The Long Emergency

[Nighthawk]

www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7203633 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7203633)

Any thoughts on this? If accurate, it is pretty sobering.

[Division56]

http://intuitivecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=385

Bwahaha... just in case anyone wants to see the discussion we had on it.

[Sally]

Have you ever watched movies like Soylent Green and thought, "Yeah. I'm ready. Bring it on."?

[Sally]

"Is America prepared to contest for this oil in an Asian land war with the Chinese army?"

The most famous blunder is, "Never wage a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known..!

Man, I am in some kind of effervescent mood tonight.

[SheepDog]

I think the article is just beginning to discuss issues of interdependence on oil and how a change in the relative abundance and price will effect the society. I think it's an interesting exercise, in itself, because it gets us thinking of how specialized we are in our skills, and how interdependent we are on the current system of producing even the most basic of needs. If one were so inclined, one could take this article to some interesting possible outcomes.

I'm too tired to expand on it at the moment. If you want to read more, do some searches on 'peak oil'. This isn't the fringe issue that one might think, despite the lack of coverage on the corporate, er, I mean mainstream, media.

[coffeezombie]

I think he's saying mostly that people need to change the way they live and their pattern of land development. No more living out in the suburbs and driving miles to work everyday, and building 20-lane freeways to support such habits.

[SheepDog]

I think he's saying mostly that people need to change the way they live and their pattern of land development. No more living out in the suburbs and driving miles to work everyday, and building 20-lane freeways to support such habits.
That's a teeny part of it, yes.

[PsiKik]

Finally people are waking up to this, I hope.
Just google on the keywords 'peak oil' and read the articles that are found.

This is indeed an emergency.

[Nighthawk]

Chaos often breeds opportunity. So ... what to do to take advantage of such a situation, or at least insulate oneself? Become a feudal landowner? Invest in alternate energies? Gunsmith? This requires some more thinking.

[Robespierre]

Is this the thread for kids who don't read good?

If you want a more heavy-weight treatment of the issue, go to the previously linked thread that is covering this "crisis".

[Nighthawk]

I'd be interested in your economic take on this, Robespierre.

[Robespierre]

http://intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3804

[SheepDog]

http://intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3804
This turned into a discussion of rollover potential of medium sized vs. really big SUV's.

There were some opinions on whether an individual, or even a whole bunch of individuals could make a difference in the price of oil.

I agree that the original article in this thread gives a very high level overview of the implications. It's hints at things broader, however.

[Architectonic]

This turned into a discussion of rollover potential of medium sized vs. really big SUV's.

I assure you that the definition of a monopoly and road fatality statistics have everything to do with the big picture regarding the consumption of fossil fuels. :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

I assure you that the definition of a monopoly and road fatality statistics have everything to do with the big picture regarding the consumption of fossil fuels. :ph34r:
My bad, I didn't realize that was all there was to it.

[Robespierre]

My bad, I didn't realize that was all there was to it.

Nobody said that's all there was to it. If you want to add something to the discussion, you should. Especially if you think there's a major point that has been overlooked.

[SensEye]

I think the article is guilty of a bit of hyperbole as mainstream media tends to be. The reality of the situation is probably not as bad as it appears to be. It could cause a serious economic shock (a concern I expressed on the other thread) if people don't acknowledge and address the problem and a shortage comes up suddenly.

It's a question of economics. There are quite a few alternative energy sources around, they just are not economical. A lot more electricity can be generated by hydro than is now, it's just that hydro dams are expensive to build. Same goes for nuclear plants. You can make them very safe if you spend enough on the construction. Wind farms, etc. All doable, just not economical at the present.

As well, many individual houses could be made almost self sufficient energy wise if necessary. Large up front investment of course (super insulated, passive and active solar heating, ground based heat pumps and the like).

Portable energy (for vehicles) is still a bit of a problem. Mass transit will just have to become more common. Say goodbye to your 3-ton SUV and hello to your 500 pound electric dinky toy. It will still get you around, it's just a change in mentality.

Civilization as we know it will not fall, but we could go through a doozy of a recession.

[Claverhouse]

No doubt I've got views both on catastrophism and oil, but on a side-note, Rense, which at this moment has a rather alarming front picture ( *see below ) had a recent article Stalin and Abiotic Oil (http://www.rense.com/general63/staline.htm) which argues that contrary to received opinion oil cannot run out nor is it derived from fossils:


It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena. So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on. And earlier:


By 1951, what has been called the Modern Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins was born. A healthy amount of scientific debate followed for the next couple of decades, during which time the theory, initially formulated by geologists, based on observational data, was validated through the rigorous quantitative work of chemists, physicists and thermodynamicists. For the last couple of decades, the theory has been accepted as established fact by virtually the entire scientific community of the (former) Soviet Union. It is backed up by literally thousands of published studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals. For over fifty years, Russian and Ukrainian scientists have added to this body of research and refined the Russian-Ukrainian theories. And for over fifty years, not a word of it has been published in the English language (except for a fairly recent, bastardized version published by astronomer Thomas Gold, who somehow forgot to credit the hundreds of scientists whose research he stole and then misrepresented). This is not, by the way, just a theoretical model that the Russians and Ukrainians have established; the theories were put to practical use, resulting in the transformation of the Soviet Union - once regarded as having limited prospects, at best, for successful petroleum exploration - into a world-class petroleum producing, and exporting, nation. It is a long article, and in no way particularly interesting. Still, it's useful to see other viewpoints...



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ And speculatively of course: might it not be an equal disaster if this theory is true ? Endless oil would mean endless motor vehicles all contributing to gridlocks and global warming etc.. And endless tedious advertisements for new cars. All made in China, of course. ]


* Picture:
http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/rense_sunbathers.jpg

[coffeezombie]

That's a teeny part of it, yes.

Well, that is what his traditional emphasis has been, on the idea of better urban planning. He has written a couple of books called "The Geography of Nowhere" and "Home from Nowhere" that you should check out. That is his proposed solution. Kunstler doesn't scream Chicken Little like you people enjoy doing.

You ignore the problem if you talk about any other fuel source except for solar, which doesn't seem realistic to me. Other alternative fuel sources still drain the environment in one way or the other.

[SheepDog]

I see two important questions here. One is the likelihood of a near-term, dramatic change in the supply and price of oil, and the other is about the likely impact. My answer to the second leads me to say that we should be talking about ways to deal with the first.

The article that sparked this thread is what it is, a suggestion that there be more thought and dialog about oil price and availability. I don't think that it is, or tries to be, a definitive analysis of the situation. But I do think that some of the points have credibility. In particular, 1) the US economy benefits greatly from inexpensive oil, 2) that the relatively abundant supply and low prices will not remain indefinitely, and 3) that people owe it to themselves to consider the impacts such a change.

As the article correctly points out, it is not only the luxuries, but also the necessities of life that depend on cheap oil. If you just consider the food supply, you will see that it is more than just transportation costs that are an issue. Fossil fuels drive the machinery that cultivate and harvest the land. Petrochemicals provide the bulk of fertilizers, herbacides, and pesticides that are used in food production. At many steps in the food supply, oil is a contributor. You can easily expand this observation to all sorts of consumer goods, taking into account how many things are derived from oil, or in which oil is a material contributor.

Alternatives to oil, if you consider the above food example, vary in the ease and cost of alternatives. Transportation strikes me as one where another form of energy could be used to accomplish the same need, and to a relative degree could be done with minimal change in cost. Many alternatives already exist, and economies of scale will help with the pricing. But with other uses, such as the use of petrochemicals in pesticides, alternatives may not be as available, effective, nor as economical. I suspect that the impact here will be more significant. I also do not see this as limited to food, by any means.

All of this leads me to think that the impact of more scarce, and more expensive oil is worth considering. It could be insignificant, or it could be devastating. I suspect something in between, but that doesn't change my desire to consider it more fully.


The first question, of the likelihood of a significant change in supply and/or price in the near term, is certainly one that lacks a definitive answer. I don't see the current price situation as providing many clues about the true answer. The current situation is a result of a variety of factors that exist now, along with people's expectations about the future. It is also a part of longer term trends, changes in technology, political, and other factors.

But to me, this is really just debating when the oil situation is going to materially change, and not if. Oil is a finite resource, and our current dependence on it is significant. I don't think it's too early to be working on alternatives to the dependence.

[Combat]

There is always the option to convert organic waste to oil:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp
:thumbup:

[Helios]

I read that a while ago, when that issue came out, I found it to be alarmist BS, which is a shame cause Big Oil prevents better fuels from coming along and needs controled , but this sorta crap only makes anyone who speaks about the need for such balance look like a some sorta chicken little nutcase.

Regarding China I am much more concerned, not about them buying all the oil (with our money they get making everything) but the fact that the PRC cannot keep it current coarse of haveing it's cake and eating too! You can't mix Mao, Hong Kong, the information age, and the secrete police. The yuan in under valued, and rurals are underdeveloped, and the place is crazy outta balance. The next generation will make demands Beijing can't met.

It may take sometime, but the PRC will come unglued at some point, and I'll be happy cause oil will 10USD a barrel, but a litter box for my cat will cost 85 bucks cause itwas made by a unionized worker in Arkon!

[Architectonic]

I think the article is guilty of a bit of hyperbole as mainstream media tends to be. The reality of the situation is probably not as bad as it appears to be. It could cause a serious economic shock (a concern I expressed on the other thread) if people don't acknowledge and address the problem and a shortage comes up suddenly.

It's a question of economics. There are quite a few alternative energy sources around, they just are not economical. A lot more electricity can be generated by hydro than is now, it's just that hydro dams are expensive to build. Same goes for nuclear plants. You can make them very safe if you spend enough on the construction. Wind farms, etc. All doable, just not economical at the present.

As well, many individual houses could be made almost self sufficient energy wise if necessary. Large up front investment of course (super insulated, passive and active solar heating, ground based heat pumps and the like).

Portable energy (for vehicles) is still a bit of a problem. Mass transit will just have to become more common. Say goodbye to your 3-ton SUV and hello to your 500 pound electric dinky toy. It will still get you around, it's just a change in mentality.

Civilization as we know it will not fall, but we could go through a doozy of a recession.

Exactly.

SheepDog, if you have an alternate source of energy, then you can still produce oil for oil based products (fertilizers, plastics etc). The issue isn't necessarily about oil itself, but simply a cheap energy source in the first place.

[Nighthawk]

I read that a while ago, when that issue came out, I found it to be alarmist BS, which is a shame cause Big Oil prevents better fuels from coming along and needs controled , but this sorta crap only makes anyone who speaks about the need for such balance look like a some sorta chicken little nutcase.
It did seem a bit shrill. I would imagine a more gradual decline and/or and end situation that is not quite as bad as the picture he paints.



It may take sometime, but the PRC will come unglued at some point, and I'll be happy cause oil will 10USD a barrel, but a litter box for my cat will cost 85 bucks cause itwas made by a unionized worker in Arkon!Which leads me to wonder who will become unglued first, the PRC (for reasons you outlined) or the USA (when the fuel/oil costs become unsustainable).

[Nighthawk]

Portable energy (for vehicles) is still a bit of a problem. Mass transit will just have to become more common. Say goodbye to your 3-ton SUV and hello to your 500 pound electric dinky toy. It will still get you around, it's just a change in mentality. I see this as one crux of the problem. Mass transit in much of the southern USA is a complete joke. I know that the Dallas area mass transit (some buses and a light rail) can handle only a tiny fraction of the total daily commute. Many people commute 25-100 miles daily just to get to work and back. A huge mass transit upgrade will be needed ... and seeing how long it took them just to put the present ineffective solution in place, I don't see it happening unless the bottom drops out. Only then it will be too late.

I wouldn't mind a fuel efficient dinky toy ... I just wish the government/corporate stranglehold on oil would wake up and place more emphasis on viable alternate energy sources. Of course, if oil and fuel become outrageously expensive, that might force more interest in alternate sources. By then, once again, it might be too late.

Seems like humanity often reacts "just in time." One of these days it will be too late.

[Sally]

Well... Chances are, alternate energy production, which is becoming more and more efficient, will jump in to fill the void. It will just take a few (or many, depending on the government) years for production to get up to speed, during which lots and lots of people will lose their jobs. But the process will probably be just gradual enough that a crisis of culture-destroying proportions will be avoided.

Now, maybe if you combine it with a few natural disasters, throw in some war, or even just a lunatic with a bomb....

Civilisations do fall. Look at the Maya. Look at the Romans.

[coffeezombie]

Seems like humanity often reacts "just in time." One of these days it will be too late.
We'll just go back to living like the Amish, I suppose.

[Nighthawk]

We'll just go back to living like the Amish, I suppose.Damn ... I guess that means no internet. :shock:

[SheepDog]

SheepDog, if you have an alternate source of energy, then you can still produce oil for oil based products (fertilizers, plastics etc). The issue isn't necessarily about oil itself, but simply a cheap energy source in the first place.
I think you're implying here that if you reduce the demand for oil as a source of fuel, you can just use that oil for other purposes instead. I don't think it works that way.

Crude oil is actually made up of many components, separable through distillation. Depending on the source and grade, crude oil contains a certain amount of different components. These components have distinct uses, like gasoline, oils, waxes, etc. The portion that is distilled out for gasoline can not be used as fuel oil, or for many of the other oil-based products like plastics, etc.

This is a pretty basic article, but it talks about crude oil components:
http://www.wetestit.com/Crude_101.htm

[Biff_Loman]

If the oil peak does come to pass before we have alternatives, the adjustment will be painful, but I doubt it will be anywhere near as severe as the article describes.

I mean, seriously. Agriculture will be the pre-occupation of the brand-new starving hordes? I beg - BEG - to differ. Diesel engines can run on just about anything. Tractors use diesel engines. Wait a minute. . . so do transport trucks and trains.

I would expect that a reallocation of land from food for animals to biomass for biodiesel would easily keep industrial agribusiness going. We can't produce enough for biomass to replace oil in all capacities - ha! not even close - but there should be enough to keep industrial farming going at some pace. We're certainly not going to be leading teams of oxen any time soon.

Nitrogen fertilizer is, by the way, derived from natural gas, not petroleum.

The activists make such a big deal about industrial farming being ever so energy intensive. It is. It pales, however, in comparison to the massive amounts of energy used to shuffle office workers back and forth from their workplaces. The difference would hit you if you could see a 450 hp tractor cultivating a field, and compare it with an entire freeway of smaller engines being used to propel about one person, each, at 65 mph.

Don't worry about having to learn to farm. Putting food on the plate is #1 priority for human beings. In the event that worst comes to worst and we're caught with our pants down, I'm sure we'll find a way to keep the tractors fueled, maintained, etc.

And yes, I'm from an agricultural background myself.

[edit] Yes, I'm suggesting that resources used to produce meat would be used to produce fuel instead, which in turn would be used to produce food (plants) for us.

It takes a lot of energy to grow crops for energy, so the net rate of energy return is less than 3x, if I remember correctly. Like I said: just enough to keep the tractors going, and hopefully enough to ship the food as well.

Get used to soy! :)

[Nighthawk]

Don't worry about having to learn to farm.Comforting thought. I'd make a lousy farmer and can think of few professions I'd rather do even less.

[Biff_Loman]

Comforting thought. I'd make a lousy farmer and can think of few professions I'd rather do even less.

This may be true. That being said, you'd be surprised how satisfying an INTP might find agriculture. There are "those days," but I would definitely be farming if I had never had the chance to go to university.

Farming isn't what it (probably) seems to an outsider, an urbanite. I'm back on the farm right now, and loving it. I'd share all my thoughts on the subject, but that would probably be a topic for a new thread. . . I'll explain later, but farming is hardly the grass-stalk-chewing hick experience I think some people might imagine. At least, not where I come from (I have met the hicks, though. Ouch).

It's not what I'd want to do from a financial perspective, though. The rate of return is pathetic, and debt servicing is a nightmare; in general, any business that low down the value-added chain is going to get more and more squeezed as our economy moves farther up the chain. I feel I have other options in life.

[SheepDog]

biff_loman, all of what you suggest as alternatives seem reasonable for the uses you mention. What I find interesting is that there are some noteworthy lifestyle changes in your solutions. Namely, a big change in diet, and a big change in the level of freedom from zipping around in our cars. I find it interesting to assert that lower supply/higher price of oil may lead to less meat in our diets. I'll add that it will also mean less variety if it becomes more expensive to transport food around the world.

And you are correct that Nitrogen fertilizer comes from NG. NG is still a finite resource, and is similar to oil in that respect. Even if NG is more plentiful, oil scarcity/prices add to the demand for NG. Just one example is higher demand for NG for electricity generation as a result of switching from gas to electric vehicles. NG prices are already affecting Nitrogen Fertilizer prices. Agoogle search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nitrogen+fertilizer+natural+gas&btnG=Google+Search) reveals quite a few articles about this.

[SheepDog]

biff_loman, I'd like to hear more of your take on the lifestyle of a farmer. It strikes me as something that an INTP might enjoy. It seems like it would offer variety of tasks, and a constant opportunity to learn new things. I know there would be some drawbacks for INTP's as well, so I'm interested in more of your take on the pros/cons.

[Nighthawk]

biff_loman, I'd like to hear more of your take on the lifestyle of a farmer. It strikes me as something that an INTP might enjoy. It seems like it would offer variety of tasks, and a constant opportunity to learn new things. I know there would be some drawbacks for INTP's as well, so I'm interested in more of your take on the pros/cons.I wouldn't mind hearing about it either. I probably have a sterotypically incorrect view of it.

[Architectonic]

I think you're implying here that if you reduce the demand for oil as a source of fuel, you can just use that oil for other purposes instead. I don't think it works that way.

That is not exactly what I was implying. But, really if you have enough energy, it can most certainly work that way.

[SheepDog]

By 'other purposes', I meant non-fuel purposes. Freeing up gasoline or fuel oil demand doesn't in itself increase the sources of non-fuel uses of oil (e.g. some plastics) to any significant degree.

[Robespierre]

non-fuel uses of oil (e.g. some plastics)

Nearly all plastics. There are some bio-based plastics designed to degrade over time, but those are very expesive and hard to use. The plastics industry is based almost entirely on petroleum chemistry.

