now it’s all covered with daisies
you got it, you got it
 
I miss the honky tonks,
Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens
you got it, you got it

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention
you got it, you got it

                                     Talking Heads – Nothing but Flowers

How will Americans survive without the 7,500 Pizza Huts, 5,000 Dairy
Queens, and 8,000 7-11s that dot our highways? The average Joe is so
busy tweeting, texting, and face-booking on their iPads, Blackberries,
and laptops, watching Dancing With the Stars on their 52 inch HDTV
bought on credit, or cruising superhighways in their leased Hummers to
one of the 1,100 malls or 46,000 shopping centers, that they haven’t
paid much attention as peak oil crept up on them. The globalization
miracle of cheap goods produced in China and shipped across the world by
cargo ship and then trucked thousands of miles to your local Wal-Mart
is wholly reliant upon cheap oil. Our own military has concluded that:

 By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely
disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach
nearly 10 MBD. – Joint Operating Environment Report 

When worldwide oil demand slightly exceeded worldwide oil supply in
2008, prices surged to $145 per barrel. A 10 million barrel per day
shortfall is unfathomable by the purposefully ignorant masses. The
sprawling suburbia that now houses the American population will become
not viable when oil prices rise above $200 per barrel. Out-of-town
shopping and entertainment malls will be deserted. The prosperity borne
from the advent of oil is waning. Jim Kunstler explains the end game in The Long Emergency:

The entropic mess that our economy has become is in the final
blow-off of late oil-based industrialism. The destructive practices
known as “free market globalism” were engendered by our run-up to and
arrival at the world oil production peak. It was the logical climax of
the oil “story”. It required the breakdown of all previous constraints –
logistical, political, moral, cultural – to maximize the present at the
expense of the future, and to do so for the benefit of the very few at
the expense of the many. Even mild to moderate deviations in either
price or supply [of oil and gas] will crush our economy and make the
logistics of daily life impossible.
 

The United States is already tottering, as the oligarchy of the Wall
Street banking syndicate, global mega-corporations and corrupt political
hacks in Washington DC have pillaged the wealth of the country and left
a middle class gasping for air. The mood of the country is already
darkening as The Fourth Turning
gathers steam. The recognition by the masses that peak cheap oil is a
fact will contribute greatly to the next stage of this Crisis. Fourth
Turning periods always lead to war. American troops are not in the
Middle East to spread democracy. They are the forward vanguard in the
coming clash over depleting oil resources. We are entering an era of
strife, war, chaos and destruction. The facts of who controls oil supply
and who needs oil (U.S. – 25%, China – 10%) are clear. Kunstler bluntly
deals with the facts:

Fossil fuel reserves are not scattered equitably around the
world. They tend to be concentrated in places where the native peoples
don’t like the West in general or America in particular, places
physically very remote, places where we realistically can exercise
little control (even if we wish to). The decline of fossil fuels is
certain to ignite chronic strife between nations contesting the
remaining supplies. These resource wars have already begun. There will
be more of them. They are very likely to grind on and on for decades.
They will only aggravate a situation that, in and of itself, could bring
down civilizations. The extent of suffering in our country will
certainly depend on how tenaciously we attempt to cling to obsolete
habits, customs, and assumptions – for instance, how fiercely Americans
decide to fight to maintain suburban lifestyles that simply cannot be
rationalized any longer. –  
Jim Kunstler – The Long Emergency

Mr. Kunstler believes that the U.S. will be forced to downscale,
localize and adapt to a new reality. I wholly support his attempt to
warn the American people and would urge those who chose to think that
preparing for a more agrarian lifestyle that will be forced upon us by
circumstances is essential. No technological miracle will save us from
our fate. Decades of inaction will have a price. I truly hope that his
optimism that hardship will renew the American spirit will reveal
itself:

“But I don’t doubt that the hardships of the future will draw
even the most secular spirits into an emergent spiritual practice of
some kind.”

As I live in the outer suburbs and commute 30 miles per day into the
decrepit decaying city of Philadelphia every day, I’m less optimistic
that the transition will be smooth or even possible. Kunstler’s view of
the suburbs is accurate:

“The state-of-the-art mega suburbs of recent decades have
produced horrendous levels of alienation, loneliness, anomie, anxiety,
and depression.”

Families stay huddled in their McMansions, protected from phantoms by
state of the art security systems. Their interaction with the world is
through their electronic gadgets. Neighborhoods of cookie cutter 4,000
sq ft mansions appear deserted. Human interaction is rare. Happiness is
in short supply. As I sit in miles of traffic every morning during my
soul destroying trek to work I observe the thousands of cars, SUVs, and
trucks and wonder how this can possibly work when the peak oil tsunami
washes over our society in the next few years. Then I reach the bowels
of the inner city and my pessimism grows. This concrete jungle is
occupied by hundreds of thousands of uneducated, unmotivated, wards of
the state. They live a bleak existence in bleak surroundings and depend
upon subsistence payments from the depressed suburbanites to keep them
alive. How will they survive in a post peak oil world? They won’t.

The Hirsch Report and Jim Kunstler’s  The Long Emergency
both were published in 2005. M. King Hubbert warned U.S. leaders
decades in advance about the expected timing of peak oil. The warnings
have fallen on deaf ears. We were busy with our wars of choice, home
price wealth, gays in the military, and the latest episode of Jersey
Shore.

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:45 | 740865 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

go to hell with your peak oil lies, and take your globalist banksta promoted carbon taxes wit you.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:49 | 740877 Internet Tough Guy
Internet Tough Guy's picture

Right on bro, we don't want to hear inconvenient truths. The fact that Mexico, US, the North Sea, North slope, China, Russia, Indonesia are not producing much oil any more is a damn commie conspiracy to steal our SUVs. Fuck it, let's take the Escalade to Cheescake Factory for a 5000 calorie lunch.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:21 | 740991 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Don't waste breath on the fun-duh-mentally retarded (global warming and all).

They'll have a hard time denying reality when it hits them.

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

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:11 | 741204 Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

Peak oil or no,

When adjusted for inflation, oil is currently pretty cheap.

Of course, that could change at any time.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:22 | 741254 Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Thank you for pointing this out.  I don't deny peak oil per se, but feel the pricing mechanism (to the extent it is not manipulated) is the single best indicator of whether or not we are running out of oil.  The best way to measure oil price is to base it on another commodity like gold....or just adjust for inflation.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 17:38 | 742188 Alienated Serf
Alienated Serf's picture

Pants, completely OT, but I want to commend you for your choice of cookiepuss as your avatar. 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:05 | 741423 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Try pricing in the externalities of oil production and use...it's only 'cheap' at the pump.

Ask anyone in Louisiana, if you're in need of a clue.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:33 | 742320 OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn's picture

 

 Price? TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE -

 

Oil per U.S. Barrel: (42 US gallons or 158.9873 litres) = $85.00

Aquafina Water: (1 litre bottle) = $1.69

Therefore, a "barrel" of drinking water is valued at $269.68!

Belief that capitalism will solve lifes problems? Priceless!

Which is over priced? And which is under priced?

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 22:10 | 742674 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Water = Priceless

http://vimeo.com/15096754

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 01:15 | 742737 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

could?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:55 | 740896 OnTheFelt
OnTheFelt's picture

Hey dumb ass,

Out of that entire piece all you can say is "peak oil lies".   Wow, you're a clever one.  Tell you what, here's a novel idea....how about you do some critical thinking on your own instead of regurgitating the typical response from some right winged asshole.  I promise if you do and actually research peak oil, you'll certainly be singing a different tune.

Don't worry we won't mistake you for some libtard who wants cap and trade.  I mean seriously dude, if you can't figure out the validity of peak oil, you're definitely in the wrong forum (zero hedge), so change the channel back to Faux News and then you can worry about more important things, like the mosque being built at ground zero and all those terrorists that are out to get you.