[SheepDog]

Yeah, probably the vast majority of plastics. I was being wimpy by saying 'some', really trying not to get caught up in percentages or minutae, but to make a point about the distinct uses of oil.

As you stated, there may be alternatives to petroleum for many non-fuel items, but many are not as effective or economical.

And just to highlight the difference between the part of oil used for fuel and the part I'm talking about, from http://www.wetestit.com/Crude_101.htm

The Cylinder Stock or Bottoms fraction is what is left over after the crude oil has been put through the distillation tower. The wax portion is removed to create a product called Micro Wax. Micro has a much higher melting point than paraffins and is therefore suitable for a variety of products we use daily, such as a component of many plastics, candy, and in building materials.

[Biff_Loman]

biff_loman, I'd like to hear more of your take on the lifestyle of a farmer. It strikes me as something that an INTP might enjoy. It seems like it would offer variety of tasks, and a constant opportunity to learn new things. I know there would be some drawbacks for INTP's as well, so I'm interested in more of your take on the pros/cons.

Ok, I'll fill you in. I have to explain that my parents own a (wine) grape farm, and previously had chickens (for meat) in addition to the grapes. The farm only grows grapes at this point.

With respect to variety of work and the opportunity to learn new things: absolutely. The sweet part, though, is the fact that you and you alone are responsible for optimizing all your processes. Whenever your brain cooks up some ingenious idea to save you some time or effort, you can try to implement it! Every season we streamline things so we get slicker and slicker. It's very rewarding.

Likewise, you are forced to develop a variety of skills. You not only have to know a fair bit about the organisms you grow/raise, but also have to be a mechanic, equipment operator, etc. You also have to stay aware of any developments in your industry; after all, business is business.

Boredom is a problem at times, but that's actually just a codeword for time to be alone and think. Imagine whole days at a time with no one to tell you what to do or make any demands on you whatsoever. You are your own master; whatever you want, you do. Whatever you think you can let slide, you let slide. At no point will you ever, ever be accountable to someone else. A bit of tediousness is, in my mind, a small price to pay.

I must add that the farm is not particularly isolated. Vineyards make for very dense farms; I would actually describe this area as semi-rural. A city of over 130 000 people is a fifteen minute drive away; Toronto is 1.5 hours, and Buffalo NY is even closer (for what it's worth). The radio-station with best reception is actually a hip-hop station, and I must admit I listen to it when using the cab tractor. Yes, Snoop Dogg, I WILL drop it like it's hot. . . or whatever.

[kuranes]

Ever get any "Sideways" type characters dropping in? Love that Late Harvest "noble rot". K

[Dman]

As the article correctly points out, it is not only the luxuries, but also the necessities of life that depend on cheap oil. If you just consider the food supply, you will see that it is more than just transportation costs that are an issue. Fossil fuels drive the machinery that cultivate and harvest the land. Petrochemicals provide the bulk of fertilizers, herbacides, and pesticides that are used in food production. At many steps in the food supply, oil is a contributor. You can easily expand this observation to all sorts of consumer goods, taking into account how many things are derived from oil, or in which oil is a material contributor.

Where were you in the Anti-SUV battle? Folks seem to think it’s simply the big bad SUVs that use oil. Dorks.

Additionally, let’s not forget that plastics and other commonly used items are petroleum products. (EDIT - ok, I see now someone already pointed that out) How much oil is used in that industry? There’s an awful lot of plastic out there. According to this website, gasoline accounts for 20% of a barrel of oil and “other” products (like plastics) account for over 7%. I think that’s fairly significant. Remember though that if we switch to alternative energy sources, the other products are typically created from by-products of refining oil into gasoline. That means if we are no longer using gasoline, the cost to produce plastics and others goes sky-high, and you would have a lot of “wasted” gasoline.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html


I wouldn't mind a fuel efficient dinky toy

Me either, as long as the national speed limit was 5 mph


EDIT Part II - Whoops, I just realized I made an error. It's not 20% and 7%, it's 20 gallons and 7 gallons. The percentages are 44% and 16%, respectively. The proportion is the same, nonetheless.

[SheepDog]

Dman, thanks for adding some data to my previous assertion.

[Nighthawk]

Me either, as long as the national speed limit was 5 mph
Good point.

[Biff_Loman]

Ever get any "Sideways" type characters dropping in? Love that Late Harvest "noble rot". K

Heh - not quite. The farm is not, as of yet, a winery. Yet. We sell grapes at this point; the rest is up to the wineries.

Late harvest "noble rot," as you put it, is botrytis, a condition caused by a kind of fungus. The French use this to good effect to create Sauturne dessert wines - although apparently Americans have a product called Sauturne which is something completely different. And terrible.

In the Niagara Region, we have the privilege of being able to reliably produce "ice wine," which is reminiscent of Sauturne. If you've never tried ice wine, I strongly recommend it; it never fails to please. $$$ as hell though.

[Biff_Loman]

biff_loman, all of what you suggest as alternatives seem reasonable for the uses you mention. What I find interesting is that there are some noteworthy lifestyle changes in your solutions. Namely, a big change in diet, and a big change in the level of freedom from zipping around in our cars. I find it interesting to assert that lower supply/higher price of oil may lead to less meat in our diets. I'll add that it will also mean less variety if it becomes more expensive to transport food around the world.

Well, the article describes an oil peak as if it would be nothing short of the four horses of the apocalypse. I only tried to come up with a scenario that did not have masses of hungry suburbanites squatting on farmland, working the ground by hand.

I think a transition could be rough, but painful, if we started the conversion now. I don't see that happening, though, so I'm worried that a more severe transition will occur. However, I don't see us being thrown back to the iron age, which is exactly what the article implies.

It seems like too many hippie types see the oil peak as their fantasy come true: we can all live in a big pasture and frolic in the woods with the deer. Afterwards, we'll sing kumbaya around the campfire and tell great stories about how much civilization sucked.

I don't think so.

[SheepDog]

I agree with what you're saying. As I mentioned above, the article is what it is, but it's still an interesting and important topic to explore. I share your fear that the transition will not be so smooth.

This isn't all or nothing. The transition will not be completely devastating, but it will not be insignificant either. I wish there was less polarization of the projected outcomes, because I think this kind of thinking gets in the way of coming up with smart approaches to making the most it.

Maybe I should just shut up and learn to capitalize on the whole thing...

[Nighthawk]

Maybe I should just shut up and learn to capitalize on the whole thing...
That's exactly what I am trying to figure out.

[kuranes]

Heh - not quite. The farm is not, as of yet, a winery. Yet. We sell grapes at this point; the rest is up to the wineries.

Late harvest "noble rot," as you put it, is botrytis, a condition caused by a kind of fungus. The French use this to good effect to create Sauturne dessert wines - although apparently Americans have a product called Sauturne which is something completely different. And terrible.

In the Niagara Region, we have the privilege of being able to reliably produce "ice wine," which is reminiscent of Sauturne. If you've never tried ice wine, I strongly recommend it; it never fails to please. $$$ as hell though.


Yes, I love Ice Wine. VERY expensive though, especially considering that you're typically only getting a half bottle. I know it takes extra effort to make it etc. but sheesh. You can find even Trockenbeerenauslese on sale more often than you can find THAT stuff on sale. I guess we just need more demand, as Robespierre would say, and that will boost the quantities available etc., but at those prices I think demand will stay low.

I'm still hesitating unleashing all of the oil related ( and other ) conspiracy theories I'm aware of, as (a) thread(s). Some of them seem extreme but plausible. But you almost always get someone ( in a typical discussion where these are raised ) asking you to PROVE them BEYOND the point of "that sounds reasonable." To have that level of knowledge you'd practically have to be one of the conspirators yourself. This doesn't advocate embracing every fringe theory on the net ( they often contradict each other anyway ) but . . . well . . it's a fine line to walk, is I guess what i'm trying to say.

K

[Architectonic]

Nice to see most people are still thinking inside the square. :whistle:

In regards to capitalizing on innovation, evidently there seems to be lots of opportunities in chemical engineering.

[Biff_Loman]

Yes, I love Ice Wine. VERY expensive though, especially considering that you're typically only getting a half bottle. I know it takes extra effort to make it etc. but sheesh.

"Extra effort" doesn't begin to describe it. Suffice to say that it requires more capital investment, more labour, and way more risk for the farmer. The juice from which ice wine is made is incredibly expensive stuff.

Once you sit down with pen and paper, you wouldn't want to produce it for less. I would love to see the price go down to the point where we could produce this stuff in serious volumes, but I'm not sure how feasible that is with the current state of technology/capital investment with respect to ice wine.

On the plus side, they've just figured out how to use machines to harvest ice wine grapes. Previously, they were all hand-picked. That might not sound like such a big deal, but ice wine grapes are picked at night; that's the only time the temperature will dip below -10 degrees celcius long enough to pick (normally). So: hand picking is hard work, at night, in the coldest weather we have around here. . . and on-demand, too. You never know when it'll get cold enough. All of a sudden, at 10 pm or so, you'll realize you need to round up an entire crew of people willing to do this kind of work. Believe me, they don't come around unless there is bigtime wages involved.

The machine replaces a dozen people, so the task becomes much more simple and economical. We're making other advances as well, with respect to better netting (protection against birds), and in other areas. More and more capital investment is going into ice wine, so the production capacity is increasing. . .

But don't expect ice wine to be competing against Two Buck Chuck any time soon. :lol:

[edit] I mentioned risk, but failed to elaborate. Non-ice-wine grapes are harvested through September and October (sometimes November if the season is late). Ice wine grapes are usually harvested around New Year's. That's a lot of extra time for the grapes to fall victim to early frosts (before the vine is dormant), hail, birds - heck, even strong winds will knock the grapes off the vine. When you let a grape hang on the vine past the point of ripening, it falls off at the slightest touch.

Then there's the weather. There are some years in which we will have a grand total of one - one! - night when it gets cold enough to harvest. This isn't enough time to harvest everything, and a good portion of the crop is lost. This last season, we had temperatures down to -25 celcius for a couple days/nights, which was more than enough time to harvest everything, even during the day! The downside: temperatures of -20 C kill grape buds, which means we're looking at about a 40% crop for next year for all our wines, not just ice wine. Merlot in particular got shafted.

Yeah, the Niagara wine industry is a funny beast. . .

[kuranes]

There's a winery in NW Chicago/ Illinois area that buys its grapes elsewhere, and takes things from there. Maybe they'd be interested in getting in to the Eiswein market. How do you market your grapes? I also know someone ( wife of an acquaintance ) who ( last I heard ) was working for a large West Coast winery. Maybe I could be involved in the biz, and get some Eiswein as part of a middle-man fee. Just speculating. . . .

BTW, Wonder how my name got misspelled ( automatically ) as "Kurnaes" in your quote?

K

[kuranes]

Nice to see most people are still thinking inside the square. :whistle:

In regards to capitalizing on innovation, evidently there seems to be lots of opportunities in chemical engineering.


Glad you like my style, dude. :laser:

Any areas of chemical engineering you favor? My math skills are too weak to allow me into the field, although it was one of my first loves. I'm still interested in new developments that an "advanced layman" ( is there such a term? ) would understand.

It seemed to me ( in my poking around over the years ) that a lot of chemists end up in the solvents ( cleaning solutions etc. ) or plastics industries. One guy I knew was in environmental clean-up, with a special focus on removing Cyanide related toxins from sites.

I used to study how fireworks are made, as a young guy.

K

[Biff_Loman]

BTW, Wonder how my name got misspelled ( automatically ) as "Kurnaes" in your quote?

That's because I entered it manually in the "quick reply" box. Of course, my quick reply turned into a long-ass post.

Anyhoo: we've been trying market ice wine juice (or Eiswein if you prefer) in the U.S. for a while now. We're not giving up any time soon. :)

[kuranes]

That's because I entered it manually in the "quick reply" box. Of course, my quick reply turned into a long-ass post.

Anyhoo: we've been trying market ice wine juice (or Eiswein if you prefer) in the U.S. for a while now. We're not giving up any time soon. :)


Not suggesting you give up on it. Thought that maybe I could help find you some new customers. I'm not sure what you're saying . . .that you don't need any help, perhaps? That's cool. It was just an idea. K

[Biff_Loman]

Come up with a solid game plan and we'll talk. :)

My mother's side of the family is from the U.S., and my one uncle was dead set on importing the stuff. He got stuck in red tape.

[trendal]

Have you ever watched movies like Soylent Green and thought, "Yeah. I'm ready. Bring it on."?

:lol:

All the time, sadly enough...

[SheepDog]

This is tangental, but I was doing some homework and found a poll on peakoil.com forum about MBTI type. The poll contains an obvious bias, but it's the bias itself that's interesting:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic7802.html

[Nighthawk]

This is tangental, but I was doing some homework and found a poll on peakoil.com forum about MBTI type. The poll contains an obvious bias, but it's the bias itself that's interesting:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic7802.html
Its interesting enough that the group exists and seems to be composed mostly of NT's. I wonder if the NT flair for pattern-recognition has anything to do with it.

[SheepDog]

Here's another relatively superficial article on the subject:
http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67679,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_8

My favorite quote is the last one in the article:
"The reality is, this thing is extremely complicated," Hirsch said. "My honest view is that anybody who tells you that they have a clear picture probably doesn't understand the problem."

[Nighthawk]

Here's another relatively superficial article on the subject:
http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67679,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_8

My favorite quote is the last one in the article:
"The reality is, this thing is extremely complicated," Hirsch said. "My honest view is that anybody who tells you that they have a clear picture probably doesn't understand the problem."
So much for a comfortable retirement like my parents had (have). Looks like I'll be eating dog food and riding the bus.

[Robespierre]

So much for a comfortable retirement like my parents had (have). Looks like I'll be eating dog food and riding the bus.

Who is responsible for your retirement?

[kuranes]

Come up with a solid game plan and we'll talk. :)

My mother's side of the family is from the U.S., and my one uncle was dead set on importing the stuff. He got stuck in red tape.


OK Biff. I didn't realize you'd replied to this until just now. I'll be getting out to some of these places more often now that the weather's nicer.

[coffeezombie]

Who is responsible for your retirement?

The government partly, since they are the ones who have been taking social security taxes out of my check since I've been working.

[Robespierre]

The government partly, since they are the ones who have been taking social security taxes out of my check since I've been working.

Not at all. The government has committed a crime in stealing that money from you, certainly, but they are not responsible for seeing to your retirement, only for returning that stolen property to you.

[Nighthawk]

Who is responsible for your retirement?
I am, of course ... but in some environments it is easier to accomplish than in others.

[Architectonic]

Not at all. The government has committed a crime in stealing that money from you, certainly, but they are not responsible for seeing to your retirement, only for returning that stolen property to you.

It is only 'stolen' if it was done involuntarily. That may well be the case, but I am just clarifying so that no one misunderstands.

[SheepDog]

It is only 'stolen' if it was done involuntarily. That may well be the case, but I am just clarifying so that no one misunderstands.
I assure you that if I were given the choice, I would have opted out of "social security". I wasn't given the choice.

[sbw]

me too, sheepdog. as such, to further clarify, social security payroll tax is definitely stealing.

don't feel too bad, though, sheep; at least the money will be completely gone by the time we retire.

Scott

[Nighthawk]

me too, sheepdog. as such, to further clarify, social security payroll tax is definitely stealing.

don't feel too bad, though, sheep; at least the money will be completely gone by the time we retire.

Scott
That's also assuming the government hasn't moved the retirement age out past 90 in the next few decades.

[sbw]

it doesn't matter what they do; there isn't going to be any money. they will probably have the gall to steal a higher percentage of our money (higher taxes) AND raise the retirement age, the latter of which they kinda should anyway--when social security started, it paid off starting at 65, and the life expectancy was like 67; it was never intended to support each citizen from age 65-113, which is the direction we're headed.

Scott

[Ka.avik]

The government has committed a crime in stealing that money from you, certainly, but they are not responsible for seeing to your retirement, only for returning that stolen property to you. As a wageslave, your masters set the terms of your living arrangements. Don't like the arrangment? Buy your freedom. Storming D.C. isn't likely to gain your money back, nor at this point have any desired effect on taxation (likely it will only increase gun control -- even if the mob used only spitwads to demand their freedom)

But you can, conceivably, buy your way out of being a wageslave. Work for yourself, and your masters are at least talking to you on a daily basis (IE, your customers).

But I'd make a lousy businessman.

[SensEye]

I assure you that if I were given the choice, I would have opted out of "social security". I wasn't given the choice.Not quite true. There are countries out there without social security, third world mostly. You could probably emmigrate to one of them if you really wanted to.

[Robespierre]

Not quite true. There are countries out there without social security, third world mostly. You could probably emmigrate to one of them if you really wanted to.

That's what you call choice? So would you suggest that mafia protection rackets were also accepted by choice? I mean, the businesses they threaten could always move to another city, right?

[SensEye]

That's what you call choice? So would you suggest that mafia protection rackets were also accepted by choice? I mean, the businesses they threaten could always move to another city, right?Or they could organize themselves and the citizenry they serve and constrain the mafia. Another option for Nighthawk is to get enough like minded folks together and have social security done away with.

It is reasonable for Nighthawk to contend he likes his country and doesn't want to leave it. Fair enough, but why does he like his country? While he might not care for social security specifically, odds are that many of the aspects of his country that appeal to him revolve around the stable nature of what is considered a first world social democracy. It's quite likely that if everybody had a 'pick and choose' option from which one could opt in or out of government services the whole system would collapse and his country would become much more 3rd world like. If that is what he really wants, he could seek such a country. If that is not what he wants, he should be careful to examine the big picture. This is not to imply the system is perfect and could not be improved. Making social security optional may be one such improvement, but I would want to see a reasoned argument that this is the case.

[Ka.avik]

It is reasonable for Nighthawk to contend he likes his country, [...] but why does he like his country? [...] if everybody had a 'pick and choose' option [...] the whole system would collapse [...] If that is not what he wants, he should be careful [...] In short, yes -- leaving or staying are the big choices. I agree. And again will point out that your mafia comparison leaves me thinking there is no functional difference between 'corporations' and 'government'. They both tell people where to go, but have to be careful not to be too violent, or they'll lose their grip on the sheeple.

[Robespierre]

Or they could organize themselves and the citizenry they serve and constrain the mafia. Another option for Nighthawk is to get enough like minded folks together and have social security done away with.

What if enough like minded folks don't agree with nighthawk? Does that make the theft moral?


It is reasonable for Nighthawk to contend he likes his country and doesn't want to leave it. Fair enough, but why does he like his country? While he might not care for social security specifically, odds are that many of the aspects of his country that appeal to him revolve around the stable nature of what is considered a first world social democracy. It's quite likely that if everybody had a 'pick and choose' option from which one could opt in or out of government services the whole system would collapse and his country would become much more 3rd world like. If that is what he really wants, he could seek such a country. If that is not what he wants, he should be careful to examine the big picture. This is not to imply the system is perfect and could not be improved. Making social security optional may be one such improvement, but I would want to see a reasoned argument that this is the case.

The only meaningful reason in this argument is that the taking is involuntary. It is a theft, and cannot be reduced to some other sort of action by justification. The ends can never justify the means. This is why no coercive government can ever operate in a moral way.

[Robespierre]

In short, yes -- leaving or staying are the big choices. I agree. And again will point out that your mafia comparison leaves me thinking there is no functional difference between 'corporations' and 'government'. They both tell people where to go, but have to be careful not to be too violent, or they'll lose their grip on the sheeple.

Corporations both "tell people where to go"? Why do you habitually ignore the most important difference between government and corporations, that governments use force to get what they want, while corporations can not? If you decide you no longer wish to exchange money for food at your grocery store, the store owners cannot throw you in jail or take your home.

Corporations, with respect to property and range of actions, have no different fundamental abilities than "regular people". They can own property, exclude people from that property, sell or rent the property, etc.

[Ka.avik]

Corporations, with respect to property and range of actions, have no different fundamental abilities than "regular people". They can own property, exclude people from that property, sell or rent the property, etc.
Corporations, like intelluctual property, are not supported by the laws of physics. Their very existance is government in action. They are more similiar in this way to government -- they don't really exist, people just think they do.

[Robespierre]

Corporations, like intelluctual property, are not supported by the laws of physics. Their very existance is government in action. They are more similiar in this way to government -- they don't really exist, people just think they do.

Corporations, companies, partnerships, firms, whatever you like, exist as agreements between individuals. I have been using the term "corporation" as it applied to groups of people pooling their resources to produce some good or provide some service. So to avoid any further confusion, assume I have been using the term "firm", which requires no government to define it.

[SheepDog]

Back to the original topic, cheap energy is an assumption of many expectations, including the those of (most people's) retirement benefits. It is interesting that Nighthawk brings this up as a possible outcome.

Unfortunately, this isn't the only reason why Social Security has problems. But the assumption is still built into most other investments like most 401k portfolios, etc.

[Ka.avik]

[...]assume I have been using the term "firm", which requires no government to define it. That's fine, and strengthens your arguments considerably, except...Firms which require (as I believe I've suggested of governments) people talking to the people they're making agreements with. This puts an upper limit on their size, and reach.

Corporations don't have that limitation...and my gut instinct is that this is because they are treated as an individual...paying taxes, owning property; further, my instinct (provided in part by the document "the money changers" ...don't know who by/where it might be found) is that the solution is to refuse any acknowledgment of corportations...but still have a government to deal with the goings-on of real people.

IE, small government -- but big enough to be bigger than businesses.

[SensEye]

What if enough like minded folks don't agree with nighthawk? Does that make the theft moral?Well morality is a bit of a slippery slope as it is too subjective. Theft is a bit of a harsh term, it is more of a fee for being a citizen. I would only consider it theft if the option to renounce citizenship is removed.


The only meaningful reason in this argument is that the taking is involuntary. It is a theft, and cannot be reduced to some other sort of action by justification. The ends can never justify the means. This is why no coercive government can ever operate in a moral way.There you go again with the morals. So long as a government (coercive or otherwise) operates in a beneficial way, it is both useful and desireable.

I realize you will counter that 'beneficial' is subjective as well. I think it could be measured though, however, I recall you have already rejected the common notions of standard of living in a discussion with another poster. We simply have different philosophies. You appear to feel inviolate property rights are the be all and end all to a satisfactory society. I feel a high degree of property rights are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a satisfactory society.

[Robespierre]

Well morality is a bit of a slippery slope as it is too subjective. Theft is a bit of a harsh term, it is more of a fee for being a citizen. I would only consider it theft if the option to renounce citizenship is removed.[/qupte]

Right, and mafia extortion is a fee for protection.... does might make right?

[QUOTE=SensEye] There you go again with the morals. So long as a government (coercive or otherwise) operates in a beneficial way, it is both useful and desireable.

Beneficial to who? To you? Or me? Or 50.0001% of the people who vote?

Do the ends justify the means?


I realize you will counter that 'beneficial' is subjective as well. I think it could be measured though, however, I recall you have already rejected the common notions of standard of living in a discussion with another poster. We simply have different philosophies. You appear to feel inviolate property rights are the be all and end all to a satisfactory society. I feel a high degree of property rights are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a satisfactory society.

No inter-personal comparison of value is possible. What is beneficial can ONLY be judged by the individual in question. It is not something that can possibly be applied to groups.

What apart from human rights(property rights) would you suggest should be involved in society?

[Robespierre]

That's fine, and strengthens your arguments considerably, except...Firms which require (as I believe I've suggested of governments) people talking to the people they're making agreements with. This puts an upper limit on their size, and reach.

What system, other than government, allows people to make aggreements without "talking to the people they're making agreements with"?


Corporations don't have that limitation...

Corporations can make decisions for people? Which people? What do these decisions involve?

[Architectonic]

It is all a question of accountability.

If the government is wrong, they make up BS about having a mandate and that they believed their decisions were in the interest of the people etc.
The US electoral system is pretty inefficient anyway - the 20% of the population who voted for Bush is hardly a majority.
Occasionally revolutions occur - but they are often violent and ultimately don't offer a real solution anyway.

If a corporation is wrong, they suffer financially, potentially going out of business.

Of course, another problem arises when a government starts interfering with the accountability of corporations.

[Robespierre]

Of course, another problem arises when a government starts interfering with the accountability of corporations.

This is an important point. Governments can interfer and give special favors to business. There are countless ways in which the government gives direct aid to politically connected companies and disguises it as in the interests of the "greater good". Examples include tariffs to prop up prices and exclude foreign competition and lisencing schemes to allow the industry insiders to control entry into the market(think of doctors, lawyers, taxi drivers, beauticians, etc).

[sbw]

don't forget about the corn-syrup lobby. the country which promotes "free trade" the loudest is actively, willfully fucking over the developing economies of central america (i.e., where sugar is their one big cash crop) so as to whore for the midwestern lobbyists. america, fuck yeah!

Scott

[Robespierre]

don't forget about the corn-syrup lobby. the country which promotes "free trade" the loudest is actively, willfully fucking over the developing economies of central america (i.e., where sugar is their one big cash crop) so as to whore for the midwestern lobbyists. america, fuck yeah!

Scott

Or cotton price supports, or shrimp tariffs, or ....

[SensEye]

Beneficial to who? To you? Or me? Or 50.0001% of the people who vote?

Do the ends justify the means?Yes, to 50%+1 of the people who vote. This is not the ideal situation I admit. It would be convenient if all humanity were on a big colonization ship headed to a virgin planet and each political faction could be allocated it's share of territory so that there would be 100% unanimity of view in each region. That's not the world we find ourselves in though, so majority rule is the best system I can suggest.

Answers are rarely black and white in the real world. The ends do not ALWAYS justify the means, but in many cases they do just that.




No inter-personal comparison of value is possible. What is beneficial can ONLY be judged by the individual in question. It is not something that can possibly be applied to groups.Perhaps, but I don't care. The goal of a society should not be to satisfy every individual member, but to satisfy the (hopefully significant) majority of it's members.



What apart from human rights(property rights) would you suggest should be involved in society?Hard to say exactly. Unfortunately, people must be protected from themselves. So I want things that further this goal. Freely available public education for one thing. Some sort of modest social safety net. Things to protect society at large from the destructive self interests of some individuals (i.e. environmental laws).

Just for the record here, I am no left wing socialist. I feel the pendulum is currently swinging way too far to the left, and should swing back much more towards the libertarian end of things. However, I dont' believe it should swing all the way in that direction. There is an optimum point in there somewhere, I'd guess about halfway between where it is in Western democracies today, and where you want it to be.

[Robespierre]

Yes, to 50%+1 of the people who vote.This is not the ideal situation I admit. It would be convenient if all humanity were on a big colonization ship headed to a virgin planet and each political faction could be allocated it's share of territory so that there would be 100% unanimity of view in each region. That's not the world we find ourselves in though, so majority rule is the best system I can suggest.

Why must everyone be bound to one another by force? No matter what group you get together, there will always and eternally be some disagreement. Why must all societies be organized in a centralized-collectivist coercive manner?


Answers are rarely black and white in the real world. The ends do not ALWAYS justify the means, but in many cases they do just that.

Name one case in which a wrong can be justified. I think you'll find out that it's a logical dead end, and one used by the greatest tyrants and murderers in history.


Perhaps, but I don't care. The goal of a society should not be to satisfy every individual member, but to satisfy the (hopefully significant) majority of it's members.

You don't want every member to be satisfied, only a portion of them? Why?


Hard to say exactly. Unfortunately, people must be protected from themselves.

Finally we see the INTP arrogance arise. You know better than others, how their lives should be run. Unless their actions effect you or your property in a direct way, it is not your business.


So I want things that further this goal.

Slavery furthers your goal quite a bit. And since your admission that "the ends can justy the means", why not just remove all doubt and force everyone on the planet to be your slave? That way you could protect them all from doing stupid things that you don't like.


Freely available public education for one thing.

It's amazing how many people think that "public" anything is free. Public schools are not free, my friend. As a home owner, let me be the first to tell you that everyone who owns land within the borders of the US pays for public schools through property taxes. And it's not a small amount. Even though I have no children in public schools...

And even worse, public schools, in my opinion, are a direct violation of the establishment clause in the first amendment. I see public schools as an establishment of a state religion.


Some sort of modest social safety net. Things to protect society at large from the destructive self interests of some individuals (i.e. environmental laws).

Again, the assumption that anyone but the property owner has a right to decide how the property is to be used.


Just for the record here, I am no left wing socialist. I feel the pendulum is currently swinging way too far to the left, and should swing back much more towards the libertarian end of things. However, I dont' believe it should swing all the way in that direction. There is an optimum point in there somewhere, I'd guess about halfway between where it is in Western democracies today, and where you want it to be.

There is no moral foundation to the ideas of statism, socialism, or whatever you want to call it. No amount of socialism is okay. This is like suggesting we need a balance between individual liberty and slavery.

[Ka.avik]

Why must everyone be bound to one another by force? because if you don't decide at the outset how the force is to be applied, it will be decided later by charismatic tyrants. Sheeple need, nay want leaders. It's up to the long-range visionaries to make sure there is some hardcoded limit, to reduce the need for physical violence. Legal violence is not, in my opinion, really violence. After all, you can just ignore the laws. Many people do -- and if their numbers are high enough, enforcement is unrealistic. If the numbers aren't high enough, it's called 'being outvoted'.


Finally we see the INTP arrogance arise. you're quite hung up on arrogance. I could just as easily be hung up on ignorance.
It was an opinion stated as fact, and there is probably some logical fallacy in there, to say we must be protected from ourselves, as if foolish choices were horribly harmful to society. I believe the lack of responsibilty facilitated by insurance, and the warning-label P.C. stuff is far more harmful to society -- but I've been outvoted, and must pay for liability insurance if I wish to go to work in the morning.
//or the evening, either


Slavery furthers your goal quite a bit.
Not terribly different from most of the whole of history. And, most of us are slaves to the banking system, and the federal reserve board. IE, wageslaves. Not that I'm advocating that, but its not going to change, either.

[SensEye]

Why must everyone be bound to one another by force? No matter what group you get together, there will always and eternally be some disagreement.Technically everyone is not bound together by force. You and others of your mindset are free to set up an anarcho-libertarian society. Heck, you can make the curent system work for you, even if you can get 50%+1, you can have your way and the social democracy advocates will be the disaffected group.


Why must all societies be organized in a centralized-collectivist coercive manner?That's a good question. Why are they? Perhaps because it leads to a 'better' overall society. You will disagree and quibble about defining better. It's a shame we don't have a country following your rules to compare and contrast to. Why do you think that is?


Name one case in which a wrong can be justified. I think you'll find out that it's a logical dead end, and one used by the greatest tyrants and murderers in history.A fair system of taxation, which I'm sure you consider a grevious wrong, is justifiable in my opinion. The notion that some degree of cooperation is supeior to anarchy is not a logical dead end. Even if this cooperation must be coerced from a minority of society.



You don't want every member to be satisfied, only a portion of them? Why?Which poster said "No matter what group you get together, there will always and eternally be some disagreement", oh wait, it was you. Well I agree, not everyone can be satisfied, so why not go with the majority.



Finally we see the INTP arrogance arise. You know better than others, how their lives should be run. Unless their actions effect you or your property in a direct way, it is not your business.

Slavery furthers your goal quite a bit. And since your admission that "the ends can justy the means", why not just remove all doubt and force everyone on the planet to be your slave? That way you could protect them all from doing stupid things that you don't like.Is there a name for this technique where you use ludicrous hyperbole to ridicule my arguments? Did you miss earlier where I said a "high degree of property rights" is necessary for an advanced society. So I am not advocating murder or slavery.

Most children benefit when boundaries are placed on their freedoms and they are provided with guidance. This is because they are uneducated and unexperience and lack wisdom. A great many adults lack wisdom as well. Why would they not also benefit from guidance? Term it arrogance if you wish.




It's amazing how many people think that "public" anything is free. Public schools are not free, my friend. As a home owner, let me be the first to tell you that everyone who owns land within the borders of the US pays for public schools through property taxes. And it's not a small amount. Even though I have no children in public schools...

And even worse, public schools, in my opinion, are a direct violation of the establishment clause in the first amendment. I see public schools as an establishment of a state religion.You misunderstand me, when I say freely available I meant freely available to the individual. I realize that society must bear the cost. I think it's a good investment.




Again, the assumption that anyone but the property owner has a right to decide how the property is to be used.



There is no moral foundation to the ideas of statism, socialism, or whatever you want to call it. No amount of socialism is okay. This is like suggesting we need a balance between individual liberty and slavery.Again, I think we should leave morality out of it, I think a certain amount of socialism is not only OK but desireable. It leads to a higher standard of living for ALL parties concerned. You will have difficulty convincing me otherwise until you can demonstrate a functioning society following your political ideaology for scrutiny. I'll go further and suggest that the reason you can't is that any such society would collapse in chaos and disarray in short order.

[Robespierre]

because if you don't decide at the outset how the force is to be applied, it will be decided later by charismatic tyrants.

So the ends justify the means again?


Sheeple need, nay want leaders.

Wonderful. I don't want to be bound to the majority by violent force. Will you give me a choice?


It's up to the long-range visionaries to make sure there is some hardcoded limit, to reduce the need for physical violence

The long-range visionaries? Who the heck is that? Why should I trust a long-range visionary over my own judgement?


Legal violence is not, in my opinion, really violence. After all, you can just ignore the laws. Many people do -- and if their numbers are high enough, enforcement is unrealistic. If the numbers aren't high enough, it's called 'being outvoted'.

Again, the mafia example demonstates the absurd nature of your statement. If 90% of the people on the block are too scared to resist the mafia, does this make the mafia imposition of "protection" fees perfectly okay?


you're quite hung up on arrogance. I could just as easily be hung up on ignorance.

Ignorance of who? The ignorance of the masses? The very people who you want to place in control of everything?


Not terribly different from most of the whole of history.

So anything that is historical is acceptable?


And, most of us are slaves to the banking system, and the federal reserve board. IE, wageslaves. Not that I'm advocating that, but its not going to change, either.

Slavery is a condition in which an individual's labor, or the produce thereof, is stolen. To a degree, all americans are slaves. Some people more than others, depending upon their place in the tax system and their political power.

[Ka.avik]

That's a good question. Why are they? Perhaps because it leads to a 'better' overall society. You will disagree and quibble about defining better. It's a shame we don't have a country following your rules to compare and contrast to. Why do you think that is?

Is there a name for this technique where you use ludicrous hyperbole to ridicule my arguments?

Most children benefit when boundaries are placed on their freedoms and they are provided with guidance. This is because they are uneducated and unexperience and lack wisdom. A great many adults lack wisdom as well. Why would they not also benefit from guidance? Term it arrogance if you wish.

he doesn't seem to care that no one has ever had a society using his rules for utopia. I agree, human nature prevents it ever from succeding; it would undergo radical alterations by the second generation, if not before.
Probably...misdirection, perhaps?
I agree wholeheartedly. Any good societal framework should facilitate the wise to try their own thing, but still collect enough taxes to protect the weak of mind, regardless of age. Interstates aren't a bad debt either, IMHO.
I would also like to add to the notion of taxes-as-violence. Given the studies that show the human mind can't tell the difference between make believe & reality, corporate society is actually much more violent than the public sector. When you apply for a job, you're bowing & scraping, as before a slaveworker. When you ask for a bigger budget, you're using the same mentality needed to eviscerate a foe.

Taxes, however -- that's just money. Needn't be any evisceration involved.

[Robespierre]

Technically everyone is not bound together by force. You and others of your mindset are free to set up an anarcho-libertarian society.

So I can take my property and be free to remove it from the jurisdiction of the USA?


Heck, you can make the curent system work for you, even if you can get 50%+1, you can have your way and the social democracy advocates will be the disaffected group.

I don't want the system to "work for me" any more than I want to walk into my neigbor's house and steal his wallet.


That's a good question. Why are they? Perhaps because it leads to a 'better' overall society.

Or because most people simply don't know any better. Who can say? And really, it doesn't much matter to me, as long as I am allowed to act as I please within my own sphere of control. If most people really want someone above them controling every aspect of their lives, who am I to stop them?