 

FUCKING IDIOT 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:07 | 740928 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Before calling people "fucking idiots", perhaps you should do some critical thinking of your own.  Of note is that the chart showing a decline in US oil production and oil imports mirrors that of ALL GOODS.  I guess America must have reached peak textiles, peak cars, peak electronics, indeed peak all manufactured goods at the same time.

Or maybe, just maybe, the oppressive regime of regulations that started growing in earnest during the 70's put a lid on American production of everything, and lead to importation of everything?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:17 | 740971 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

@OnTheFelt

don't stereotype me or anyone else. i don't get my news from fox and i don't care about that mosque; i care about property rights and if the owner of the land wants to build it, fine, and besides we still don't know what really happened at wtc on 9 11 anyway.

peak oil is a lie just like global warming. there is much oil that has not yet been discovered and many scientists believe that oil is renewable. you may find this interesting:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Debunking-the-Myth-of-Peak-Oil-Why-...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27414

http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_index.htm

 

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:23 | 740998 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Keep on sucking that petro-biz propaganda cock, moron.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:35 | 741687 trav7777
trav7777's picture

I seem to recall that you were very polite and explained this whole "peak oil" thingie in more mild-tempered detail awhile ago.

Someone's catchin on

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 15:04 | 741781 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Peak Oil is another Zionist Lie. Fuck you KUNTsler.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:35 | 742027 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Thank God you were here to explain this to us in such persuasive terms.  Your support for your position is so clearly articulated I could explain why peak oil is an incorrect premise to anybody and they'd understand perfectly and be convinced!  Bravo.

[sarc.]

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:33 | 741045 Blindweb
Blindweb's picture

-Eroei (energy return on engery invested).  The oil sands and oil off the coast of Brazil is going to be more expensive to extract, and therefore prices will be going up forever 

-It doesn't matter if oil is renewable if we're using it faster than it renews.

 

Read that comments below the oilprice article.  They explain it.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:50 | 741117 Madcow
Madcow's picture

>80% of the world's hydrocarbon resources are locked up in "heavy oil" and other sources of unconventional crudes.

 

because of technology limitations, these energy sources have not been available - but there are now numerous technology companies that have developed capacity to harvest these unconventional resources. that means there is PLENTY of oil for the future and that prices will come WAY down - 

http://www.petrobank.com/heavy-oil/

http://worldenergysystemsinc.com/

http://www.cnpc.com.cn/cptdc/en/productsservices/cysb/part9/

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:15 | 741222 Blindweb
Blindweb's picture

Yes, plenty of more expensive oil.  Once the price goes up investment in R&D will go down, forever

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:47 | 741558 trav7777
trav7777's picture

JFC, that whole "EROI" thing just flew RIGHT over your head, didn't it?

Wow.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:27 | 741658 Madcow
Madcow's picture

these companies need $80 oil to be profitable.  but at that price, there are unlimited quantities of oil.

my point is there's no such thing as $100 ... $200 ... $ 300 ... and up due to scarcity - 

 

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:38 | 741692 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Like I said, that whole EROI thing flew STRAIGHT THE FUCK over your head, didn't it?

This dollar price you keep citing is really rather irrelevant..."unlimited oil" at $80?  This is the claim of a stooge.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:04 | 741929 Madcow
Madcow's picture

Trav - 

the underlying currency oil is priced in is irrelevant - 

the fact is that - with new technology - there is a positive NET BTU. that factor was not in place just a few years ago.

If EROI is constructive, there will be investment, and thus no collapse of oil supplies. 

In anticipation of your next insult,

MC

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:39 | 742039 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Unless additional "investment" can't solve the problem - at which point your premise collapses.

Again we're back to the argument that "the scientists will save us" and betting our entire future on that outcome as a given.

As a society, we've taken most gifts science has given us, and used them to paint ourselves further and further into a corner.

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 11:47 | 743081 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

always enjoy your comments. "the scientists will save us" sort of stage two in the denial process

Sun, 11/21/2010 - 22:03 | 745286 steve from virginia
steve from virginia's picture

+ $35 oil is already draining the world's economies as these have been built around extremely cheap inputs. It's no surprise that when oil prices reach + $75 bad things start happening in bond markets and currencies.

Oil prices have decoupled from production.  Oil production remained flat from 2005 to 2008 when prices increased from $60 to $96 per barrel (average yearly price). Right now, high oil prices bankrupt oil customers faster than new oil can be put onto the market. This means the funds needed to bring oil to the market are diminishing. Since 'funds' means value rather than nominal amounts, adding 'liquidity' by printing will not bring more oil to market.

Unless the central banks can print something besides debt/currency, that is ...

Like the world's banking system, the world's energy system is insolvent. When shortages begin -- due to insufficient return on the use of the oil produced -- they will be permanent. If the economy cannot afford oil at current levels of activity, it cannot afford oil as activity shrivels ... due to diminished supplies of energy. Lower prices do not make more oil available but do the opposite. What we must fear now is low prices rather than high prices. Low prices indicated diminished wealth.

Both the US and overseas militaries support shortage scenarios beginning in 2012. I suspect because of the declining price and its relationship to production these shortages will appear next year and will be severe. There are already diesel fuel shortages in China leading to electrical blackouts. The fuel shortages will be felt here first in the US in the diesel markets.

The oil market is in a long term bear market with the 2008 high of $147 not likely to be seen for a long time if not forever. The world is going broke faster than ever.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:07 | 741945 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

$80 oil?  What the f*ck is a dollar? (pardon my french)

 

Oil production has peaked.  That doesn't mean there is zero production in the future.  The implication is that resources will have to be put to better use.

The rate of consumption obviously can't exceed the rate of production (which, funnily enough, sums up how the economic crisis occurred). 

It seems to me energy production stands a good risk of being nationalized if it really becomes that much of a problem.  The industry doesn't HAVE to make a profit.  Shareholders don't NEED increased dividends.

And mankind did pretty good back when we were sailing around, and riding horses.

http://psychonews.site90.net

PsychoNews: Exposing the Oligarchy, one Psycho at a time.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 15:46 | 741889 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

One thing you neglect is that extraction takes energy - that is derived from oil.  So when we're at $40/bbl and some new shale pit is determined to be "profitable" at $80 - it doesn't mean that when we hit $80 that the old number is still valid.  The margin for profit just went up to $95/bbl or whatever.  And so it goes.  Eventually it will become profitable, but at a higher rate than initially predicted.

The price will still impact the economy.  If you don't believe this, you should be buying airline stocks hand-over-fist.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:09 | 741951 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Who is in charge of the shitty math, if they say it is 'profitable' at $80 shouldn't they work that into their calculations?

I know what concept you are trying to illustrate, though.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:49 | 742063 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

I think it's the same people who are trying to convince us that we have x00 years of oil left everytime a new field is discovered.  Those assumptions seem to always based on current consumption and assume complete recovery at an infinite rate.

 

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:43 | 741140 i-dog
i-dog's picture

"still don't know what really happened at wtc on 9 11 anyway"

We know ... you obviously don't (you probably still think some muslims did it).

"peak oil is a lie"

Are you in the oil industry and speaking from personal knowledge?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:33 | 741305 Seer
Seer's picture

Several points:

1) It was once thought that the sun revolved around the earth;

2) Oil IS reforming;

3) We will NEVER exhaust all oil reserves;

4) Logic/reason is the only means by which to assess things.

It was logic/reason that finally prevailed in presenting man with the truth that the earth revolves around the sun (rather than the other way around).  It is logic/reason that eneabled man to identify how oil was formed, which clearly tells us that oil IS forming (because its an organic process); BUT... it is the RATE of formation that matters, and unless we're willing to sit around for hundreds of thousands of years we can pretty much write off being able to use any substantial amounts of this reforming oil.  Also note that logic/reason has enabled us to understand that the earth is not a big sphere filled with <unicorns/gold/oil>, there IS an actual physical LIMIT.