You will disagree and quibble about defining better. It's a shame we don't have a country following your rules to compare and contrast to. Why do you think that is?

Well, the ideas which motivate me are fairly new. The base of my opinions comes from the european enlightenment liberal tradition, but has not been taken to the extreme until the 20th century. However, there have been a few examples of societies that do not operate in a centralized top-down way. The western united states during the late 19th and early 20th century is a decent example, although obviously not complete. In most parts of the west, the feds and even local government was nearly powerless. And as those who have studied the numbers will see, crime was actually MUCH lower per-capita than in similar communities in the east.


A fair system of taxation, which I'm sure you consider a grevious wrong, is justifiable in my opinion. The notion that some degree of cooperation is supeior to anarchy is not a logical dead end. Even if this cooperation must be coerced from a minority of society.

Cooperation is a great thing, something which I support. Anarchy is not the opposite of cooperation, anarchy is the absence of coercive government. In fact, it would be reasonable to define cooperation as a voluntary pooling or resources or interaction to further both party's ends. Cooperation is rendered impossible when enforced at the point of a gun, as the voluntary part evaporates. So how can you support involuntary taxation, but also claim to support cooperation?


Which poster said "No matter what group you get together, there will always and eternally be some disagreement", oh wait, it was you.

What are you getting at? Was there some confusion about who said that?


Well I agree, not everyone can be satisfied, so why not go with the majority.

Why go with the majority? Why not let each individual decide?


Is there a name for this technique where you use ludicrous hyperbole to ridicule my arguments? Did you miss earlier where I said a "high degree of property rights" is necessary for an advanced society. So I am not advocating murder or slavery.

I know you don't think that you are advocating such things, but by advocating any form of coercive government, a monopoly on the use of violence, that is exactly what you end up supporting. I seem hyperbolic to you because my point of view on these subjects is so different that yours, and that of most people. Concepts which I am comfortable with, and have been read multiple explainations and justifcations for, may seem asbolutely absurd to others.


Most children benefit when boundaries are placed on their freedoms and they are provided with guidance.

I agree completely.


This is because they are uneducated and unexperience and lack wisdom. A great many adults lack wisdom as well. Why would they not also benefit from guidance? Term it arrogance if you wish.

Yes, the idea that adults require coercive guidance by government parents is arrogant. Eventually, the child must make his own decisions, and the values and opinions of the parents no longer matter. How do you decide what direction to guide the people? What is the "correct" way to live your life? If we are all ignorant children, who will lead us? Popular ignorant children? Or will there be a test, a test to qualify as an adult?


You misunderstand me, when I say freely available I meant freely available to the individual. I realize that society must bear the cost. I think it's a good investment.

Society doesn't bear the costs, individuals do. I'm one of them. Public education is NOT freely available to me, it costs a LOT.

And if you think public education is a good thing, you should be free to send them all the money you like. I happen to think it's a cancerous lump on our civilization, why should I have to pay for it?


Again, I think we should leave morality out of it, I think a certain amount of socialism is not only OK but desireable.

Why? How do you define socialism?


It leads to a higher standard of living for ALL parties concerned.

Even if this were true, which it is most certainly not, who cares? Would it be okay to sell everyone into absolute slavery if it meant living standards would improve?


You will have difficulty convincing me otherwise until you can demonstrate a functioning society following your political ideaology for scrutiny. I'll go further and suggest that the reason you can't is that any such society would collapse in chaos and disarray in short order.

Fine. I'll start a moon colony to prove you wrong. I'll be back in 25 years to report the results. See you then.

While the historical record is important, there is ALWAYS a first time for everything. The first democracy, the first republic, the first kingship, etc. To suggest that we are limited only to organizing society based only on historical models is silly.

[Robespierre]

I would also like to add to the notion of taxes-as-violence. Given the studies that show the human mind can't tell the difference between make believe & reality

What!? Where are these studies?


corporate society is actually much more violent than the public sector. When you apply for a job, you're bowing & scraping, as before a slaveworker. When you ask for a bigger budget, you're using the same mentality needed to eviscerate a foe.

So now violence is not giving someone what they want, even when they want something of yours? How about actualy PHYSICAL violence?

Does the fact that employment is voluntary mean anything at all to you?


Taxes, however -- that's just money. Needn't be any evisceration involved.

Just money. Right. Try not paying. See what happens. If their bureaucracy can catch you, they will begin stealing the money from you in other ways. Eventually, it comes down to violence though. Men with guns will eventually come for you, and if you resist, bingo, violence. Nothing that a government does escapes this ultimate fact.

[SensEye]

We are starting to go in circles more or less, so I will only respond to a couple of your points.


Why go with the majority? Why not let each individual decide? Human nature leads me to believe the majority of individuals will make short sighted selfish choices that are not in their best interests. I believe that allowing them to do so will result in a destabilization of society and massive violation of all of my property rights, not just a portion.



I know you don't think that you are advocating such things, but by advocating any form of coercive government, a monopoly on the use of violence, that is exactly what you end up supporting. I seem hyperbolic to you because my point of view on these subjects is so different that yours, and that of most people. Concepts which I am comfortable with, and have been read multiple explainations and justifcations for, may seem asbolutely absurd to others. I don't think you will ever get enforcement of your property rights without a government monopoly on the use of violence. Individual property rights would be overrun. This would lead to individuals banding together for their own protection and you would end up with a bunch of warring factions. Said factions would invest so much of their productivity protecting their pigs, chickens and crops, that such things like technical advancement would be severly retarded. An undesireable outcome in my opinion.




Even if this were true, which it is most certainly not, who cares? Would it be okay to sell everyone into absolute slavery if it meant living standards would improve?It's not true in your opinion. It is true in my opinion. Neither of us has demonstrated the truth of our beliefs, but don't blithly presume yours are correct. We can at least observe modern social democracies and see that life is not terrible for the majority of it's citizens. You are advocating an unknown quantity. This doesn't make it wrong, but I think it demands a higher burden of proof.




Fine. I'll start a moon colony to prove you wrong. I'll be back in 25 years to report the results. See you then.

While the historical record is important, there is ALWAYS a first time for everything. The first democracy, the first republic, the first kingship, etc. To suggest that we are limited only to organizing society based only on historical models is silly.To some extent I sympathize with you. It would be nice if there was some unclaimed property for you to conduct a real life experiment on. I would support your freedom to do so. Unfortunately, that's not realistic and I am sufficiently convinced it would be a catastrophe such that I will resist any attempt to set it up in my back yard. But if you can convince enough others to agree with you, I will cede to the will of the majority.

[Robespierre]

Human nature leads me to believe the majority of individuals will make short sighted selfish choices that are not in their best interests. I believe that allowing them to do so will result in a destabilization of society and massive violation of all of my property rights, not just a portion.

And you are the one who wants to give that majority all the power. Don't you see the contradiction in your own position? You say that the majority will act stupidly, therefor, majority rule is best?

[Ka.avik]

And you are the one who wants to give that majority all the power. Don't you see the contradiction in your own position? You say that the majority will act stupidly, therefor, majority rule is best? In terms of sustainable societies, majority-rule is preferable to finding a benevolent dictator.

If the dictator really _is_ benevolent, it would be preferable. But, how will you filter out all the liars? Bring Rasputin back from the grave and have him tell us that they're all lying?

Anarchy isn't sustainable. History provides some guide to this -- the 'old west'. It didn't last, for various reasons.

No, I think the best way to be 'free' is to be so poor you're below everybody's radar map.

[Claverhouse]

If the dictator really _is_ benevolent, it would be preferable. But, how will you filter out all the liars? Bring Rasputin back from the grave and have him tell us that they're all lying?

Whilst he lives in our hearts, he remains forever alive.


I dreamed I saw Grigori Efimovich last night,
Alive as you or me
Says I, "But Grig, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," says he
"I never died," says he



Claverhouse :ph34r:


This reminds me of the old days, after the October Revolution, when the Red Flag of the Statists and the Black Flag of the Anarchists flew alternately over the villas of the Moscow bourgeoisie as the two sides fought long and hard. Unfortunately both sides couldn't lose.

[kuranes]

I always get Rasputin confused with Svengali.

[Claverhouse]

The Starets was the good guy: Svengali wasn't, sort-of. [ But both were geniuses and misunderstood. ]



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SensEye]

And you are the one who wants to give that majority all the power. Don't you see the contradiction in your own position? You say that the majority will act stupidly, therefor, majority rule is best?To some extent I do see the contradiction. In a way, by pure luck, the least intelligent members of society can't even be bothered to vote, so we luck out a bit in that the educated wield a bit more influence. The situation is far from perfect and this is why I fear we are heading too far towards the left as the have nots use the tyranny of the ballot box to transfer wealth to themsleves from the haves. Still, I don't believe your ultra-liberterain approach is the answer either. People generally want what is fair. While their perception of fairness is distorted by their own selfish desires, spreading the power out among the masses helps to provide a balancing effect.

In a sense, I agree with Ka.avik, a benevolent dictatorship would be ideal, but it is not easy to find a truly benevolent dictator. Power corrupts and all that jazz.

Majority rule is the most reasonable alternative I can suggest at the present time. I'd love to see an 'age of enlightenment' where people wouldn't require a social safety net, they would all figure out how to find a productive niche for themselves. Everyone would postpone having children until they have the economic resources to support them and people would have the insight to realize the productive benefits of uncoerced co-operation. I don't know how to make this age come about, but I think your libertarian 'make your own bed and then lie in it' approach would move us away rather than towards this goal.

[SheepDog]

(Again) back to the original issue, here is another article that I found informative. It contains a general overview of the Peak Oil concept, and a mini-book review of a book "Twilight in the Desert" by Matthew R. Simmons that questions the true availability of oil in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.drum.html

[Nighthawk]

I wonder if I could use Peak Oil as an excuse to work from home, rather than driving 50 miles a day.

Nah ... Guardian Central would never go for it. :banghead:

[Architectonic]

I wonder if I could use Peak Oil as an excuse to work from home, rather than driving 50 miles a day.

Working from home will be the future for many office type jobs IMO.

[Nighthawk]

Working from home will be the future for many office type jobs IMO.
I sure hope so. Its such a waste of time to commute 2 hours a day to do something I could do just as easily from home ... probably more easily due to less interruptions. Unfortunately, it seems to be the Guardian manager mentality that a person's butt needs to be in a certain chair onsite, for a certain period of time every day, in order to get an work done. Then they nickel and dime you to death with meetings and administrative BS so that you can't get any real work done. One of the uber-Guardians here loves to state that dial-up connections are just too slow for us to get any work done from home. He has an incredible grasp of technology. Never heard of DSL or cable modem.

[SheepDog]

An article about the effect of fuel costs on food harvesting:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050608/farm_scene.html?.v=4

[SheepDog]

For those interested, there's an idea that conservation, or making energy use more efficient, leads to INCREASED consumption, not lower consumption. It is commonly called Jevons Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox), which was an observation about coal usage in 1865.

Another example that is commonly given is that during the late 70's, automotive efficiency improved, but that only enabled more cars to be produce, which more than made up in consumption of that freed up energy.


It's mentioned in this general description of the hubbert-peak oil concepts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

However, others will note that an increase in fuel efficiency may in fact compound the problem. This phenomenon is referred to as the Jevons paradox, which states that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease. Additionally if people manage to do more work with less fuel, their relative ratio of income to oil price goes down, giving them the ability to support a higher price for oil than before. This makes it even more worthwhile to extract hard to reach oil, and faster. On the other hand, if the price of oil increases at the same rate as the increase in efficiency, there is no extra buying power generated and balance with demand is maintained. Finally, if the price of oil increases faster than efficiency, buying power goes down, and inflation begins while the demand for oil goes down.
But interestingly, it also states:

Once the rate of oil extraction can no longer increase with demand, in other words the oil peak has been reached, Jevons paradox instantly ceases to apply. The price of oil may still continue to increase, but the amount of oil available to the economy remains the same or even goes downwards. This means that anyone wishing to maintain the same standards of living must increase efficiency from that moment on.
This is a key consideration that leads to things like "The Long Emergency".

[SheepDog]

(Again) back to the original issue, here is another article that I found informative. It contains a general overview of the Peak Oil concept, and a mini-book review of a book "Twilight in the Desert" by Matthew R. Simmons that questions the true availability of oil in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.drum.html
Also getting coverage on MSNBC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8217587/


If Simmons' assertions are correct, the world faces an energy crunch at least as significant as the oil shocks of the 1970s. Alternative energy sources are beginning to play a significant role. But most analysts and industry experts concede it will take at least a decade before renewable sources like solar, wind or bio fuels make a significant dent in global energy demand. Even then, most of these alternative sources are being used to produce electricity; oil is primarily used as a transportation fuel, for which there are no readily available substitutes.

[Architectonic]

However, others will note that an increase in fuel efficiency may in fact compound the problem. This phenomenon is referred to as the Jevons paradox, which states that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease. Additionally if people manage to do more work with less fuel, their relative ratio of income to oil price goes down, giving them the ability to support a higher price for oil than before. This makes it even more worthwhile to extract hard to reach oil, and faster. On the other hand, if the price of oil increases at the same rate as the increase in efficiency, there is no extra buying power generated and balance with demand is maintained. Finally, if the price of oil increases faster than efficiency, buying power goes down, and inflation begins while the demand for oil goes down.

This is important to consider, but also potentially misunderstood.

As efficiency increases, this enables the ability to use more oil for the same economic cost - but that doesn't automatically translate to more oil being used. But even when this assumption is true, there is more benefit to society because more work is done per amount of oil. Being able to support a higher price of oil does not translate to a rising price of oil. This means that regardless of the amount of oil there is, increased efficiency is always beneficial. (and this increase in efficiency is not just from technology, but also systematic reduction of energy use to reduce economic costs to individuals)

[SheepDog]

Sure, it's not simple, Architectonic. Jevons paradox isn't being touted as an absolute rule or anything, but as you said, is something to consider. It does require a couple conditions to make sense. One is a true free market, and the other is a relative (or immediate) unlimited supply. If you change either of these two constraints, then the paradox changes, or else doesn't apply at all. And of course, neither of these two constraints is absolutely true.

If we are now pre-peak, and we want to buy time to make a conversion to alternatives, then it could be argued that the lack of efficiency will likely buy us some time. Of course, I'm not proposing this as the best solution. Just another consideration.

[Architectonic]

It is going to happen sooner or later, increased efficiency will be needed regardless and as the price goes up, this increases the development of higher efficiency and alternative energy sources.
A reduction in the efficiency of oil use would result in less production for the same cost - so it would reduce the benefits to us in the mean time. So while it could be argued that it would buy us some time before the peak, it won't be argued that it is beneficial overall - less efficiency is a net loss overall.

[SheepDog]

It is going to happen sooner or later, increased efficiency will be needed regardless and as the price goes up, this increases the development of higher efficiency and alternative energy sources.
Sure, as the cost continues to rise, alternatives and efficiency will be required. I do find it interesting to note the paradoxes, however. In another paradox, if the efficiency comes first, that higher efficiency of oil based fuel usage decreases the need for alternatives, as well as their cost-effectiveness.


A reduction in the efficiency of oil use would result in less production for the same cost - so it would reduce the benefits to us in the mean time. So while it could be argued that it would buy us some time before the peak, it won't be argued that it is beneficial overall - less efficiency is a net loss overall.
I would also not argue that reduced efficiency is beneficial overall. Unless you're an oil company, anyway. You and I seem to be aware of the supply issue, and seem to be thinking of things in those terms. Most people (at the moment) just think of how much their fuel bill is, and act accordingly. Clearly, there are both economic and geological factors.


I am in no way against increasing efficiency, by any means. The value of these paradoxes for me is to add insight into this complex issue. I'd rather think about it, and learn a few things along the way than not. (as do you, it appears ;) )

[Star Cannon]

Either way, we need something to make electricity or a lot of people are going to be lost in the dark ages again... literally. Here. I found something y'all might be interested in...

http://www.cheniere.org/patent%20application/claim.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/index.html

If any of these are true then the real battle is the authority holding it back for evil purposes...

[SheepDog]

Star Cannon, I hope you're joking.

[Architectonic]

http://www.cheniere.org/patent%20application/claim.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/index.html

Care to explain this to the non pseudo-physicists here?

[SheepDog]

Interesting news: China's state-run oil company is bidding to buy Unocal.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/international/cnooc_offer.reut/index.htm

[SheepDog]

An oil shortage simulation was performed yesterday, with a not-so-optimistic outcome:

"The American people are going to pay a terrible price for not having had an energy strategy," said former CIA director Robert M. Gates, who took on the role of national security adviser. Stepping out of character, he added that "the scenarios portrayed were absolutely not alarmist; they're realistic."
The exercise was created to make a point:

The participants concluded almost unanimously that they must press the president to invest quickly in promising technologies to reduce dependence on overseas oil, such as hybrid cars powered by gasoline and plug-in electricity; and cars that run on fuels derived from prairie grasses, animal waste and other products. They all agreed these projects would take years to yield any benefit but should not wait for the kind of crisis they were dramatizing.
Implied is the concern that little is being done at the moment to develop alternatives.

[cloakable]

Well, duh. The 'president' is a puppet for Big Business, including oil corps.

Alternative fuels = less demand for traditional fuel = lowered profits

[Nighthawk]

Well, duh. The 'president' is a puppet for Big Business, including oil corps.

Alternative fuels = less demand for traditional fuel = lowered profitsI think that sums it up rather nicely. If the oil prices go up, then Bush & Co. become even more wealthy. Side effects are not considered.

Also keep in mind that most of the government is run by Guardians and Artians ... neither of whom are known for their long term thinking abitlities. Guardians are logisticians and Artisans are tacticians ... both concentrating on what works for them in the present. I doubt any of them are looking more than a year or two down the road ... if that far. Profits in the present and what works in the present seem to be mostly what they understand. Remember, these are the guys who forgot to think about what to do in Iraq AFTER the war was "won."

[Star Cannon]

Sorry dudes, I don't specialize in physics. I just thought y'all would be interested in seeing it. And no, I'm not kidding. I'm quite serious about an authority holding the tech back.

[Nighthawk]

And no, I'm not kidding. I'm quite serious about an authority holding the tech back.
Yet another Guardian trait. Reluctance to change or embrace new ideas. Status quo all the way.

[cloakable]

True.

[Shai Gar]

If accurate, it is pretty sobering.
at this point.. nothing will sober me up 8O

[SheepDog]

Finally people are waking up to this, I hope.
Just google on the keywords 'peak oil' and read the articles that are found.

This is indeed an emergency.
I'd just like to repeat this suggestion. After reading more, you may or may not agree that there's a problem. But you owe it to yourself to look into this one. The arguments are much more rational than I imagined.

Kunstler's article ("The Long Emergency") seems shocking, and it is clearly intended to get people's attention. I read the book, and I have to say that in it, he backs up his points well. This is a complex issue, and the brief article doesn't do it justice.

Neither does this thread, btw.

[SheepDog]

Some interesting quotes are included in this report by ExxonMobil:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/Corp_citizenship_energy_outlook.asp

In the very long term, we expect the energy mix to become more diversified. This greater diversity includes faster growth in nuclear energy as well as development of bio-fuel energy. For the foreseeable future, however, only fossil fuels provide energy on a large enough scale and with sufficient versatility to meet the world's growing demand for energy.

This brings us back to our original point: economic growth and energy demand are interdependent. Economic growth is likely to be compromised if we cannot meet the significant supply-and-demand challenges that face us.


We expect wind and solar growth of about 10%, mainly because of subsidies and related mandates. Even so, by 2030, the share of wind and solar power in total energy demand will only begin to approach 1%. emphasis added.

As for production...

Non-OPEC production is expected to peak in the next 10 years or so, with 70% of production from seven areas: Russia, the U.S., the North Sea, Mexico, Canada, China and Brazil. which means that in order to meet growing demand, OPEC must pick up the slack. This is my point, but that raises interesting implications given the current political situation in the Persian Gulf.

And their summary:

Our outlook recognizes the fundamental linkage between economic growth and energy usage. We have highlighted the need for focus on accelerated efficiency gains – initiatives which extend the life of the world’s finite resources and reduce the potential for emissions. We have also emphasized the importance of technology for enabling industry to continue to produce adequate and timely supplies. Innovative and responsible ways to grow and develop the world’s resources, as well as utilize energy more efficiently, will be key.

One lesson we can draw from a long history in the energy industry is that, ultimately, market fundamentals will prevail, and that means that hydrocarbons will remain the principal source of energy for many decades to come.

In time, the energy supply system will become more diverse, but one thing is certain: because energy is essential, opportunities for economic growth may be compromised if the significant supply and demand challenges are not met.

The energy industry is critical to power the world and support growing prosperity. We at ExxonMobil plan to continue to be engaged fully in the challenges and opportunities ahead.This states that they believe that the changing situation can be addressed. Note, however, how many new challenges have to be met in order for that scenario to play out this well. For OPEC to pick up the demand, there must be a certain amount of stability in the area. For non-OPEC supplies to continue, new technology must come into play to extract the increasingly harder to extract sources (e.g. oil sands and shale oil). And transportation efficiency must materially increase.

But as they state several times, if the demands are not met, the economic growth will be seriously limited.

[Nighthawk]

It seems that ExxonMobil believes (or propagandizes) that the peak oil window is still a decade or so out, as opposed to Kunstler who thinks it is already upon us?

[SheepDog]

I think the data on when is pretty hard to interpret and know. Most people say we won't know that global peak occurred until a year or two after. That's the way it was when US peaked in 1970, we didn't realize it until the numbers started coming in.

Another important point is how it happens. A rapid decline would be much more devastating than a slower one. How prepared we are in advance will have a HUGE effect on that, and I think that Kunstler is trying to raise the flag, to get people to prepare. He states that it's really late in the game, which is true since alternatives take time (and energy) to come online. He may seem alarmist, but the alarm needs to be sounded.

Back to the issue of WHEN, there is a new book written by Matt Simmons called "Twililght in the Desert". He makes the case that Saudi Arabia's reserves are not as great as people keep counting on them to be. If this is true, then peak will occur sooner, and ExxonMobil's expectations for supply will not be met. I have not read it yet, but I've read some summaries and reviews.
http://www.google.com/search?biw=877&hl=en&q=simmons+twilight+in+the+desert

Also, when you hear about Saudi Arabia et. al. claiming that there is insufficient refining capacity, you need to remember the different TYPES of oil. Light sweet crude is easier to refine, and the heavier, sour varieties are harder to refine (require more energy). More and more of SA's oil is the heavier variety, and there are indeed fewer refineries that can process it. What's interesting is that new refineries for this type of oil are NOT being built. This detail is going to definitely affect prices at the pump, even if SA does meet crude oil demands.

[SheepDog]

A little more info about OPEC production, specifically that it went DOWN not UP:
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20050701\ACQDJON200507011023DOWJONESDJONLINE000805.htm

CORRECT: OPEC's June Output Seen At 29.5 Million B/D Petrologistics -3-

Oil output from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in June is forecast at 29.5 million barrels a day, down 550,000 barrels a day from 30.05 million b/d in May, tanker-tracker Petrologistics said Wednesday.

("OPEC's June Output Seen At 29.5M B/D -Petrologistics", which ran June 15 at 0828 GMT, incorrectly stated that the June forecast represented a fall of 1 million barrels a day of crude compared with May, rather than 550,000 barrels a day. The error was repeated in an update June 15 at 0853 GMT.)

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

07-01-051022ET

This is either an abberation, or a very bad omen.

[SheepDog]

Senator Bartlett (Maryland) discusses Peak Oil with the POTUS. A short, but interesting read:
http://www.bartlett.house.gov/latestnews.asp?ARTICLE2900=7308

[SheepDog]

Site sponsored by Chevron. They seem to be taking it seriously, as there are some pretty serious comments on the site:

http://www.willyoujoinus.com/

One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over.

http://www.willyoujoinus.com/advertising/print/

It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30.


The world consumes two barrels of oil for every barrel discovered.

http://www.willyoujoinus.com/vision/

The facts are compelling.
Many of the world’s oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract—physically, technically, economically, and politically. When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.

Have a nice Day!

[edit to add: I'm not advocating joining the discussion, as it appears to be a censored 'forum']

[SheepDog]

One of the things that make this issue so difficult is the lack of transparent, accurate data about reserves. If we knew for certain, than predicting the peak would be easy. We might also be able to tell whether it's going to be a dramatic peak, or more of a plateau. In any case it might get us to get our asses in gear doing something about it. But since there are numbers that say we have plenty of times (outliers like USGS say peak is decades away, while most say it is in the next decade), we are content to keep our heads in the sand, hoping that our money will buy us energy whenever we need it...

BBC website discusses problems with oil data.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681935.stm

As oil prices continue to soar, the lack of accurate data could make it harder for the oil market to predict its future direction.

A significant residual problem with this is that it will take time and energy to develop replacements, to the degree that replacements can be found. Known technologies take time to come online. I suspect that developing new technologies will take longer. For example, it takes several years to build a new electric generating facility, more than a decade if it's nuclear. Since it takes energy to build the replacements, do we want to be in the position of competing for declining oil between ongoing consumption and developing new energy sources? Wouldn't it be better to start before this condition happens?

I truly regret that the data is so ambiguous. I am sure that it will lead us to miss the opportunity to be ahead of the curve.

[Claverhouse]

[edit to add: I'm not advocating joining the discussion, as it appears to be a censored 'forum']

There ought to be a shuddering smilie.

Admittedly there probably is, but I can't justify the waste of time in searching for it. Anyway, people telling me what to think makes me cringe. Same old late nazi mentalities. Especially when the witchfinders get hysterical at people setting out non-approved views.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Architectonic]

One of the things that make this issue so difficult is the lack of transparent, accurate data about reserves. If we knew for certain, than predicting the peak would be easy.

Not necessarily because there are still many variables involved. We should indeed be starting to build alternative infrastructre now, for environmental/health reasons at the very least. Perhaps some people are holding their breath until if/when nuclear (hot) fusion becomes a realistic option for power generation.

[SheepDog]

Not necessarily because there are still many variables involved. We should indeed be starting to build alternative infrastructre now, for environmental/health reasons at the very least. Perhaps some people are holding their breath until if/when nuclear (hot) fusion becomes a realistic option for power generation.
Sure, I should have said "easier" instead of "easy".

Yeah, people are waiting for technology to save us, whichever form that comes in.

The only fusion likely to be used in the near future is when nuclear weapons are used in the inevitable resource wars. I know this is doomist, but we are already in a resource war. The "war on terror" is about resources. By that I mean that the stated goal of the terrorists like OBL is that he wants the US out of Saudi Arabia specifically and the middle east in general. We cannot, of course, do so while 1) we have a huge demand for oil, and 2) SA is a major producer of oil. I'm not saying that our involvement in the persian gulf area is "just about oil", but I am saying that a major part of our involvement is about protecting our access to oil resources. When our political leaders talk about protecting the American way of life, what they mean is the ability to consume a disproportionate amount of energy. There is no question in my mind that we are already in a resource war.

Now consider that we're in this war, spending [b]billions[/i] in dollars, and at the same time, we're supposed to be developing all these clean alternative energy sources. The "war" is getting the immediate attention, because that's the one in front of us at the moment. The need for alternative energy is on the back burner at best (but is basically being ignored) because oil shorages are perceived to happen much later. It's too abstract for most people (and also pretty depressing).

[Dman]

All symptoms of a larger problem – overpopulation. Energy is not the only resource that will continue to become scarce.

[Architectonic]

Not really, there is massive amounts of energy in the universe. ;)

[Nighthawk]

All symptoms of a larger problem – overpopulation. Energy is not the only resource that will continue to become scarce.On a complementary note, the pre-industrialized population of this planet was sustainable at about 1 billion. Now it is well over 6 billion. How much of that 5 billion extra will die out if we lose even a fraction of oil's ability to sustain them? (i.e. transport fuel for food, fuel to harvest crops on a large scale, fuel to provide heating/cooling, etc.)

[SheepDog]

You are correct, Nighthawk, that population grew along with fossil fuel consumption. There is every likelihood that current population levels are not sustainable should cheap fossil fuels become scarce.

The sad thing about this is that dealing with population issues will take a very long time. If a coordinated effort could be made to cut the birth rate (not likely), it would still take more than a century for the population to reduce even in half. Increasing the death rate would work, but that's not a very popular option, to say the least.

[indie]

The sad thing about this is that dealing with population issues will take a very long time. If a coordinated effort could be made to cut the birth rate (not likely), it would still take more than a century for the population to reduce even in half. Increasing the death rate would work, but that's not a very popular option, to say the least.

Precisely (referring to controlling the birth rate, which would take a massively coordinated effort, one that people of certain faiths are less than willing to recognize). And as far as "increasing the death rate," we cannot and should not forget that the history of nature has a way of evening things out when people become too big-headed in thinking that they should be the only creatures entitled to occupy and modify the earth and its resources. I'm sure one of the history buffs in here could cite a few examples.

[SensEye]

I still think you guys worry too much. There are lots of alternative energy sources out there if it becomes a matter of life or death (although whether first world countries will finance 3rd world countries in this regard is yet to be seen). It's just a matter of economic priorities.

For example, if it comes to it, I would be all for a total and complete ban on private ownership of automobiles. That should allow us to conserve enough fossil fuels to run farm equipment for quite some time. But a ban should not prove necessary, when gas is pricey enough, only industrial operators will be able to afford it.

Non-portable sources of energy for factories and the like are no problem. Everybody gets their knickers in a twist about nuclear energy at the moment, but let'em face the threat of starvation or freezing in the dark and watch those attitudes change in a hurry.

This is not to say I am not in favor of population control. It has many benefits regarding increasing the standard of living and other environmental issues.

[SheepDog]

It's not just a matter of economic priorities, it's a matter of physics. The current population levels, and the current way of life in developed countries is completely dependent on cheap fuel. This cheap fuel is finite, and both the population level and the way of life is unsustainable.

The food supply at current levels absolutely requires fossil fuels. As mentioned above, the chemical fertilizers come from natural gas, and the herbicides and pesticides come from oil. There is no alternative energy source that can produce these products at these levels in order to sustain the current levels of food production. The NG shortage in the US is already a problem, as manufacturers of fertilizer have already begun moving operations offshore because of a decline in US NG sources. I am convinced that as oil and NG peak, food will decline, and food shortages will be increasingly more common.

Even if we put the brakes on everything else and made food the top priority, the alternatives are just not being developed at anywhere near the rate required to make up the difference. To address the alternative you mention, SensEys, the US isn't building any nuclear plants, nor are most other countries. Building nuclear plants takes roughly a decade, and incidentally, require a lot of energy to build. It would require several dozen plants to even make a dent, so we're talking about many decades to build this capacity. There is a major NIMBY problem, of course, which will certainly slow their development. Waiting until other fuels become expensive (i.e. letting economic priorities dictate change) will make it increasingly difficult to catch up.

As for banning cars, sprawl has occurred with the assumption of cheap transportation. Most of the housing built in the last 50 years or so in the US will become barely livable, if at all, without it. People won't be able to buy food and other required items when they live in areas where the homes are deliberately created to be a long distance from the stores. They won't be able to get to work, because mass transportation just isn't available in most places, certainly not anywhere near the degree needed to replace all the cars.


The whole point of Kunstler's article as I see it, and my point in posting all this that we are not worried enough, and are not doing enough about it. The end of cheap oil is coming, but we're doing almost nothing to prepare. Most people underestimate the possible effects because they just don't realize how important cheap fossil fuels are to their existence. It's not fun to think about, but pretending that things will take care of themselves is setting our world up for a major collapse.

[SheepDog]

Precisely (referring to controlling the birth rate, which would take a massively coordinated effort, one that people of certain faiths are less than willing to recognize). And as far as "increasing the death rate," we cannot and should not forget that the history of nature has a way of evening things out when people become too big-headed in thinking that they should be the only creatures entitled to occupy and modify the earth and its resources. I'm sure one of the history buffs in here could cite a few examples.
1) The Roman Empire.
2) Easter Island.
3) ancient Mayans.

We have more options to consider, however:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8616677/

A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could “take out” Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Or, if you prefer:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

[SensEye]

The whole point of Kunstler's article as I see it, and my point in posting all this that we are not worried enough, and are not doing enough about it. The end of cheap oil is coming, but we're doing almost nothing to prepare. Most people underestimate the possible effects because they just don't realize how important cheap fossil fuels are to their existence. It's not fun to think about, but pretending that things will take care of themselves is setting our world up for a major collapse.This I generally agree with. I suppose the problem is that I am too cynical about the ability of the masses to plan for the future. I think you can try to educate people until the cows come home and it won't have impact on their behavior. People won't change until they feel the economic pain.

On the bright side, I am more optimistic than you appear to be about society's ability to adapt, and adapt fairly quickly.

I believe a fairly nasty recession is coming driven by a number of things (increasing energy prices among them). Nasty, but not catastrophic. We shall see. It can't be that far off.

[SheepDog]

If you care to read a more thorough explanation of the oil/food connection, as it relates to population, go here:
http://www.museletter.com/archive/159.html

This is written by Richard Heinberg, who wrote the books "The Party's Over: Oil, War, and The Fate of Industrial Societies" and "Powerdown - Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World", both of which I recommend. The first book is an overview of Peak Oil, with some discussion of the options. The second reviews Peak Oil, and elaborates on options.

[SheepDog]

This I generally agree with. I suppose the problem is that I am too cynical about the ability of the masses to plan for the future. I think you can try to educate people until the cows come home and it won't have impact on their behavior. People won't change until they feel the economic pain.
This certainly seems to be the case.


On the bright side, I am more optimistic than you appear to be about society's ability to adapt, and adapt fairly quickly.
It's safe to say that I'm less optimistic than you ;) .

We do have a history of finding solutions to problems quite well over the last century. But I think it's important to remember that our ingenuity is also built upon cheap fuel. We may be indeed be very clever, but it was not cleverness alone that has served us. It was a unique combination of competence and resources. This dynamic will not exist indefinitely, and if we have to rely on ingenuity in a condition of declining energy resources, it will be much more difficult than we think. That is why we should have started long before the decline.


I believe a fairly nasty recession is coming driven by a number of things (increasing energy prices among them). Nasty, but not catastrophic. We shall see. It can't be that far off.
My guess is that it will play out like the metaphor of the frog in the slowly boiling water. Most people won't realize they're in it until it's quite late in the game.

[Dman]

You are correct, Nighthawk, that population grew along with fossil fuel consumption. There is every likelihood that current population levels are not sustainable should cheap fossil fuels become scarce.

The sad thing about this is that dealing with population issues will take a very long time. If a coordinated effort could be made to cut the birth rate (not likely), it would still take more than a century for the population to reduce even in half. Increasing the death rate would work, but that's not a very popular option, to say the least.

Logan's Run :)

What was it, age 25 or 30 or something, and they had to commit mass suicide? Good movie, but dated.

Anyways, I'm doing my part by having lots of kids. ;)

All it will take is a superflu epidemic to straighten us pesky humans out for a while. A lot of people are unaware of the flu epidemic of 1918 that killed at least 20 million people globally (possibly twice that many). With as crowded and dense as cities are now, plus the prevalence of airline travel to and from virtually every country in the world, imagine the numbers that would be killed now if a similar event occurred.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/flu/fluepidemic.html

[Maniac]

Yeah this is all over the news. Too bad oil companies greedily destroyed anyone coming up with alternate fuel sources. People argue that an alternate energy source would have started an ecomonic disaster (affecting the oil, automotive, and transportation sectors). Well now we have no choice.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[SheepDog]

Shell's oil production fell:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aTfs7POVnAt4&refer=europe

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe's second- biggest oil company, posted lower-than-expected profit for the second quarter as production fell.

And so did Exxon Mobil:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050728/earns_exxon_mobil.html?.v=4

Profits from exploration and production jumped $1 billion to $4.9 billion, a reflection of strong crude and natural gas prices offsetting a 4.3 percent reduction in output, the company said.(emphasis added)

With prices as high as they are, you'd think they'd want to increase production, if they could.