Oil will never be exhausted.  At some point it will take more energy to extract than is obtained.  Further, and perhaps more importantly, oil will NOT be able to supply enough surplus energy to allow continued growth; it's growth that makes everything work (gives us the ability to sustain a middle class etc.).

As a rural dweller with a (water) well, I can state (logic/reason) that there is an apparent infinite amount of water, every day there's water available!  However... if I draw water faster than the well can recharge I run OUT of water!  The fact that the well is recharging is of little value when I'm all soaped up in the shower and nothing's coming out or it's only a dribble.  Our System cannot operate on a dribble of oil/energy.

The REAL argument is over levels/rates of consumption.  But know this (FACT), there ARE physical limits, and failure to properly identify and account for such limits can have dire consequences.  And the indisputable fact is, infinite growth on a finite planet ISN'T possible.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:38 | 741325 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

seer  why do you ignore Nat gas?? current tech allows vehicles to run on nat gas as well as gasoline and oil..seems you are fixated on a product that can be replaced with a cheap alternative, so limits to oil are always limits to energy use..no not at all.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:50 | 741566 trav7777
trav7777's picture

jfc...what IS IT with you people?

NG PEAKS TOO.

Fuck me, man...I mean, even IF there is suddenly a technological breakthrough that allows us to "go get" suddenly more oil, JUST FOR HOW LONG do you idiots THINK the problem of GEOMETRIC GROWTH can be put off for?

We cannot even push this problem out 10 years assuming we found another Ghawar out there.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 15:33 | 741862 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If there is no such thing as abiotic oil, what are these ultra deep microbes eating?  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00153...

Why didn't these little bastards run out the supply millions of years ago?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:14 | 741969 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

They weren't hungry enough.

What I find interesting is the idea that Peak Oil is NOT Petrobiz propaganda, but abiotic oil IS.

Sorry, but peak oil theory states forever high prices, abiotic oil theory would probably result in nationalization of every oil well on Planet Earth.  How would Big Oil benefit from that?

I am not saying all oil is abiotic, or that it is formed fast enough to meet our current consumption rates, but that there are still things about oil that are unknown.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:33 | 742318 imapedestrian
imapedestrian's picture

I love that comment!  Yes, there is MUCH we do not know... only what we think we know.

+10000

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 02:11 | 742774 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sorry, but peak oil theory states forever high prices, abiotic oil theory would probably result in nationalization of every oil well on Planet Earth.  How would Big Oil benefit from that?

How so?  I don't understand why a situation where wells slowly refilled would cause nationalization.  

I agree that there is certainly some amount of oil that is being generated by means other than digestion of organic matter (I don't really understand how that chemistry is supposed to work anyways--anaerobic bacteria should cause the production of large amounts of CO2, which should cause major blowouts anytime anyone attempts to tap an oil well.  Further, anaerobic digestion is quick, taking place over a few months rather than the millions of years people suggest.  Honestly, as a chemist, the idea of a reaction that takes millions of years to run to completion is asinine, unless they are running at temperatures just a bit below the activation energy of said reaction (but temperature is not that constant--go a bit deeper and any reaction that is going to happen should happen quickly).  Given my understanding of microbiology and chemistry, IF oil were an end product of such a reaction, it should form within a few months, and should be available in very large quantities in the ocean.  To some extent, this is the case (methane calthrates), but not really that much with long chain hydrocarbons.  In reality, such reactions would produce a light oil that will float to the surface and be digested by oil-consuming bacteria and UV light.  This would happen so fast that nothing short of a sudden geological subsidence would account for the presence of a large amount of oil.  I just don't see that happening.

From my understanding, the process MUST occur deep underground such that the oil seeps up slowly and is caught in oil reservoirs.  This process may be slow, though it is likely to vary between areas.  Ways to test this hypothesis would be to A. check old wells for hydrocarbon levels, especially methane, which should regenerate the fastest, and B. drill DEEP and examine the strata for oil consuming microbes (these have recently been detected nearly a mile under the seafloor in the Atlantic, far from any possible area where oil from organic sources could have been produced.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:25 | 741490 hbjork1
hbjork1's picture

Careless,

Didn't get a post off in a timely way but having read some of your earlier posts, thought you might be "putting em on" just a bit. 

Voice of experience:

I was educated as a Chemical Engineer with emphasis on "what goes in and what comes out".  I am now fallen away from that state of grace but the practice of thinking that way about why things are as they are doesn't go away. 

In 1955, I had a summer job as "Roustabout Class B" in an oil patch in Van(East), Texas, maintaining pumpers that brought oil up from ~1,000 feet.  The West Texas fields were about 3,000 feet and the oil, under pressure, could be extracted with only a "Christmas Tree.  

Times have changed.  Depth of knowledge in technology and methods of getting data on energy sources could not have been imagined then.  Sources being accessed include ocean oil, oil shale, oil in inaccessable locations and biodegradable. Wind and solar as well but they will remain situational.   And then we have highly developed nuclear technologh today which I consider to have the greatest long term potential.  We have reports that Calpine is running a geothermal site in California.  Geothermal, if it can be developed, will, of course, be limitless.

When we get through with all those, the methane cathlarates that caused BP trouble while they were wrecking the livelyhood of fishermen in the Gulf, are plentiiful in the ocean deeps. 

The English PM just resigned under public pressure because he had made a remark in addressing the economic contraction to the effect that "Historically, the average Englishman never had it so good". 

He was, no doubt, exactly right.  Applys here as well. 

How many readers know what an "Iron Lung" is?  The worst of a host of diseases we will never have to deal with.

This is a time of change but there is lots of opportunity if you take your gun and kill the appropriate enemy.  Put a bullet in every boob tube in the house. (not your computer, you will need that to order books.) 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:34 | 741037 macholatte
macholatte's picture

a little more critical thinking: (my numbers probably not real accurate but you'll get the picture)

1.  50% of population = children

2.  45% of workforce = government employees

3.  20% of workforce = unemployed

4.  10% of workforce = uncounted small business people gone bust

5.  75% of workforce = non-capitalist non-producers

6.  87.5% of population = dependant on 12.5% of population to survive

 

peak oil or not, this situation is unsustainable.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:38 | 741072 MichiganMilitiaMan
MichiganMilitiaMan's picture

+1.  Over the short term there are millions of people who should be worried about Peak Entitlement.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:03 | 741168 1100-TACTICAL-12
1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

I for one am ready for peak, Harry Potter & peak GM.... ENOUGH ALREDY....

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:56 | 741386 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Peak Entitlement was surpassed long ago in Europe and realised by the governements there far too late to save the various european nation states from decline.  

Short of some miraculous technology coming the fore...which has happened several times in the last few centuries...the low birth rates brought about by socialism will compound with the the previous decades of low birth rates yielding even lower yield of new citizens, and they'll have such a distorted distribution of ages in their population as to make the whole works grind down into severe social crisis.   In fact they are close already now.   Even better, their subpopulation with the best reproduction rates and therefore with youth on their side, are openly against their host nations' values.  

How about let's not do this in America?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:02 | 741413 Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

Too late...

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:18 | 741235 Kali
Kali's picture

It's even worse, you forgot the retirees and disabled and non-working spouses from that list.  It is NOT sustainable, the "12.5" can't support themselves anymore because they are FORCED to support those that don't.  One more thought, you forgot WS leeches who siphon off from productive labor too.  The real number may be as low as half of 12.5

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:37 | 741321 Peak Everything
Peak Everything's picture

Interesting. The only plan I have seen proposed that might actually avoid WWIII and/or a massive die off is the America 2.0 proposal by Jay Hanson. The jist is that if we downshift our consumption to needs rather than wants then 5% of the population can produce those needs and the other 95% can stay home and look after their kids.

http://jayhanson.us/america.htm

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:54 | 741575 trav7777
trav7777's picture

We will have to implement a Brave New World solution.  As an Alpha++, I will look forward to flying over the tops of most of you in my helicopter

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:41 | 741707 Chump
Chump's picture

That is totally fucking retarded, and I am now dumber just for having clicked on that link.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:41 | 741335 Seer
Seer's picture

And of the 12.5% who are capitalist producers," most of these are either:

1) Creating robots to replace workers;

2) Operating robots;

3) Work for non-essential entities like banks.

So, in reality, there are very few people in the US who actually "produce" anything meaningful.  Most that is produced is by oil/energy and robots.  I'll be "producing" food, which I believe is more important than the godly, capitalist "producers" that promote usury and ipods...

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:48 | 741111 Trundle
Trundle's picture

Peak Oil is a phenomenon which must occur purely as an inherent limitation on resources within a finite biosphere. 

Oil does not come from dinosaurs- that is just stupidity coming from those who don't understand that proteins and carbohydrates will simply not reliably provide the levels of hyrocarbons which are used.  The Russians and Ukrainians figures out a long time ago that the Western oil interests regarding their discussion of the genesis of hydrocarbon stores in the earth come from polymerization of methane gas and other hydrocarbon sources which, under pressure and heat, will form longer chains of methane (e.g. octane and the mix of hydrocarbons you find in petroleum (often C4 to C64 chain length hydrocarbons). 

That said, the abiotic process which gives rise to more complex hydrocarbons is, indeed, finite (unless perhaps if you live a really, really long time).  The question is how close we are to the end of easily recoverable hydrocarbons in the earth's crust or below and what will (or will not) emerge from the inevitable shortage of hydrocarbons as a source of energy.

Are we close to that point- I think we probably are (that was Matt Simmons' thesis- you know the guy who got blow darted to induce cardiac arrest in his hot tub for outing the fraud associated with the Maconda oil spill in the gulf) - but that assessment is infinitely biased by the carbon trading/global warming/limited hydrocarbon lobbying frauds that look for a revenue generating event coming out of the earth and when oil is burned. 

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 22:38 | 742718 DosZap
DosZap's picture

tm,

Right on.When was this article written, before the McMansions were empty?.

America consumed 25% of the worlds energy, yet has only 5%.(not now, as tm said, the frigging mfg base is dead ).

Ok, that we know of?,we know nothing.

Our Green Queens,and special interest whores, will not allow exploration, and will not allow the use of what we know is here now,

Alaska has not been remotely explored, the coastal waters have not either.

We have more natural gas reserves than any nation on the planet.(yet I hear NO one pushing for an LPG option), makes too much sense, we would rather spend WAY more, and make $40k electric shitcans, that will go maybe to work, and need a recharge,before you can start home.

Instead of a $1,500.00 add on to a gas vehicle.

HOV lanes, 2 or more,wasted time, Billions of gallons of fuel WASTED for those sitting staring at a bare assed lane with 50 cars in it over a 15 mile stretch, while everyone else is bumper to friggin buimper.

Brilliant idea huh?.

We hear nothing but doom and gloom,how PEAK OIL is upon us, and it's ALL the Americans fault!.

Fuck You.

With that 25% consumption, w/5% reserves (as we are told,and a crock of shit because NO One will allow exploration).

What has that done for the rest of the planets humans ,economies, lifestyles?. How many billions would be dead if it were not for the humanitrian aid from America, and I mean private citizens?,because we have kind hearts.

Hell, add the gov't giveaways and were talking Trillions over the past 80yrs,.

Self centered chickenshit American scum.

This was before we threw down out ONE YEAR sobriety pin, and went on a drunk printing spree, to a figure we cannot ever repay, and most haven't a calculator with enough digits to even get there.

I am SICK UNTO DEATH of you whining chickenshits who focus  all the blame on the Americans.

Where are the NEW nuclear reactors?,where are the new refineries?,where is the new transportation systems?, where is the new mfg plants, and blue collar jobs?,where are the high speed rail systems that nations the size of Michigan & Wisconsin are using,and have been for decades?, overseas.

Most Americans ( and even ones from different staes) have NO frigging clue, how far we have to drive/find transportation  to just get to  work, or anywhere else.

How do we get there?, carpools,excuse me, we are not the rural neighbors that are close buddies, nor do we work close together.

If I live in Dallas it takes 3+ hrs to drive to Midland (about 300+ miles), from there, it's just a mere 7-8 more hours to get that next leg into El Paso.

10 hrs min......A lot of your states can be crossed 3-4 times in the time it takes to just go to El Paso!, From Dallas!.

Back to the topic, instead of pissing and moaning and whining, and lying,why haven't these same DOOMSAYERS been on the nations leaders asses about new reactors, and alternative energy sources, developing the ones we have, and exploring for more?.(IMHO, there's a primary reason for Peak Oil,if its even true).

We have been talking it to death for 25 years, A little past time to have done something or shit and got off the pot huh?. Call the WHINE LINE.

You dont wait till you have 2 mos to live to start treatment on what was a curable disease, had you started 8mos earlier.

Alas,poor Yoric, Iknew him well.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:42 | 741086 Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman's picture

ATF:  The only thing retarded around here is your internet tough guy act.  Get a life--and think about giving up the booze so early in the morning...

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:07 | 740930 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Care to back up your allegation with some actual facts? The author has taken quite a bit of time to back up their thesis with verifiable [or falsifiable] data.  Where's yours?

Way back when were you saying "Keep on smoking - there's no established link to cancer... it's all a conspiracy by the 'health' cartel?"

BTW, "go to hell" is not data.

Ever stop to think that if some substantial percentage of the population started to actually started to act in accordance with what the data on peak oil suggests, the banks would not actually benefit?  You've fallen pray to disinfo perpetrated to confuse and delay.

A rise in fuel costs because of taxes would have the same effect as a rise due to scarcity - the economy would decline in the aggregate.  We've all seen what a transitory spike to $147.00/bbl did the first time - and we are now seeing how devastating the the specter of $90.00/bbl is...

Do you actually think the "globalists" want to destroy air travel, shipping, and the economy that put them into the position that you seem to think they're in?  Cheap oil is as important to any banker as the continued expansion of credit.  Peak oil, in economic terms, means the end of real economic expansion.  In it's place will be real decline hidden under the guise of inflation.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:14 | 740959 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You miss the fact that there are many factions in the world.  Those pushing peak oil are closely related to the ones pushing global warming.  They want to shut down productive society rather than allowing the market to function.  They benefit from the government subsidies to the companies they own which produce "green" tech.

Always look at who benefits and who loses from anyone pushing to do some major change to the status quo.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:18 | 740977 shargash
shargash's picture

And then there are the factions that spread lies about peak oil and those who "push" it. How do you benefit from those lies?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:23 | 741001 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I don't benefit any more than anyone else who wants to have a functioning society rather than one run by green mystics.  I am a scientist, and as such I know a thing or two about conflict of interest and bias.

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:33 | 741046 snowball777
snowball777's picture

If you're a 'scientist' then perhaps you can do some simple back-of-the-envelope partial diff eq and figure out that the related rates problem represented by a billion Chinese buying cars will not be met by our decreasing if not flattened oil production.

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:59 | 741149 Biosci
Biosci's picture

Do your PDEs include the push for greater efficiency as the price of energy goes up?  There isn't a binary choice between maintaining our current (c. 2006) lifestyle and the crash from one day suddenly turning off all the taps and not allowing for substitution, lower usage in general, and greater efficiency of what is used.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:15 | 741220 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Count the SUVs on the road and try your "we'll conserve" mantra again.

Plot the curve of increased efficiency and put it next to the curve for population growth.

We don't have to "turn off the taps" for a world-changing crisis...we'll simply fall too far behind.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:39 | 741326 Biosci
Biosci's picture

That's a great example:  the efficiency curve.  (I'm sure I've seen that somewhere on TOD.)   Efficiency hasn't been driven by sustained price increases, largely IMHO because of a misguided cheap oil energy policy in the US, so I would argue that it doesn't begin to reflect the capacity for increased efficiency.  Yes, there are too many SUVs on the road, but each of those SUVs has a lot of unused people-carrying cargo capacity.  And at $9 gas that capacity will get used.