[kendoiwan]

You'd want them to increase production but why would they want to do such a thing. They're itching to get the prices in the $100 plus range. Sell less oil, make more money. Demand outpacing supply leads to a sellers market. (pardon me the tv's in my job are stuck on msnbc, I am way to well versed on the finacially aspect of this, I'll stop myself now b4... :rant: :rant: :mad:

[SheepDog]

kendoiwan, you point out a valid possibility, which would definitely be a cause anger if true. It is also possible that production fell because these companies have peaked. It is impossible to know for sure.

But I think you can be fairly certain that as peak oil passes, there will be increasing numbers of these kinds of reports, and just as many explanations.

[kendoiwan]

kendoiwan, you point out a valid possibility, which would definitely be a cause anger if true. It is also possible that production fell because these companies have peaked. It is impossible to know for sure.

But I think you can be fairly certain that as peak oil passes, there will be increasing numbers of these kinds of reports, and just as many explanations.

This is one of those a little bit of both situations. Everybody knows they can't keep up at this rate. Plus the hurricane season being as severe so early isn't helping either. And just watch msnbc for a day count how many times they lick their chops, um mention the price of a barrel topping $100. Somethings rotten in Denmark.

[SheepDog]

There's a fairly succinct explanation of Peak Oil at this site:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[SheepDog]

I encourage you to read this article titled Eating Fossil Fuels (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html). It directly addresses issues discussed previously in this thread regarding the importance of fossil fuels in food production, and the likely impact that a reduction of supply will have on population.

This is one of the most troubling things I've read regarding this subject.

[Architectonic]

The traders perspective.


A VIEW FROM THE OIL PUMP
By Lew W.

I have worked in the oil industry for 25 years, 95% of my time outside the USA. My professional specialty is ultra-deep-water, cutting edge oil and gas drilling technology. As I try to demystify the oil market and comment on Hubbert’s Peak, I want to remind you that I am not trying to provide you with a specific advice. My goal is to outline the pathways for your own considerations. Several industries are interlinked – nuclear, coal, oil/gas, and solar. Let us review them one by one.

OIL & GAS
Most of the land has been explored; deep water represents the remaining opportunity to find oil. Deepwater drilling was created by the USA during 1940-1980. By 1980 we had perfected the offshore rig design, and almost all CEOs of offshore drilling contractors were visionaries who had grown up working on rigs. These visionaries knew some facts most of the public is still unaware of today.

You will note that I use the word “extraction” instead of production. “Production” implies that all it takes to get more oil is build another “production” facility. This is a flawed belief, hence “extraction.” For long term stability, discovery must equal or exceed extraction.


1. Despite constantly expanding searches, the last super giant oil field was discovered in 1967. The largest oil reservoir in the world, Saudi’s Ghawar field, has been draining since 1951 and is showing signs of decline. The 4 largest fields in the world, all at least 50 years old, provide 12% of world oil supply.
2. All the super giant and giant fields were in full extraction by 1981, except reserves in Iran and FSU countries surrounding the Caspian Sea, where the political situation prevented access.
3. Offshore and onshore fields discovered since 1970 are much smaller. Today, an offshore field makes headlines if it is 1% of the size of Ghawar.
4. In 1981 extraction of oil exceeded discovery of new oil for the first time, a trend that has accelerated for 24 years.


In the early 1980s, the US Gov’t asked the Saudis to ramp up extraction and use the money to help fund covert activities in Afghanistan. The Saudi were able to drill hundreds of wells in their super giant fields, allowing extraction to exceed consumption, though this rapidly drained the giant fields. This surge of Saudi production caused the price of oil to collapse by 1984, destroying the market for offshore drilling. For all practical purposes, by 1985 the US offshore oil drilling industry was dead. A significant factor in the tight oil market today is that from 1982 until 1992, very few oil wells were drilled. When the drilling industry recovered somewhat in the 1990s, the majority of wells were for development of fields discovered in the 1970s, not looking for new oil,

Meanwhile, cheap oil spurred world oil consumption, and the oil cushion began to disappear. Today, the cushion is essentially gone, and all of the giant fields are experiencing extraction declines. Other reservoirs must be developed and new ones found.

Stories of Hubbert’s Peak become popular when oil prices spike. There is actually plenty of oil. We are not in any near or long term danger of running out of oil. However, it will get more expensive as time passes, and it may become VERY expensive in the short term, because we have to make up for years without drilling activity.

In the offshore drilling industry we know several facts:


1. Oil is found almost everywhere. The world’s largest science project, the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) has drilled the world’s oceans continuously since 1965. The ODP has found hydrocarbon traces nearly everywhere that sediments are deposited.
2. While hydrocarbons are common, oil/gas fields are rare. Hydrocarbons are the lightest thing found underground, so they migrate. Hydrocarbons are not found in economic quantities unless there is a “trap” of some sort – an impermeable rock formation shaped like an upside down cup.
3. As rare as geological traps are, oil reservoirs even more rare. To form a reservoir, the occurrence of a trap must be combined with a porous “sponge-like” rock under the trap so the oil has somewhere to pool, and so that the pool can be drained.
4. As rare as geological traps with reservoir rocks are, large reservoirs are even more rare.


You can see where this is going. Oil is common, oil reservoirs are rare, and giant oil reservoirs are extremely rare. So, we are not running out of oil, but we stopped discovering cheap oil 40 years ago. With current economics, an oil reservoir in deep water must have about a billion barrels (bbl) of oil to be worth extracting, unless it occurs close to other reservoirs, so that extraction facilities can be shared. About 100 deepwater rigs are currently drilling. About half the fleet is engaged in development work – drilling wells to develop existing fields. The other half is looking for new oil. For discovery to equal consumption all 50 rigs must find 2 large offshore fields, of a billion bbls each, every year. The current success rate is less than half what is needed.

From a discovery point of view, many more offshore wells need to be drilled than we are drilling now. As a trader, watch the construction of offshore rigs. At present, there is little or no construction, but a building boom should start by Q1 2006. Rigs take 2-3 years from purchase order to drilling. Oil takes another 5-10 years from discovery to extraction. Rig count will have little to do with oil supplies in the near term, but will affect the longer term.

The war on Iraq and conflicts over oil in Central Asia will determine the near term price of oil. The remaining giant fields in these areas contain enough cheap oil to hold down oil prices for another 10 years. These fields are land-locked in politically unstable areas. Governments tend to view oil as a strategic resource, and have been maneuvering to gain control of this oil, and prevent others from gaining control, since 1900. Political unrest in Georgia, Chechnya, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and countries around the eastern Caspian Sea all relate to oil supplies and pipeline routes. For an overview of this conflict read “The New Great Game” by Lutz Kleveman.

Essentially, the situation there is that the US, Russia, China, and several minor players are contesting for oil and oil revenues. The US wants to build a pipeline either through Chechnya & Georgia, or Afghanistan. The Russians want the oil to flow through their pipelines so they can charge transport fees. The Chinese want to build a pipeline to the east, which won’t pass through Russian or US controlled territory. Continued squabbles may prevent this oil from coming online. If the major governments change to peaceful free market tactics, this oil has a good chance to reach the market in sufficient quantities to reduce oil prices for another decade. All solutions EXCEPT a direct pipeline to China would require fleets of tankers for one leg, at high economic cost and environmental risk. Allowing China to buy all of the Central Asian oil would reduce Chinese pressure on world oil prices. However, logic seems to become rare when oil is at stake.

OIL SANDS
There is a lot of talk about the Canadian oil sands but while the quantity of oil is large, the quality is very low, extraction costs are high, and massive quantities of natural gas are required. Oil sands are not likely to contribute significantly for another 5 years, but in 10 years oil sands may represent 1% of the market.

OIL SHALES
These don’t really contain oil, but a close cousin which is relatively expensive to convert. This resource is unlikely to ever contribute to energy needs.

HYDRATES
There are immense hydrate reserves all around the world. The Japanese are currently working hard to figure out how to develop this resource. The quantities are ample, but extraction and distribution costs are high, so hydrates will only be a contributor at $45/bbl or higher. Oil companies are aware of deepwater hydrates and future deepwater drilling budgets may explore this vast resource.

COAL
The demand is strong. In the last few years, coal companies have combined into a few major suppliers. Rising gas prices have driven power plants to switch to coal. US coal exports have soared as other countries want our clean burning coal. All of these forces have combined to boost coal revenues. At present, there is more demand than supply. Coal mines add large per-unit capacity, so coal companies are hesitant to build more without contracts to support extraction long enough to pay off the mine. Coal company profits seem likely to be a sustained trend, especially if the coal companies can figure out how to balance exports and domestic markets. Several of these companies, ACI and BTU in particular, have had solid years and look likely to have a good 12-24 months ahead.

NUCLEAR
There has recently been an increased interest in nuclear power. The major manufacturers have released new designs which are supposedly cleaner, cheaper, and safer. Nuclear has its own “Hubbert’s Peak” and other problems – just like with oil, all the cheap and easy uranium has been found. There is plenty of uranium available, but the price is going up fast. Another factor that gets little discussion is the relationship between oil and uranium. It takes massive quantities of oil to mine uranium. A friend once argued that the only reason nuclear was economically viable was subsidies from the US Government. If US nuclear weapon production were to slow down, nuclear energy might be un-economic.

WIND
Wind power is booming in the USA, but is no threat to oil or coal in the short term. It is twice as expensive as coal per-kW. This gap will tighten as technology matures.

SOLAR
Current solar thermal power generation is cheaper than coal. However, the company owning the technology is holding it real close, so growth is unlikely to have any effect for another decade or longer. Direct solar conversion is currently not competitive.

HYDROGEN
This is not a viable source of energy. It requires more energy to make than it releases when burned. The only reasonably economic source of hydrogen is natural gas, which is in short supply, has tripled in price in the last three years, and looks likely to go even higher. Hydrogen is similar to Star Wars in that it is technically impossible and incredibly expensive but promoted by the government anyway.

FUSION
The secret of fusion had been solved. Two universities are perfecting the process, one in the USA and one in Europe. Physicists thought of achieving a sustained fusion reaction using ultrasonic energy focused on a glass of heavy water (deuterium). A few months ago fusion using this technique was successfully achieved in a lab. This is exciting because instead of futuristic magnetic bottles and high temperature plasmas it uses a glass of water and well known relatively low technology sound equipment. There are a number of details to be worked out, but physicists estimate that in 10 to 20 years we will have commercial fusion reactors using deuterium for fuel. Deuterium has an essentially unlimited and relatively cheap supply, obtained by simply centrifuging sea water. US university science R&D funds are at risk, but the Europeans are expanding their efforts.

SUMMARY
From a trader’s point of view, the cost of oil is going to remain high, with fluctuations. The indicators to watch are:


1. Availability of Iraqi, Iranian and central Asian supplies
2. Offshore exploration budgets of major and minor oil companies
3. Rig construction and offshore drilling rig utilization rates
4. War, which always drives prices up

[Biff_Loman]

A while back, I talked to my broker about investing in oil stocks, and he was of the opinion that oil prices were due for a correction. At the time, oil was at $50 a barrel and - according to my broker - the president of Exxon felt that the price should have been $40. The price has since increased to $61, or so I heard on the radio the other day.

I've read many predictions of doom and gloom regarding peak oil, but my personal view have begun to soften on the issue and I have become less pessimistic. Let me explain why.

Right now (before the peak), any attempts at conservation run up against Jevan's paradox. Whenever you or I or any other party saves energy through conservation - buying a Smart car, for instance - some other party purchases that energy and uses it. Usually, that other party is a business who will use that energy to manufacture a product, and that product then needs to be shipped, sold and ultimately thrown out. Each one of those steps requires energy. The sick paradox is that individual attempts to conserve energy actually increase the demand for energy.

Does that sound warped? New Scientist recently had a blurb regarding microwave ovens. Microwaves were supposed to reduce energy use, as they use less power than conventional ovens. However, the development of microwaves created much more demand for highly processed frozen foods. The manufacture of these foods requires a lot of energy, and the net energy used in the preparation of food in the developed world increased.

Naturally, the link is not always so obvious or direct, but Jevan's paradox is always in effect.

However, once we pass peak extraction of oil, conservation of energy will result in a very real increase of possible economic activity. If I drive a Smart car, that frees up energy to power some other machine that may not have otherwise been able to run. In a way, energy *will* be money - at least, that's the way I understand it.

The transition will always be painful, but I can see a new infrastructure being created faster than one would expect. If energy is in effect money, the best enterprises into which one should invest would be energy. And if we cannot increase extraction of petroleum, these alternatives must be renewables and nuclear. Time will tell as to which alternative will provide the best return on our investment.

[SheepDog]

Thanks for posting that article, Architectonic. It's remarkably objective (relatively speaking) for an economic based approach. Economists (e.g. Michael Lynch) tend to be more optimistic than the geologists (e.g. Deffeyes), with economists having faith in raising prices to increase supplies (since exploration/extraction become more cost effective with higher prices, thus more oil).

But there's a couple of key concepts worth considering. One is that in that article, it states: "Stories of Hubbert’s Peak become popular when oil prices spike. " While that's when it gets attention in the press, Peak Oil theory actually doesn't focus so much on short term price fluctuations, which is really more of an issue of current supply/demand issues. Peak Oil is more about the longer term situation, and more about geology than economics (as I see it). I think the distinction is important, because it implies that if short term prices decline, than we're somehow off the hook. The message is not so much that we need to predict the exact moment of Peak Oil, but more that it's coming and we need to be preparing for it.

Which leads me to biff_loman's comments. His discussion of Jevon's paradox raises an interesting point. At the point of Peak Oil, the situation changes. Jevon's paradox does not apply the same way before peak (with relatively excess supply) as it does after peak (with relatively limited supply). This is my personal take on the subject, but I think that economists like Lynch tend to error slightly on the side of thinking that the way it has been is the way it will continue to be. Supply has always risen to meet demand, and it was rising prices that drove that increase in supply. Since it has always worked that way, then it will always be that way.

But Peak Oil theory asserts that there will be a peak, and at that moment, things change. The change will be significant, even if it begins in a subtle way. As biff_loman stated in his Jevon's paradox comments, the relative effects of things like conservation will change the effect on global consumption and productivity effects. In addition, cheap energy will no longer be the boon to the economy that it once was, and economic growth will require increasing effort and will therefore slow. Overall productivity will slow or decline as increasing fuel costs gradually drive up the costs of just about everything.

I think the real debate about when the peak occurs, and the nature of it, is somewhat academic and is distracting us from the point. To the degree that economists are correct that higher prices will increase short-term supplies, that is really only putting off the inevitable, and at the same time setting us for a steeper decline in supply when the time comes. Either way, we really REALLY need to be investing in alternatives.


Even the most optimistic of scenarios for developing alternatives still require investment in dollars and energy to get implemented. If we expect any of the alternatives to scale to anywhere near the levels needed to replace fossil fuels, it is going to require more effort than is being exerted now. Just about every alternative will require huge investments, and since many alternative energy sources cannot scale on their own to meet demand, a variety of alternatives will need to be developed at the same time. This is akin to fighting many battles on many different fronts. Perhaps it can be done, but the effort will be huge.

Jimmy Carter tried to get us on track in 1977. Unfortunately, the US booted him out of office and did very little to prepare for this event. We've pretty much wasted the last 3 decades when we could have been preparing. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, it just means it will be worse when it happens.
President Carter's speech in 1977 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html)


It is my belief that letting economic forces alone take care of things will come up short due to the time and cost of implementing alternatives. I think there need to be incentives for development of alternatives, as well as incentives for conservation, and a concerted effort by the government to get alternatives developed. We have nothing like this right now. Building a nuclear power plant in the US, for example, is hugely expensive, and a bureauctratic and regulatory nightmare. The government could do a lot to help streamline the process, like setting guidelines for safe and efficient designs (each nuclear facility in the US is custom, unlike in other countries like France).

The recently passed US "Energy Bill" provides incentives for nonrenewables (e.g. deep sea exploration), and incentives for non-sustainable sources (e.g. Methanol, which uses more energy than it produces). The nonrenewable subsidy is basically a gift to oil companies that are already making record profits due to currently high oil prices. The Methanol subsidy is a gift to agribusiness which actually increases our dependence on oil, rather than reduces it, due to the amount of fossil fuels used in the production. There is a small subsidy for hybrid cars, but that is really more of a conservation measure than an alternative energy source.

Maybe we can pull this off, but from what I see, people aren't taking this issue seriously enough, and are not taking the steps required to make a smooth transition work. I fear that it's too little, too late, and it will be much harder to transition after peak than it would be before. I can only do what I can, though, and hope that I'm wrong.

[Biff_Loman]

Well. . . I don't know if we can "pull it off," so to speak. There is a major re-structuring in the pipeline.

My prediction is that we will experience a temporary plummet in our current lifestyle and a depression. However, we will also experience a lot of demand destruction. Long-distance commuting, jet travel, etc. will be a thing of the past, so there will actually be petroleum available to develop a new infrastructure.

My guess is that there will be massive unemployment for a time, and we will all be miserable - but we will adapt. I foresee a two-pronged approach to the energy problem between small business and the large energy companies. Entrepeneurs will figure out that it doesn't take a lot of technical expertise to build simple windmills and to make biodiesel from algae ponds (biodiesel from plant crops would take too much land to be useful). Meanwhile, big business will probably set itself to the task of building nuclear reactors, giant wind farms, production of solar panels, etc.

Like I said: after the oil peak, energy will probably be money. For a long time, I predict, the best investment possible will be in enterprises that produce energy.

The transition will not be at all smooth. I suspect most of us will lose our jobs. I don't see civilization itself coming to an end, though, which is what some predict.

[Ka.avik]

The transition will not be at all smooth. I suspect most of us will lose our jobs. I don't see civilization itself coming to an end, though, which is what some predict. Unless we kill off everyone civilization can't end...it survived the biblical flood that Noah and his children went through! Mind you the resulting civilization won't resemble what came before...but we've been put here to adapt, as near as I can tell.

I just loathe having to move into the city to use public transportation. I want my diesel KLR598 (http://www.f1engineering.com/projectpics%20white.html), doggonit!