I'm not arguing the overall effect; obviously what we've got going is unsustainable.  It's the suddenness and degree of the crisis that I think are much less certain.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:08 | 741434 snowball777
snowball777's picture

You vastly underestimate the stupidity of the average man and his ability to remain in complete denial.

By the time we hit $9 gas, we won't have time to respond with alternatives. Estimates are 40 years to bring enough capacity online...can you go without for that long?

Are you unaware that the $9 will not be spent elsewhere in the economy?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:28 | 742304 Biosci
Biosci's picture

You vastly underestimate the stupidity of the average man and his ability to remain in complete denial.

That, at least, is false.  But I don't see what it has to do with the argument.  Man will consume what he wants to and can afford to consume -- and beyond, if allowed credit -- and will continue to do so even when it's not in his long-term interest.

Forty years for capacity enough to do what?  Re-start this usage rate?  Of course that's not going to happen; you know that.  It's not about "going without," it's about going with less.  You can't just project these exponential curves indefinitely into the future.  Hell, YOU were the one that brought up PDEs.

I'm sure the Euros are laughing at my horror over $9 gas.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:32 | 741667 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Jevon's Paradox?

Look...this shit is really easy, don't fuck up on the trivial ones

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:43 | 742322 Biosci
Biosci's picture

Right.  We'll use what we can afford.  As we can afford less...

I never understood what was so paradoxical about this.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:36 | 741057 Blindweb
Blindweb's picture

Apparently you don't know anything about physics. 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:03 | 741591 trav7777
trav7777's picture

look, tmosely, there is no way in hell you are a scientist.  None.

If you were, you would be able to understand Hubbert's THESIS and the fact that the data PROVED his thesis.

Peak oil is not a theory, the shit has happened already in 6/7 of the oil producing nations on the earth.  It has happened to every well, field, or nation, and it WILL happen to every future one.

You cannot feign ignorance of this shit if you are a scientist.  Look around the world at all the nations and fields that have peaked then declined.  You act as if this shit is some kind of prediction, GFDit, the US peaked FORTY YEARS AGO.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 15:51 | 741895 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Funny.  I guess you missed all of my posts talking about my work, and the continuing problems that have come from government intervention, NOT from oil becoming more expensive.

But since you seem to have placed your faith in the fact that I am not a scientist, allow me to shatter your understanding of the world: http://www.imdmagazine.com/?q=content/medical-devices-coated-organo-sele...

Since you were dead wrong on that, might you not be dead wrong on other things?

Compare the production of oil with everything else the US produced.  DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING peaked in the 70's.  This was due to government regulations preventing people from being productive, especially in dirty industries like oil production.  The only things that increased in production rates were those things where technological growth outpaced regulatory growth.

I don't know who Hubbert is, or what his thesis was.  This may surprise you, but not all scientists know each other.  I would bet that he never took regulatory action into account, though.  Scientists rarely do.  This is an economics problem, not a scientific one.

Further, abiotic oil is now a solid theory, as there are bacteria that live far too deep in the crust that digest oil in areas where there is no way that there was ever enough compressed biomass to create reservoirs.  Read about it here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00153...

Even further than that, THINK about the effects of what you are talking about.  Even if there were no more oil available for cheap, so what?  There is PLENTY of coal.  Coal gassification can turn coal into oil at a cost of something like $150/bbl, and that is with the old, 1930's process.  I don't really keep up with these things, but I would expect that either a better method is available now, or one can be developed quickly if there is incentive.  Oil isn't the end all be all of energy.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:53 | 742362 Biosci
Biosci's picture

Your refs say zip about abiotic oil.  The original ref (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/604.short) finds low MW hydrocarbons (C1-C4) with a skew towards methane.  If low concentrations of liquid propane is "oil" then I humbly stand corrected.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 20:45 | 742535 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Even so, is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?  Time to branch out -- even the Sun won't be around forever!

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 22:45 | 742725 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

 'surface of the earth expanding" ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 10:02 | 743006 i-dog
i-dog's picture

"everything else the US produced.  DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING peaked in the 70's"

O/T to oil, but I'm interested in your observation, tm. Do you have any hints on what I should look for in the way of production stats?

The reason I ask is that 1962 could well mark the commencement of planning for the current final collapse of the US. While the private financial takeover was planned in 1910 at the secret Jekyll Island banksta meeting that led to the formation of the Federal Reserve System and the IRS in 1913, many other actions taken around 1962 (as I recently pointed out here) were directly antecedent to the final clampdown that I believe is currently underway.

1962 could well be when a detailed 50-Year Plan was put into action, to culminate in the imposition of authoritarian martial law around 12-21-2012 (though this is only my working hypothesis at the moment). Peak oil and peak industrial production in the 1970s would 'conveniently' fit in with this hypothesis.

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 11:52 | 743086 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

if you don't know who Hubbert is or his thesis, you just disqualified yourself for the debate

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:43 | 742342 imapedestrian
imapedestrian's picture

I love your tense and aggressive posts.  It makes me all the more confident that peak oil is total nonsense.  Why would you have such strong emotions over a debate?

You seem to care for no one and like to attack us idiots.  Why do you care... do you think that you are somehow hurting me of anyone else that you insult with swear words and other rude comments?  What a child.

Hubbert was an oil insider using oil industry data.  If I were an insider with access to any "data" I wanted to create then I would be able to put on an even more scary show.

FACT:  We peaked because we assumed certain things about where oil could be found.  I am not sure if we have really discovered how to look for oil assuming abiotic oil.

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 11:55 | 743089 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

assuming - funny how one word can change a whole paragraph

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 17:00 | 742092 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

I think most "environmentalists" are more concerned with impeding the "Tragedy of the Commons" then interfering with commerce because they don't like merchants.

When the "corporate Id" tries to externalize all environmental costs so they can make a quick buck at the expense of everybody else, it is the "free market" that responds by regulating them. 

"Environmentalism" is necessary a part of the free market - not the antithesis of it.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:16 | 742280 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Then let there be no commons, nor corporations.  Only private property and companies.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 19:43 | 742453 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

I'm right there with you regarding corporations [at least in terms of eliminating limits to the liability of the officers for pathalogical decision making], but the problem with privatizing everything is what do you do when the neighbor upriver starts shitting in your drinking water...

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 20:47 | 742537 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Which is probably the only legitimate use for Govt:  Get the courts to order a cork placed up his arse!

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 02:21 | 742781 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Dumping pollutants into water that flows over your land is an offense the has remedy either in the courts or through private arbitration.  People don't shit in water they own, only in water that no-one owns.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:27 | 741013 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

When multiple competing interests wage propaganda campaigns to maintain their profits, I tend to think the ones with the deepest pockets will have the loudest voice.  Are you saying that during the Bush/Cheny years the oil lobby, which was invited to write our energy policy, was outdone by a bunch of hippies?

BTW

"Green" energy [that can take over right where dirty energy left off] is a bunch of crap.  Reduction in consumption is the most efficient/only method of managing our contraction in a timely manner.  BTW - who was pushing that they were on the forefront of green energy the most in terms of advertising?  BP.  I promise you they don't want any reduction in consumption.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:56 | 741135 macholatte
macholatte's picture

When multiple competing interests wage propaganda campaigns to maintain their profits, I tend to think the ones with the deepest pockets will have the loudest voice.  

 

doesn't GE own a bunch of TV networks all over the world like Time Warner?

doesn't Disney own ABC?

The information we get is filtered. We do not know the truth. We are always guessing. However, fomenting petty bickering among the peons is an old strategy that works.

The media is too concentrated, too few people own too much. There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy.
Ted Turner

 

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 12:00 | 743098 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

one of the many reasons we're on this website. The web is the modern pitchfork 

Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:28 | 767570 Auntiegrav
Auntiegrav's picture

"The web is the modern pitchfork"
Yes, and like most things that are modernized, it is made of plastic, imagination, and a lot of energy, but doesn't clean up sh*t, even if it is made to do so, and the customers that buy it don't know what a real pitchfork is like (sharp, effective, and with an extended reach).
The internet is the fake pitchfork so that people don't muster enough anger and community to get off their doughy asses and stab the a((holes with real pitchforks and burn down their mansions with real torches. But then, humans are so stupid that if they did get rid of their overseeing lizards, they would just try and do more of the same things that put the lizards in charge in the first place.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:21 | 742288 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If Republicans represent the oil lobby, then Democrats represent the "green" lobby.  Simple as that.

And you are absolutely wrong that reduction of consumption is the only answer.  That is the exact equivalent of amputation as a solution to starvation.  You might use less energy with less body weight, but not that much, and you have destroyed your ability to get more energy inputs.

The only real, sustainable solution to any crisis is free markets, and government downsizing.

Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:31 | 767579 Auntiegrav
Auntiegrav's picture

http://www.FairTax.org
A sales tax represents the free choice of a producer to receive their whole paycheck and then choose what to buy based on the REAL cost of things (including how much government it takes to obtain the resources). Accurate information is the only route to a free market.
Consumption tax is a lot less regressive than a dead planet.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 20:49 | 742539 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

As I've stated before:  Time to remove the words "Disposable" and "Planned Obsolescence" from our lexicons!

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:27 | 741015 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Don't worry. You idiots have already won...we won't be doing anything to address any of our long-term energy problems and certainly not in time to make a difference.

The "productive society" will shut down of its own accord when people can't drive to work and starve to death for lack of petro-chem necessities.

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:27 | 742302 tmosley
tmosley's picture

So what's your solution?  Government regulation?  Let me know how that works out for you IF you don't starve to death first.

Rising prices cause markets to allocate resources to where they are needed most.  Period.  High gas prices might make life more difficult, but it won't be long before you switch from your car to an electric vehicle to get to work, or a bicycle.  Lots of people might move back into the cities so they don't have to drive ASSUMING the cities cut their taxes such that that is the most economical option.

Everyone can run around screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE NEXT THURSDAY WHEN WE RUN OUT OF OIL", but that doesn't make it true.  Market forces are real.  Government intervention is also real.  Oil isn't the only form of energy in the world.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:48 | 741363 Seer
Seer's picture

Six degrees of separation...

So, gravity doesn't really exist because if it did we'd be siding with the "terrorists" who brought down the WTC buildings?  I mean, if we agreed with that then we too would be terrorists!

Logic- FAIL!

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:57 | 741584 trav7777
trav7777's picture

WTF...there is nobody PUSHING peak oil, you freakin idiot.

Peak Oil is a PHYSICAL phenomenon.  Put it up there with those people pushing Gravity and Thermodynamics.

M. King Hubbert was a RAVING greenpeacer, right?

How MANY times are you going to have to be told, moron, before you COMPREHEND?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:38 | 742331 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Offer a solution then, and maybe we can talk.  Until you do, you're just a crazy person running around with his hair on fire.  

As it is, I'm not interested in your "Repent, the end is near" rhetoric.  My IQ is three standard deviations above average.  If I can't understand, it's because you aren't clear.  Your name calling doesn't help.  I read up on Hubbert, and I find him to be nothing but a Malthus impersonator, and we all know how tremendously wrong he was.  He doesn't account for any form of new technology (Malthus' undoing), nor does he account for the natural tendency to shift from one resource to another as the first becomes more expensive.  Further, his equations apply equally to overexploited resources as they do to non-renewables.  Funny that he doesn't take recycling into account in his non-energy resource calculations.  Eventually, it will be cheaper to mine garbage dumps for X resource than to take it out of the ground.  

Plenty of renewable resources are approaching the point where they are affordable enough to replace much of the energy generation requirements of the grid, which will free up plenty of oil resources for cars.  Research is being done that will put an end to the need for ultra pure silicone and other limited resources in those fields.  Hell, I read a paper a couple of days ago that days ago describing a new process to create ultra-pure and/or doped graphene controllably on a metal foil.  This means solar panel printing presses are not far, with the only feedstock being carbonaceous material and reusable metal foils.

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 06:52 | 742897 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

If we cannot get ur oil at a certain efficiency then the infrastructure collapses. Agriculture, the daily commute, etc. are not flexible enough to adapt to new energy sources as fast as the market is going to change. You can depend on the free market, and I agree with you that in most cases it is the best option humanity has, but some, once some events that the free market has never faced before, such as the net decline of energy are worth making a government insurcance policy for.

The fallacy of the free market structure right now is that it is not really free. The monetary aspect is controlled. It is almost impossible to know whether the price we see is real or manipulated by the fed. I believe that it is being manipulated. America wants cheap and the fed delivers. Because the bodies in control need cheap oil so much they will not let the change to higher prices occur naturally as the supply of oil dwindles. The free market mechanism that would seek better energy sources would not function properly.

There is the obvious solution of eneding the fed and letting market forces settle this issue on their own, or while the fed is still plaguing the Earth with its existance, perhaps an investment into renewable energy sources by the govt is in order.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:36 | 741058 smeagol
smeagol's picture

I'm on the fence on this one. anyone heard of deep abiotic oil? thats the theory that oil is created deep in the earth and seeps up. the russians have pioneered deep oil drilling around the caspian for decades. I mean how exactly did we get so many dead trees down there at deepwater, 3 miles under the earth? Peak oil is probably coming as its a good excuse for a world government even if its a fabricated decline

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:22 | 741252 snowball777
snowball777's picture

They're called tectonic plates, idjit. You may as well be suggesting that we can run our cars on fairy dust.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:41 | 742336 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Then why is there oil more than a kilometer below the bottom of the Atlantic, where the plates are seperating and no subsidence is occuring, nor has occured for billions of years?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015399

Maybe we won't all die next Thursday?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:39 | 741328 Coast Watcher
Coast Watcher's picture

Abiotic oil has been debunked so many times by so many people in so many places that no one brings it up anymore except true believers and those new to the discussion. The old Soviet Union drilled a couple of very deep, very dry wells trying to prove the abiotic oil theory, but then you have to remember that the Soviet scientific establishment was the same one that rejected evolution in favor of a homegrown "acquired characteristics" theory right up there with fairy dust and unicorns.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:53 | 741384 dnarby
dnarby's picture

Abiotic oil has been debunked so many times by so many people in so many places that no one brings it up anymore except true believers and those new to the discussion.

ORLY?

http://thetaildoesnotwagthedog.blogspot.com/2009/11/o-rly-abiotic-synthe...

Lab experiments are such a bitch!

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:34 | 741524 Biosci
Biosci's picture

First, methane is not oil.

Second, abiotic production of methane is not what I'd call novel.  It's been observed on other planets/moons, and to my knowledge no one has suggested biotic origin.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:45 | 742345 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Methane is easily converted into oil via serpentization reactions, which are well known to occur deep in the earth's crust.

Read this paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00153...

Think about where they got those samples.  From the middle of the Atlantic.  That's right, the place where new crust is being formed out of the mantle.  There has never been subduction in that area.  Yet there are oil digesting microbes almost a mile beneath the sea floor.  How did it get there?  Must have been the GP's fairy dust.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 19:34 | 742438 Biosci
Biosci's picture

Seriously?  From the paper:

Our results raise the intriguing possibility that hydrocarbons in very deep ocean rocks support microbial communities.

We have known abiotic origin of CH4.  Check.

We have known abiotic processes observed to convert CH4 to other low MW (C2-C4) hydrocarbons  (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/604.short; ref 3 in the PlosONE paper).  Check.

We have low concentrations of microbes that eat hydrocarbons in the crust.  Check.

I don't see the lakes of oil.  I see trace amounts of low MW hydrocarbons being metabolized by small numbers of microbes.  Methane is not oil.  Neither is propane.