EDIT: or one of these (http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/02/25/thunder-star-1200-diesel-by-star-twin/) would be nice. Who here is in Holland, and could ship one to me?

[SheepDog]

In the big picture, I have less optimism that we can pull it off than you do biff_loman, and than is probably implied in my last comment. I think the effects will go beyond the economic downturn that you describe, and include some nasty resource wars and a dramatic die-off as food becomes scarce globally. I just don't want that to be true, and keep hoping that there's still a chance to minimize those effects.

We'll see...

[kuranes]

Yes, a flu epidemic would be an unfortunate emergence of a natural "checks and balances" equilibrium adjustment to decrease the needy population. I thought that this bird flu was a flash in the pan that would go away after a little speculation about some dead chickens in Vietnam. But apparently it's not going away. Currently the only synthetic anti-viral drug that supposedly works against it is something called Oseltamivir, which is obscure and in short supply. There is always talk of natural substances to combat viruses also.

[Architectonic]

A while back, I talked to my broker about investing in oil stocks, and he was of the opinion that oil prices were due for a correction. At the time, oil was at $50 a barrel and - according to my broker - the president of Exxon felt that the price should have been $40. The price has since increased to $61, or so I heard on the radio the other day.

Trading mistake #1 listening to your broker.
Seriously though, if you wish to obtain investment advice from a broker, you have to get them to make specific predictions. Approximate prices and dates backed up with in-depth analysis. If your broker cannot provide this, then for all you know, you are investing purely on the brokers 'gut feel' which will have a very uncertain result, unless you happen to be lucky enough to have a very experienced and uncannily astute broker.




Right now (before the peak), any attempts at conservation run up against Jevan's paradox. Whenever you or I or any other party saves energy through conservation - buying a Smart car, for instance - some other party purchases that energy and uses it. Usually, that other party is a business who will use that energy to manufacture a product, and that product then needs to be shipped, sold and ultimately thrown out. Each one of those steps requires energy. The sick paradox is that individual attempts to conserve energy actually increase the demand for energy.

Does that sound warped? New Scientist recently had a blurb regarding microwave ovens. Microwaves were supposed to reduce energy use, as they use less power than conventional ovens. However, the development of microwaves created much more demand for highly processed frozen foods. The manufacture of these foods requires a lot of energy, and the net energy used in the preparation of food in the developed world increased.

Naturally, the link is not always so obvious or direct, but Jevan's paradox is always in effect.

However, once we pass peak extraction of oil, conservation of energy will result in a very real increase of possible economic activity. If I drive a Smart car, that frees up energy to power some other machine that may not have otherwise been able to run. In a way, energy *will* be money - at least, that's the way I understand it.


You aren't quite looking at the full picture.

Jevan's paradox is quite simple - if efficiency is increased and an entity therefore invests in less oil, potentially reducing the price, that potential lower price will make oil more affordable for others, therefore the overall demand may remain the same. Now the improved efficiency, will result in economic savings, which can potentially, but not automatically result in more demand from the entity. It depends on the goals (and rationality) of the entity. So there are a series of assumptions that aren't necessarily going to be true in a real-world complex situation. But we are only looking at one side of the equation. If efficiency is increased, then the amount of useful work done is also increased. For Jevan's paradox to be true, then the total amount of useful work done increases significantly. If the amount of useful work done is held constant, then Jevan's paradox will not hold true. Since more useful work is done overall, then increasing efficiency will potentially result in a higher standard of living (assuming rational decision making).

Your example of the microwave shows that real world situations are complex and the goals (and rationality) may vary. In that case, energy is traded off for a reduction in end cooking/preparation time.

Environmentalists will be pleased in the future as the fossil fuels increase in price (and as computing power etc decreases in price), because it means that products will become more realistically priced to reflect the actual amount of energy that went into their production.

But I agree that it is highly unlikely that there will be any sort of doomsday scenario. Cars, international flights will still happen, the recession may be no worse than what occured in the 1970s. But as more people realise how wasteful of energy they are (I doubt most people in western countries would be able to guess the massive amount of energy that they have consumed to sustain their life), the smoother it will go. I honestly believe that conservation will go a long way, combined with new technology, the future isn't that dim. Of course, the worst scenario is that we start using massive amounts of coal to make up for the scarcity of oil. ;)

Ps, Smart cars have somewhat ordinary fuel economy considering their size and performance, the real advantage of the Smart car is its size and therefore ease of parking in tight places.

[SheepDog]

If you're interested in a good site with lots of news stories about Peak Oil, check out http://globalpublicmedia.com/ .

[SheepDog]

Did you ever wonder what it means when the news says that crude oil prices are up as a result of limited refinery capacity?

Since refineries use crude oil as an input, lower refinery capacity would mean lower demand for oil, which should have downward pressure on prices of crude. Refinery output, like gasoline would go up, sure, but based solely on this, the explanation for rising crude oil prices makes no sense.

Ok, it's a trick question. The price quoted is for light, sweet crude. The inadequate refinery capacity is for heavy, sour crude, which is more difficult and more costly to refine. But what this really means is that there's a shortage of light, sweet crude relative to demand. BTW, the light, sweet crude tends to sit higher in the ground, as it is actually lighter. That's another reason why it tends to get pumped out first. And the world's swing producer, Saudi Arabia, has been quite vocal about the fact that they have plenty of heavy sour crude, even as they are trying to keep up with light, sweet crude demand.

This is just one example of Peak Oil concepts at work. The easiest and best oil gets pumped first, during the supply growth. As the higher quality and easier to reach oil becomes scarce, we are forced to go with oil that is lower quality, and more difficult to extract. This is a significant reason why oil is going up in price right now, although I'm certain that geopolitcal as well as other reasons are part of it.

Peak Oil isn't the end of oil. It's the end of cheap oil.

[Architectonic]

Peak Oil isn't the end of oil. It's the end of cheap oil.

Exactly.

[SheepDog]

There's a WNYC radio interview with Kunstler on this page, if you care to hear it. Scroll down to the section titled "The Long Emergency":
http://wnyc.com/shows/lopate/episodes/08172005

[SheepDog]

Here's an interview on Financial Sense with Matt Savinar:
http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2004/Savinar.html

Savinar is the creator of the website http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[SheepDog]

And here's a different interview on Financial Sense with Ronald R. Cooke, Author of "Oil, Jihad and Destiny: Will Declining Oil Production Plunge Our Planet Into a Depression?"
http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2004/Cooke.html

[SheepDog]

Here's a pretty long article in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html

registration is required

[kendoiwan]

On the sunday morning talk shows todays hot topic is a potential congressional investigation into the oil companies and price gouging. The profit margins of the majors range from 34% to 51% net profits...

[SheepDog]

Blaming the oil companies is misguided. The price of crude is set by the free market, based on supply and demand.

If congress wants a scapegoat, they should blame themselves for being too stupid to include incentives for conservation (reducing demand) in their so-called energy bill. They should blame themselves for doing nothing about automobile fuel efficiency standards. They should blame themselves for providing tax subsidies to these very same energy companies for things like deep sea exploration.

They should also blame themselves for passing a 286 billion transportation bill which INCREASES demand for oil and is loaded with pork projects. That's just under 20x the 14.5 billion "energy" bill, btw.


In any case, short term fluctuations in oil or gasoline prices are not the big issue. The much larger issue is that oil is a finite resource, and production will soon be in decline. We need to be developing alternatives, as well as conserving this finite resource while we still have the energy to make the transition. Making the transition while on the downward slope of supply will be much, much harder and more expensive than it would be had we started before the production peak.

This blame game is just making it worse.

[Nighthawk]

We need to be developing alternatives, as well as conserving this finite resource while we still have the energy to make the transition. Making the transition while on the downward slope of supply will be much, much harder and more expensive than it would be had we started before the production peak.
Ironically, Jimmy Carter was trying to do exactly that in the late 70's Imagine how far along we would be now if he had succeeded. Instead, Regan cancelled Carter's initiatives when he took office in the 80s and the great oil glut began.

I have little faith that our government leaders will do anything more than fill their own pockets and those of their special interests ... all the while pointing fingers and blaming others for the predicament ... until we have gone so far that our crumbling oil infrastructure can no longer support development of alternatives. They are as myopic as a kid with coke-bottle-bottom glasses.

[kuranes]

A guy told me that he knew of a lot of wells "tapped and capped" that have been sitting untouched for quite some time now. The idea he was trying to get across is that there'a lot of oil still available, but that people in control of it want to wait until the price gets WAY up there before they break it out. His words to me "There IS no oil crisis, in reality. Just the rich getting richer." Not having stats from this thread at hand, my comeback to him was focused more on refineries vs. oil supposedly being in short supply.

[SheepDog]

Ironically, Jimmy Carter was trying to do exactly that in the late 70's Imagine how far along we would be now if he had succeeded. Instead, Regan cancelled Carter's initiatives when he took office in the 80s and the great oil glut began. Yeah, in particular I wished the "energy bill" had included incentives for individuals to spend on conservation like was the case while Carter was in office. As an aside, Reagan also got Saudi Arabia to flood the market with oil in the mid 80's, which cut USSR oil export revenues and greatly assisted in their collapse.


I have little faith that our government leaders will do anything more than fill their own pockets and those of their special interests ... all the while pointing fingers and blaming others for the predicament ... until we have gone so far that our crumbling oil infrastructure can no longer support development of alternatives. They are as myopic as a kid with coke-bottle-bottom glasses.
I agree. They could start by being honest about the situation, but as Carter's situation shows, that doesn't work politically. In a sense, voters share partial blame.

I don't know if you've heard of it, but there's a documentary video called "End of Suburbia" that covers PO and suburbs as often portrayed by Kunstler ("Geography of Nowhere"). There's an interesting comment in there about how when PO kicks in, people are going to be clammoring for their legislators to "do something". I wonder if the latest congressional discussions are the beginning of that. It will surely become even more absurd after it hits. FWIW, when I first heard that congress was having hearings, I thought, "just like with Terri Schiavo." Just as absurd, I'm sure.

[Star Cannon]

The first thing congress is going to do when everyone starts clamoring is put the U.S.A under martial law.

We can't rely on the government to do anything right. We have take it over ourselves and do what we have to do in order to prepare America, and possibly the world, for when the black gold runs out.
I suggest a peaceful takeover of Congress and the Pentagon. Like, link hands, get the media, and stand infront of the pentagon and congress buildings, denying entrance with a chain of humans. If the military shoots, the media get in. If the media sees it, then everyone watching CNN will see it. If everyone on CNN sees it, then the government is screwed.

Any one up for taking over Washington? :-) (Joking, of course.)

[SheepDog]

Did you ever wonder what it means when the news says that crude oil prices are up as a result of limited refinery capacity?

Since refineries use crude oil as an input, lower refinery capacity would mean lower demand for oil, which should have downward pressure on prices of crude. Refinery output, like gasoline would go up, sure, but based solely on this, the explanation for rising crude oil prices makes no sense.

Ok, it's a trick question. The price quoted is for light, sweet crude. The inadequate refinery capacity is for heavy, sour crude, which is more difficult and more costly to refine. But what this really means is that there's a shortage of light, sweet crude relative to demand. BTW, the light, sweet crude tends to sit higher in the ground, as it is actually lighter. That's another reason why it tends to get pumped out first. And the world's swing producer, Saudi Arabia, has been quite vocal about the fact that they have plenty of heavy sour crude, even as they are trying to keep up with light, sweet crude demand.

This is just one example of Peak Oil concepts at work. The easiest and best oil gets pumped first, during the supply growth. As the higher quality and easier to reach oil becomes scarce, we are forced to go with oil that is lower quality, and more difficult to extract. This is a significant reason why oil is going up in price right now, although I'm certain that geopolitcal as well as other reasons are part of it.

Peak Oil isn't the end of oil. It's the end of cheap oil.

Here's an interesting analysis of some OPEC numbers, indicating that light sweet crude has peaked for OPEC:
http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/2005/08/26

Although the total volume of ‘oil’ extracted in 2004 compared with 2000 has increased, the proportions of different grades of oil have shifted. Light sweet crude is the most attractive because it is easier to refine, global refining capacity is geared to light sweet crude of which there is now a shortage. This shift in grades has resulted in a shortage of refining capacity for the available medium/heavy sour oil and tough competition for the reduced amount of light sweet oil available.

It is these two factors (less light sweet oil available and lack of refining capacity for the medium/heavy sour oil) that are chiefly responsible for the current high prices.

As oil becomes scarce it is clear that the best stuff will be pumped first, the best stuff is the light sweet crude. The fact that this is now in decline adds more weight to the argument that that the total global oil extraction rates will soon peak.
I don't hear about this in the "news", but this does a lot to explain the price of "oil" (and gasoline) at the moment. It also means that these prices could soon look cheap.

I'm always hesitant to extrapolate too much on current prices, because there are so many things that affect them. Demand is growing constantly, and supply is variable. For political forces that affect supply, there is a chance they will improve and help lower prices. For geological constraints affecting supply, they are generally permanent. Clearly, there is an element of both in the current prices, and I'm not claiming enough knowledge to know to what degree the current prices increases are based on factors that may, or may not improve. I'm just keeping my ear to the ground for now.

[SheepDog]

The first thing congress is going to do when everyone starts clamoring is put the U.S.A under martial law.

We can't rely on the government to do anything right. We have take it over ourselves and do what we have to do in order to prepare America, and possibly the world, for when the black gold runs out.
I suggest a peaceful takeover of Congress and the Pentagon. Like, link hands, get the media, and stand infront of the pentagon and congress buildings, denying entrance with a chain of humans. If the military shoots, the media get in. If the media sees it, then everyone watching CNN will see it. If everyone on CNN sees it, then the government is screwed.

Any one up for taking over Washington? :-) (Joking, of course.)
They're ready, and they're not joking.
http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/laworder.htm

[SheepDog]

A guy told me that he knew of a lot of wells "tapped and capped" that have been sitting untouched for quite some time now. The idea he was trying to get across is that there'a lot of oil still available, but that people in control of it want to wait until the price gets WAY up there before they break it out. His words to me "There IS no oil crisis, in reality. Just the rich getting richer." Not having stats from this thread at hand, my comeback to him was focused more on refineries vs. oil supposedly being in short supply.
I've tried to get some numbers on this. I had trouble doing so. My first thought is that these must be very low production wells to have been capped. I also imagine that it would take a fair amount of effort to get a significant number of them working, so even if the economics change, it would take some time.

Finally, I have a hard time thinking that they would make much difference. Current world demand is around 84 milllion barrels/day, and rising every year. Even if they all came on line at once, I hardly think that they could even make up for the demand increases that will occur as they do. For reference, ANWR is estimated to produce about 1 million bpd after several years of development and ramp-up time. That's likewise unlikely to even make up for increased demand.

If anyone can show evidence that suggests these capped wells will make more of a dent, I'd love to see it.

[kendoiwan]

Not directly related to "peak oil" but a good read... interested to see what you guys think...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/opinion/30tierney.html?th&emc=th

[Dman]

Here’s one that is related to Peak Oil, which is also interesting in light of many of the comments made on this thread -

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/


People have been freaking out about oil shortages for decades

[Nighthawk]

Here’s one that is related to Peak Oil, which is also interesting in light of many of the comments made on this thread -

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/


People have been freaking out about oil shortages for decadesThank you for the more cheerful alternate view.

[Dman]

Thank you for the more cheerful alternate view.

:)

Maybe Kurane’s suggestion for my nickname, the “Cheerful Pugilist”, is appropriate after all

[eyebyte_atWork]

Well - seems like the long emergency is knocking at our door now... as it seems the latest news from New Orleans is leaning towards this gloomy outlook. THere are saying this disaster will forace gasoline to over $3 per gallon before the summer's out.

It starts now.

[kuranes]

Yeah, I paid $3.25 yesterday afternoon.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Before this weekend it will go up another 50 cents.

[Dman]

Inflation wasn't going to stay away forever, just like low interest rates won't. Just a fact of life, no big deal.

So it costs me an extra $10 - $15 to fill my tank on my SUV. Whoop-tee-do.

[coffeezombie]

Soon it will get cheaper to move much closer to where one works than to have to drive the miles (housing choices were originally made due to the availability of cheap land in the suburbs, among other factors such as racism). I imagine that there will be a lot of migration and change in housing demand to that effect (which means a need for more planners, hooray).

[panda]

Inflation wasn't going to stay away forever, just like low interest rates won't. Just a fact of life, no big deal.

So it costs me an extra $10 - $15 to fill my tank on my SUV. Whoop-tee-do.
Some of us are incredibly poor.

[Dman]

Some of us are incredibly poor.

Isn't that what the bus is for? Or scooter, or bicycle, or...

[panda]

Isn't that what the bus is for? Or scooter, or bicycle, or...
There are no buses where I live.

Sure, it's *possible* for me to transport myself in other ways. My point was that the increasing gasoline prices negatively affect some of us.

[Dman]

There are no buses where I live.

Sure, it's *possible* for me to transport myself in other ways. My point was that the increasing gasoline prices negatively affect some of us.

Yes, of course it negatively affects all of us. MY point was there is a lot of whining about it but not many are willing to do anything significant about it except whine. Because in the grand scheme of things it’s not that big of a deal. If it were we’d stop driving any petroleum based vehicle, rather than try to single out SUV owners and the like. As if SUVs are the problem. Hypocrisy.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Yes, of course it negatively affects all of us. MY point was there is a lot of whining about it but not many are willing to do anything significant about it except whine. Because in the grand scheme of things it’s not that big of a deal. If it were we’d stop driving any petroleum based vehicle, rather than try to single out SUV owners and the like. As if SUVs are the problem. Hypocrisy.

My problem with SUV's has little to do with the price of gas. It has more to do with the incompetence of the drivers who drive them and who count on their size to make up for their lack of driving skill.

[panda]

Yes, of course it negatively affects all of us. MY point was there is a lot of whining about it but not many are willing to do anything significant about it except whine. Because in the grand scheme of things it’s not that big of a deal. If it were we’d stop driving any petroleum based vehicle, rather than try to single out SUV owners and the like. As if SUVs are the problem. Hypocrisy.
Ok. How is it possible for anyone (on the individual level) to do anything significant regarding gas prices?