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 02:42 | 742793 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes, but those materials are feedstock for higher molecular weight oils via a simple process patented by standard oil: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4704496.html

It is not difficult to imagine this going on deep within the surface of the Earth.

Further, carbonacious chondrite is found in meteors, and is a precursor to crude oil.  How do we know that there aren't thousands of cubic miles of this stuff in the mantle and crust, slowly being cooked into crude oil?  That is, unless you think that these meteorites all came from some blown up planet full of fossil fuels...

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:50 | 741372 SystemsGuy
SystemsGuy's picture

Abiotic oil likely has some legitimacy - most oil initially comes from algae that formed on or near the surface of inland continental oceans during the late Jurrasic and Cretaceous eras. These oceans were warm, mostly abiotic, and comparatively still, which meant that algae descending from the surface as it died wouldn't be decomposed by oxidation. Over time, these algae mats were compressed first by more algae, then later by sediment as the oceans dried up.

Thus, abiotic oil forming below the surface of the earth is possible. However, it will be very deep, and it takes time - tens of thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands, for depletion of these resources to be replaced. 10,000 years ago, human civilization was still in the neolithic period. 

Critically, the energy that this oil contains thus represents the energy inputs from the sun coupled with the energy inputs due to high compression, both of which, until now, humanity got for free. Now, even with producing energy from algae farming, we still have to provide those inputs ourselves, so the overall EROEI is actually much lower.

We haven't used up those reserves - there is still a lot of oil on the earth - but we have in a historical eyeblink used up the cheapest oil and the next cheapest and the next cheapest after that, so the overall EROEI is declining pretty dramatically. It is that number, not the overall peak of production, that is truly the one to focus on when dealing with energy futures.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 22:52 | 742735 DosZap
DosZap's picture

smeagol,

You nailed it.

Peak Oil if it were true(can't prove it one way or the other), until every inch of the known globe above/underseas,and checked and  is mapped for it,doesn't matter.

IMHO the Creator of this planet, and this universe knew long before we think we did, how much of everything we would need before HE said Time No More.

Game Over,His call, not ours.

And with everything else we're contending with and facing, it's about that time appears to me.

 

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 10:58 | 743039 ArmchairRevolut...
ArmchairRevolutionary's picture

Why bother to enter the discussion?  Your creator card trumps any other fact/reason in your mind.  So you always get to come to the conclusion you want regardless.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:16 | 740969 shargash
shargash's picture

Do you actualy work for Exxon-Mobile, or do you just shill for them for free?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:24 | 741006 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Do you work for Al Gore's corporate government subsidy scam, or do you shill for it for free?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:39 | 741327 snowball777
snowball777's picture

So they do pay you. Good to know.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:54 | 741385 Green Leader
Green Leader's picture

I honestly think Mosley is a troll on payroll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txsutya8nGY

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:43 | 741714 trav7777
trav7777's picture

they need to hire better trolls

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:46 | 742350 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Well, you guys are dumb as dogshit then, since I agree with you on so many other issues.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:56 | 741392 Seer
Seer's picture

Six degrees of separation...

And Al Gore is a proponent of nuclear energy (http://www.localenergynews.org/news/2008/7/26/clarifying-al-gores-positi... - yes, he darts and dodges, but any true lefty tree-hugger, as you'd paint him, would unequivocally state they were against nuclear power).  Now then, where does that leave you?  Confused?  Don't fret, that's the normal state of the ignorant (party/ideology hacks).

Thanks for playing.  Keep trying!

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 21:16 | 742578 cosmictrainwreck
cosmictrainwreck's picture

I don't think anybody here is dumb enough to think Gore is a "lefty tree-hugger". What pisses them of [me too] is he's a FUCKING CON MAN. Not qualified to be tree-hugger cause that would neccesitate some integrity and loyalty to a cause........not to mention a set of balls.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:27 | 741014 Dirtt
Dirtt's picture

Manufactured Crisis. Peak Oil?  LMAO.

Thanks to Jane Fonda & The CHina Syndrome we have no (few) nuclear power plants. Thanks to the children of Jane Fonda, George Soros & The China Syndrome we have a wealth of oil and natural gas off limits.

Time to put a dagger into the heart of the "environmentalist" and start tapping US oil and natural gas reserves.

And if LEO & THE CLOWNS weren't trying to juice up the solar industry we'd be that much closer to truly efficeint solar.  Way to go guys.  Fuck R&D.  Wall Street needs bubble stocks.

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:15 | 741454 Seer
Seer's picture

"Time to put a dagger into the heart of the "environmentalist" and start tapping US oil and natural gas reserves."

Yeah, baby, strength through exhaustion!  I'm a proponent of burning up all this shit as fast as possible so that I can finally be free of all this stupid-assed logic!

Fucking environmentalists, if we didn't have them we wouldn't have massive deficits, we'd be more like these folks:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

NOTE: The "environmentalist" movement was hijacked a LONG time ago (nothing's stronger than Madison Avenue - thanks Edward[ Bernays]!). A more reasoned view is presented by Murray Bookchin's "social ecology."

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:03 | 741592 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I thought we had so few nuke plants because the cost of construction is so high that they don't start showing profits for about 25 years, which is also about when the maintenance costs start to climb.

But shit, if Jane Fonda is responsible, well then I'm pissed off too. 

Harg blar!

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:44 | 741720 trav7777
trav7777's picture

what US oil reserves?

Name them.

Morons like you are sadly in abundance.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:50 | 741115 HarryWanger
HarryWanger's picture

Well, everything on the planet is finite, it's just arguing over when it runs out. Could be couple hundred years, could be a few thousand. Regardless, I bet something else takes us down before we have to worry about oil.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:41 | 741338 snowball777
snowball777's picture

The wind and the sun are good for a few billion years.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:19 | 741465 Seer
Seer's picture

Yeah!  I'm long sun! (for low-tech reasons, like producing forage for grazers- read "free inputs")

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 15:53 | 741899 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

It's got nothing to do with "running out" - it's all about not being able to keep up with demand.

Repeat after me:  "Peak Oil = Peak RATE of extraction"

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 20:55 | 742548 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Acknowledged -- time to leave the cradle and migrate to other planets.

Wed, 12/01/2010 - 10:41 | 767611 Auntiegrav
Auntiegrav's picture

Maybe it's time to learn to use the composting toilet first.
Might save a lot of money and work that way.
We evolved on this planet along with all of the plants and animals we need to eat. We can't learn to get along with the things that share 90-100% of our DNA (our environment and each other), yet we are supposed to believe we will be able to survive on another planet where nothing has compatible amino acids and chemistry for our bodies.
Just amazing how the human brain sees only what it wants to see. Wow.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:36 | 741313 harry tuttle
harry tuttle's picture

Look, given how little understanding there is over past climatic shifts, antropogenic global warming (AGW) is a very, very hard case to prove.  There's little question that the hard-core collectivists/statists/globalists have hijacked the issue to enhance their real agenda....just as they continue to do with health care, land-use planning, energy policy, economic policy, housing & financial regulation, etc. 

There's also little question that they have helped to exacerbate all of the problems we're now facing.  Peak oil?  Maybe, maybe not.  It's pretty hard to prove just how technology, R&D, exploration, and a lack of counter-productive government interference might have reduced our dependency on foreign imports.  Even then, it's hard to know how much a stronger dollar might have bought us time.  Those are the roads not taken and, sadly, long past in the rear-view mirror, T. Boone Pickens notwithstanding.

Kunstler: Here's a fellow that may or may not be right about peak oil and the ripple effects that might result from having avoided turning down the "right road" so many times.  There's little question that he's right about the fact that that our economy and standard of living are based on unsustainable practices.  After the past three years, is that really a surprise to anyone? 

Still, for all of his insight, Kunstler is a boorish, hate-filled, reactionary.  As with anyone filled with that much venom, it's unwise to swallow his pablum wholesale.  Read enough of him and you'll realize he's fully entrenched with the same folks that would have us all living in cattle cars, errr, government sponsored work camps, errr, I mean cities.  He might promote another, slightly smaller scale path, but his buddies and acolytes tend to be full-on, centralized-planning, bureau-nazis. 

See:  http://areasonablelife.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/james-kunstler-idiot-savant/

 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:26 | 741487 Seer
Seer's picture

That You have very little undestanding is YOUR issue.

I wonder what and who you'd be blaming if you're wrong...

I could argue the complete opposite.  As an anarchist, that's exactly what I do: I see nothing but ideological idiots on both sides of the infantile political spectrum.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:47 | 741733 trav7777
trav7777's picture

You're totally right man.

The fact that the US peaked FORTY FUCKING YEARS AGO despite all the technological improvements we've come up with and thrown at the problem isn't persuasive at ALL.

This whole thing is still "unknowable."

Dude you, like most, are on the wrong side of the Downing Effect.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:50 | 742354 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Nothing to do with regulations.  The US hasn't dropped in any other field of production.

trav777 is a moleman, and knows everything that goes on underneath our thin layer of dirt, and yes, he assures us that there is no such thing as serpentinization reactions.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:05 | 741933 harry tuttle
harry tuttle's picture

Two peas in a pod right there.  Somebody needs to strap their helmets on a little bit tighter, less they hurt themselves.

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo320/drendall0/multiplicity80.jpg

 

Cognitive Dissonance Example #1:  "The Anarcho-Fundamentalst" -  They must always argue the opposite, a particularly entertaining and time-consuming aid to internal dialogues.

 

Cognitive Dissonance Example #2:  "The Genius-Party-of-One" - Always, always, always on "the right side of the Downing Effect".  More than just a bit ironic, when you actually stop and think about it.

 

 

Wed, 12/01/2010 - 11:08 | 767681 Auntiegrav
Auntiegrav's picture

Haha!
I take both of those positions sometimes in the same response. It totally screws up conversations. ;-)
And now, I am the "late entry troll", too.
HAT TRICK!!

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 13:47 | 741559 imapedestrian
imapedestrian's picture

Peak oil is real but it is not because we are running out of dead dinosaurs.  Those who admonish dissenters of Peak Oil to "do some research" are total jackasses.  What kind of research are you talking about?  Do you mean review a report done by someone who beleives in peak oil, or to actually go out inot the world conduct scientific tests and so forth.  If you mean just review someone elses work... nah I'll pass and so will anyone else who has a brain of their own.

I, and probably many others who think that we have plenty of hydrocarbons disagree as to the origins of hydrocarbons.  Peak oil nitwits think that hydrocarbons are unique to our planet due to the MASSIVE accumulation in single very dense points of dead things, which then are taken deep below to just the right depth (miles) where it was magically transformed into various hydrocarbons.  This is so speculative... really it is.

Peak oil dissenters simply observe that we really do not know where hydrocarbons come from.  We seem the on other planets (Saturn, Jupiter, Titan, Uranus, Neptune) that do not have any life on them (that we know about or recognize) have plent of hydrocarbons.  We look at fundamental scientific research done in the Soviet Union, which had no motivation for adhereing to stories that place limitations on supply (unlike the greedy powers in the West) but pioneered and proved that oil is part of the fundamental makeup of the earth.

Lastly, zerohedge is the perfect place for us dissenters.  This is about the crumbling of Western civilization that was built upon many lies and ignorance, lies and ignorance that go beyond, waaayyyyyy beyond finance into virtually every realm of our existence. 

200 years from now , historians will lokk at the period of 1950 to 2010 (give or take a few years here or there) as an age of unbritaled stupidity of common society.

There exists now a society that lives above this ignorance.  Their existence has been speculated about and rumored for years.  They live lives that would appear fantasic to us, because we live in a matrix that severely and unnecessarily limits our own lives.  CEOs, politicans, and the academic establishment are the knowing and also unknowing gatekeepers (who is the guy in the matrix who keeps popping up and cannot be destroyed?).

No, peak oil is a huge matrix lie, but then again the use of oil is also a backward and severely limiting burden that keeps us so imprisoned... anyway... back to the struggle for existence...

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:07 | 741598 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

What is your understanding of the meaning of the phrase "peak oil"?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 17:57 | 742234 imapedestrian
imapedestrian's picture

Peak oil is simply a fantasy that has been created by those in control of the industry.  What would happen and who has the most to lose if oil was not an infinite, but nevertheless, vast resource?

IMO the truth will not be found on this by any single person no matter how many papers and powerpoint presentations they "research."  How pathetic are we that most of anyone's "research " is based on what they find on the internet. 

Rather it will take a country with sufficent motivation and power to break the stranglehold.  I think China or India is a good bet as they have much to lose.  Russia is now benefiting too much for them to care about the truth... they like high prices.

Peak oil is real but because the murderous powers that be set it in motion decades ago.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 20:52 | 742545 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You don't seem able to answer the question.

You don't know what "peak oil" means, sir.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 14:49 | 741737 trav7777
trav7777's picture

How many times are you idiots going to demonstrate the Downing Effect in one day?

I mean beside the fact that you are insane.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 17:48 | 742213 imapedestrian
imapedestrian's picture

To call someone insane during a discussion on a message board because you do not like what they say is not quite healthy.

I suppose you would rather have a messaghe board where everyone just agrees with you?

Have a nice day there guy.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:37 | 742326 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

Forget the catch-phrase peak oil, and just think about the fact that although there may still be plenty of oil, most of the low hanging fruit has been picked.  From here on out the extraction of oil continues to become both more expensive and more damaging to the environment. We now have to go to extremes to get at it, drilling in the Arctic, deep sea, etc, and we import more every year.  In the meantime even the present so-called "liberal" administration makes no leadership calls for more serious energy conservation. This is not a situation with a happy ending and people are in denial if they think otherwise.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 21:03 | 742561 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Ye shall know the reality of peak oil has been acknowledged when motor sports go extinct.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 16:16 | 741977 midtowng
midtowng's picture

I don't buy all the stuff about Peak Oil (although it only makes sense that eventually Peak Oil will happen).

However, the suburban culture is sick and deserves a swift death.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 18:08 | 742258 imapedestrian
imapedestrian's picture

The point is that Peak Oil is happening but we need to understand it as a mechanism of control. 

If this is too fantasic to believe I have a $1 million house in the inland empire of California to sell you. 

Would anyone ever believe the things that have happened over the past 3 years in 1995? 

Truth is considered "insane" until is not.  Then the true insanity is revealled.

Sat, 11/20/2010 - 10:53 | 743033 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

Peak oil may be real.  I don't know.

But carbon taxes, cap & trade, whatever, is not the answer. 

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:47 | 740868 moofph
moofph's picture

...i am, and i have been paying attention for years...and will continue to do so.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:50 | 740876 TWORIVER
TWORIVER's picture

Gold (1345) silver (26.5) and Oil (81.5) are all going to tank very hard today. Let the junkings begin!

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:51 | 740884 Internet Tough Guy
Internet Tough Guy's picture

Proving what, exactly?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:55 | 740895 TWORIVER
TWORIVER's picture

Ok Commisar, I'll wait for a related thread.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:53 | 741382 Bolweevil
Bolweevil's picture

Ooh, punk against reggae. Fight! I got $10 on the kid with the mohawk.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 17:38 | 742181 Crisismode
Crisismode's picture

Proving that since gold closed today at 1354, the prediction of tanking was spoken from the mouth of a fool.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:52 | 740886 Crisismode
Crisismode's picture

And your point is?

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:00 | 740908 Kina
Kina's picture

AUD going down further so far, meaning Im making money on gold and silver.

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:20 | 741241 moregoldplease
moregoldplease's picture

Gold is now 1351

Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:50 | 740882 CashCowEquity
CashCowEquity's picture

USO Leaps

use the profits to develop my own energy 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!