Personally, I have no problem with other people driving SUV's. I don't drive an SUV because I don't need one and, more importantly, I can't afford one.

[Dman]

My problem with SUV's has little to do with the price of gas. It has more to do with the incompetence of the drivers who drive them and who count on their size to make up for their lack of driving skill.

Amen. I cannot disagree with that.


Ok. How is it possible for anyone (on the individual level) to do anything significant regarding gas prices?

Easy. If you don’t drive, you don’t care about gas prices!


I was being tongue-in-cheek. My thoughts are I’d be more worried about what oil prices will do to our economy than how much more I’ll pay at the pump.

[eyebyte_atWork]

As far as affecting the price of gas on an idividual level I agree that there's little one can do.

Getting back to SUV's - I am not saying they are moraly wrong, but neither is being ignorant. I equate the two in the following way.

I see people everyday who are driving along -who take forever to get to the speed limit thereby adding to the delays we see in fuct up traffic. These people accelerate so slowly because if they pushed their vehicle harder the gas spent would be much much greater than the acceleration obtained. They speed up slow or they suck up gas. Most people who drives these vehicles don;t see the need to spend the extra gas, and put the engine through its paces just gto get up to 35, 45, or 70 mph. This is indicative of the SUV. Because of the massive weight and their automatic transmissions the acceleration is sacrificed. Meanwhile people who drive smaller cars with stick shift transmissions can accelerate much faster with little fuss from their engine or severely affecting their fuel efficiency -and most of all the don't stay in the way. Safety - another issue. Because smaller cars are more nimble and lower to the ground they can avoid more accidents as long as their drivers aren;t talking on the phone or getting a blowjob. In larger vehicles such as SUV's the center of gravity is higher contributing to lesser handling and the SUV's driver's usually take the attitude that if they were to get into an accident they would be thye ones to walk away because of the size of their beloved SUV (This is especially true here in Texas where incompetence is proportional to SUV usage - and thus many SUV driver talk on the goddam phone). When an accident occurs with an SUV it can be shown that a more nimble vehicle could have avoided it (again as long as the driver wasn't getting his knob polished or is too busy talking on the goddam phone).

I am not trying to demonize SUV's they are good at moving a group of people - but they have their place. I constantly see quad cab pickups and Suburbans at the metro station where they have undoubtly carried a single rider to that destination. Furthermore these huge vehicles do not do any actual work when they sit in the parking lot all day - these vehicles are used inproperly and annoy those of us who actually use skill to drive. (It's like watching retards stand still)

Ofcourse I could be wrong.

[meshou]

Inflation wasn't going to stay away forever, just like low interest rates won't. Just a fact of life, no big deal.

So it costs me an extra $10 - $15 to fill my tank on my SUV. Whoop-tee-do.It now costs me 15-20% of my income to commute to work. Work is five miles away.

This has effectively raised the poverty line. People who used to make ends meet now have two or three dollars per day less. That means I will spend one and one half month's wages on gas per year.

So yeah, for you, it's "Well, I can't have another big screen TV) for the poor, it's "Well kids, you used to eat, but now you can't!"

[CoHo]

Work is five miles away.
Shit, if it's only five miles what about a little electric scooter or something (http://www.electricscooters.la/item.php?Path=ChopperIII)? Or, if you live in an apartment complex, a hand glider?

[mgb]

It now costs me 15-20% of my income to commute to work. Work is five miles away.

This has effectively raised the poverty line. People who used to make ends meet now have two or three dollars per day less. That means I will spend one and one half month's wages on gas per year.

So yeah, for you, it's "Well, I can't have another big screen TV) for the poor, it's "Well kids, you used to eat, but now you can't!"

Apparently, they are just giving TVs and food away in New Orleans. Just something I heard.

[cryokinetic]

Shit, if it's only five miles what about a little electric scooter or something (http://www.electricscooters.la/item.php?Path=ChopperIII)? Or, if you live in an apartment complex, a hand glider?
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/05/CUSA/spec/5rr8ygry.jpg
5 miles is nothing. I'm painfully out of shape, and I could bike that in no time at all.

[meshou]

http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/05/CUSA/spec/5rr8ygry.jpg
5 miles is nothing. I'm painfully out of shape, and I could bike that in no time at all.Hiiiighway.

DFW sux.

[cryokinetic]

Hiiiighway.

DFW sux.
Post withdrawn... I fucking hate DFW and can't wait to get away from here.
Thankfully, the only place I go on a regular basis is in the middle of the UTD campus. Student apts for the win.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Post withdrawn... I fucking hate DFW and can't wait to get away from here.
Thankfully, the only place I go on a regular basis is in the middle of the UTD campus. Student apts for the win.


Hey - Texas (DFW) has its good points, culture and location aren't any of them - wait a minute... am I endorseing Texas or.... Yeah DFW Sux.

[Dman]

As far as affecting the price of gas on an idividual level I agree that there's little one can do.

Getting back to SUV's - I am not saying they are moraly wrong, but neither is being ignorant. I equate the two in the following way.

I see people everyday who are driving along -who take forever to get to the speed limit thereby adding to the delays we see in fuct up traffic. These people accelerate so slowly because if they pushed their vehicle harder the gas spent would be much much greater than the acceleration obtained. They speed up slow or they suck up gas. Most people who drives these vehicles don;t see the need to spend the extra gas, and put the engine through its paces just gto get up to 35, 45, or 70 mph. This is indicative of the SUV. Because of the massive weight and their automatic transmissions the acceleration is sacrificed. Meanwhile people who drive smaller cars with stick shift transmissions can accelerate much faster with little fuss from their engine or severely affecting their fuel efficiency -and most of all the don't stay in the way. Safety - another issue. Because smaller cars are more nimble and lower to the ground they can avoid more accidents as long as their drivers aren;t talking on the phone or getting a blowjob. In larger vehicles such as SUV's the center of gravity is higher contributing to lesser handling and the SUV's driver's usually take the attitude that if they were to get into an accident they would be thye ones to walk away because of the size of their beloved SUV (This is especially true here in Texas where incompetence is proportional to SUV usage - and thus many SUV driver talk on the goddam phone). When an accident occurs with an SUV it can be shown that a more nimble vehicle could have avoided it (again as long as the driver wasn't getting his knob polished or is too busy talking on the goddam phone).

I am not trying to demonize SUV's they are good at moving a group of people - but they have their place. I constantly see quad cab pickups and Suburbans at the metro station where they have undoubtly carried a single rider to that destination. Furthermore these huge vehicles do not do any actual work when they sit in the parking lot all day - these vehicles are used inproperly and annoy those of us who actually use skill to drive. (It's like watching retards stand still)

Ofcourse I could be wrong.

The main issue you seem to have is with poor drivers, in which I agree 100%. This is the case with any vehicle. However the difference is that SUVs have the propensity to cause more damage to others than a smaller vehicle would. However I would not blame the SUVs, I would blame poor drivers. If 90% of people drove motorcycles, and the other 10% drove sedans, it would be the same story. We would hate the sedans because the bad drivers who owned sedans would be causing pain and misery to the bikers. There will always be larger and smaller vehicles sharing the road, and there will always be bad drivers. IMO people who get into accidents that could have been avoided in a smaller car are poor drivers. Think of a semi-truck. You adjust your driving style when in a different size vehicle to compensate for its handling abilities (or lack thereof). Getting in an accident that could have been avoided in a smaller vehicle simply means the driver of the larger vehicle was a poor driver (this is also true of “roll-overs”).

Blaming one type of vehicle and despising those who drive them really is futile. I’m talking about people who think they (SUVs) are abominations.

I also enjoy driving immensely, and when alone much prefer my car. But when carting around my family, I nearly always opt for the SUV primarily due to safety and roominess.

There are too many SUVs with bad drivers in them to risk driving my family around in my car ;)


It now costs me 15-20% of my income to commute to work. Work is five miles away.

This has effectively raised the poverty line. People who used to make ends meet now have two or three dollars per day less. That means I will spend one and one half month's wages on gas per year.

So yeah, for you, it's "Well, I can't have another big screen TV) for the poor, it's "Well kids, you used to eat, but now you can't!"

I guess if you consider having a car more important than feeding your kids, that’s your choice. Sounds like the priorities are a little mixed up, but that’s just my opinion.

(PS – two words… “Top Ramen”)

[eyebyte_atWork]

The main issue you seem to have is with poor drivers, in which I agree 100%. This is the case with any vehicle. However the difference is that SUVs have the propensity to cause more damage to others than a smaller vehicle would. However I would not blame the SUVs, I would blame poor drivers. If 90% of people drove motorcycles, and the other 10% drove sedans, it would be the same story. We would hate the sedans because the bad drivers who owned sedans would be causing pain and misery to the bikers. There will always be larger and smaller vehicles sharing the road, and there will always be bad drivers. IMO people who get into accidents that could have been avoided in a smaller car are poor drivers. Think of a semi-truck. You adjust your driving style when in a different size vehicle to compensate for its handling abilities (or lack thereof). Getting in an accident that could have been avoided in a smaller vehicle simply means the driver of the larger vehicle was a poor driver (this is also true of “roll-overs”).

Blaming one type of vehicle and despising those who drive them really is futile. I’m talking about people who think they (SUVs) are abominations.

I also enjoy driving immensely, and when alone much prefer my car. But when carting around my family, I nearly always opt for the SUV primarily due to safety and roominess.

There are too many SUVs with bad drivers in them to risk driving my family around in my car ;)



I guess if you consider having a car more important than feeding your kids, that’s your choice. Sounds like the priorities are a little mixed up, but that’s just my opinion.

(PS – two words… “Top Ramen”)

OK - I like your dissection of my overly charged comments. I think I have to admit that there is something else at the heart of my SUV bigotry. I also hate the culture of the people (the strata or people) who drive them - there are exceptions ofcourse, but I will say that many if not most SUV driver are not just terrible drivers - they are representatives of human cattle. I could try to justify this statement using the auto industry's track record for using the SUV to get around well intentioned laws - but I digress. People (statistically ESJ's) are cattle - being happy with what big business tells them is proper (including driving SUV's - overgrown station wagons).

Again - you've seen right through me... I have to confess. It the people I cannot stand.

[kuranes]

A concession, D-Man!

[meshou]

I guess if you consider having a car more important than feeding your kids, that’s your choice. Sounds like the priorities are a little mixed up, but that’s just my opinion.

(PS – two words… “Top Ramen”)1) You have to drive to work to feed your kids, dumbass, especially in a city where walking and biking to work is not safe. You have to have money to buy a car with better gas milage.

2) I've actually lived on Ramen for a month.

Was a household where I worked 30 hours a week at 8.50, one household member was jobless, and the other two had fifteen hours at six dollars an hour.

Lost twenty pounds, went from a D cup to a AA. I suppose if you like your girls to be 95 pounds, I was way sexy. If you don't like girls who break out in sores, lose hair, and have visible ribs above their nonexistant tits, maybe you should rethink your nutritional advice.

I have been in the income bracket this will effect the most, and am still in it. Twelve percent of the US is below the poverty line, and this has the serious possibility of bumping that line up.

3) Yes, this does not effect you. It effects the abject poor. That's the fucking point, moron. This makes the poor poorer. It makes it so people who were getting by aren't. It makes people who were heading to college unable to do so. It takes food out of kid's mouths. Your car may be a vanity piece for you, but it is absolutely essential to make money in the first place.

Below a certain income, this is devistating.

[eyebyte_atWork]

1) You have to drive to work to feed your kids, dumbass, especially in a city where walking and biking to work is not safe. You have to have money to buy a car with better gas milage.

2) I've actually lived on Ramen for a month.

Was a household where I worked 30 hours a week at 8.50, one household member was jobless, and the other two had fifteen hours at six dollars an hour.

Lost twenty pounds, went from a D cup to a AA. I suppose if you like your girls to be 95 pounds, I was way sexy. If you don't like girls who break out in sores, lose hair, and have visible ribs above their nonexistant tits, maybe you should rethink your nutritional advice.

I have been in the income bracket this will effect the most, and am still in it. Twelve percent of the US is below the poverty line, and this has the serious possibility of bumping that line up.

3) Yes, this does not effect you. It effects the abject poor. That's the fucking point, moron. This makes the poor poorer. It makes it so people who were getting by aren't. It makes people who were heading to college unable to do so. It takes food out of kid's mouths. Your car may be a vanity piece for you, but it is absolutely essential to make money in the first place.

Below a certain income, this is devistating.

You tellem Meshou ~

[Dman]

1) You have to drive to work to feed your kids, dumbass, especially in a city where walking and biking to work is not safe. You have to have money to buy a car with better gas milage.

Then said person should have thought about his/her financial status in life before having kids, and stayed in school to get a decent job (or used their intellect to make more money or be more frugal with their money). If an extra $25 - $50 a month in gas is going to cause your children to starve, then you are too stupid to have children in the first place and should give Children’s Service’s Division a call.

Who’s the dumbass, the person who is prepared for the inevitable rising prices or the one who can’t deal with it? You decide.


2) I've actually lived on Ramen for a month.

I lived on it for longer than that when I was putting myself through college. Of course I was smart enough to find other sources of food as well, but Ramen was a major staple in my diet. I was also smart enough to do this before I had any kids or other serious responsibilities in my life.


I have been in the income bracket this will effect the most, and am still in it. Twelve percent of the US is below the poverty line, and this has the serious possibility of bumping that line up.

It’s called priorities. You must be accessing the internet from the library, because someone as poor as you claim to be shouldn’t be spending money on access fees. Assuming you also don’t have cable TV for the same reason. And as a matter of fact, you seem to have a lot of free time to be posting here, I’d be spending my time a little more productively if I was in such a predicament, rather than whining about it while doing nothing. Just my opinion.


3) Yes, this does not effect you. It effects the abject poor. That's the fucking point, moron. This makes the poor poorer. It makes it so people who were getting by aren't. It makes people who were heading to college unable to do so. It takes food out of kid's mouths. Your car may be a vanity piece for you, but it is absolutely essential to make money in the first place.

Below a certain income, this is devistating.

Ah, the irony of the insults.

Anyways, cry me a river. You make the choice where you live. Should have moved closer to a bus line, or to the workplace if there’s no bus service. Those are just two out of a billion different options you have, if you use your brain. Quit whining and wasting time on the internet and get to work.

[Dman]

OK - I like your dissection of my overly charged comments. I think I have to admit that there is something else at the heart of my SUV bigotry. I also hate the culture of the people (the strata or people) who drive them - there are exceptions ofcourse, but I will say that many if not most SUV driver are not just terrible drivers - they are representatives of human cattle. I could try to justify this statement using the auto industry's track record for using the SUV to get around well intentioned laws - but I digress. People (statistically ESJ's) are cattle - being happy with what big business tells them is proper (including driving SUV's - overgrown station wagons).

Again - you've seen right through me... I have to confess. It the people I cannot stand.

I appreciate your candor.

I feel the same way, except replace “SUV” with “Minivan” (also an overgrown station wagon).

Here in the NW I cannot determine what the “culture” of SUV drivers is, they are ubiquitous and appear to straddle all types of people, primarily with children. We also have a large culture of off-roaders and ski/snowboarders, which supports the SUV lifestyle.

Minivan drivers on the other hand just seem to be the type of people who do not take driving seriously under any circumstances (why else would they be in a minivan) and therefore are among the worst category of vehicle being driven, for the same reasons you have stated your disdain for SUVs.

[meshou]

Then said person should have thought about his/her financial status in life before having kids, and stayed in school to get a decent job (or used their intellect to make more money or be more frugal with their money). If an extra $25 - $50 a month in gas is going to cause your children to starve, then you are too stupid to have children in the first place and should give Children’s Service’s Division a call.

Who’s the dumbass, the person who is prepared for the inevitable rising prices or the one who can’t deal with it? You decide.I don't know. I used to think that income was related to how much you make, but you've made me rethink that.



I lived on it for longer than that when I was putting myself through college. Of course I was smart enough to find other sources of food as well, but Ramen was a major staple in my diet. I was also smart enough to do this before I had any kids or other serious responsibilities in my life.So smart= having more money?

I also had rice, beans, and a turkey. Still lost the weight.


It’s called priorities. You must be accessing the internet from the library, because someone as poor as you claim to be shouldn’t be spending money on access fees. Assuming you also don’t have cable TV for the same reason. And as a matter of fact, you seem to have a lot of free time to be posting here, I’d be spending my time a little more productively if I was in such a predicament, rather than whining about it while doing nothing. Just my opinion.It's also called "food bank" and "social security." The boyfriend, being disabled, gets a $300 check. We don't own a TV, we keep the fridge at 40, turn off lights and turn down (or off) the AC.

I think having one thirty dollar luxury is permissable. And if not, I'm sure you can find new and creative ways to go fuck yourself.


Ah, the irony of the insults.How arrogant.


Anyways, cry me a river. You make the choice where you live. Should have moved closer to a bus line, or to the workplace if there’s no bus service. Those are just two out of a billion different options you have, if you use your brain. Quit whining and wasting time on the internet and get to work.Ladies and gentlemen, the compassionate concervative.

My point is not "poor me." It's that I am in a better position than you are to know how this impacts the poor.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I grew up that poor. (Also went through college that poor) - I still hate SUV's (and now that it has been mentioned - minivans.)

[kuranes]

So you can understand the anger at a complacency that too often offers a knee jerk response that most of the problems of the working poor can be blamned on laziness and poor planning.

[eyebyte_atWork]

So you can understand the anger at a complacency that too often offers a knee jerk response that most of the problems of the working poor can be blamned on laziness and poor planning.


They are not only lazy and are poor planners - they are stupid too. Living in the bible belt also adds one more thing... It also reflects your walk with God.

People will always find a way to blame people for their condition. People are not always to blame for their condition (although sometimes it is - which complicates things even more.)

I hear that all the time - that smarter people earn more. I know a few PHD's in physics that barely make their bills due to the crappy work/jobs they have. I also know at least two wealthly people who are as dumbs as rocks.

It seems more likely - the more callous the person - the more successful.

[Nighthawk]

It seems more likely - the more callous the person - the more successful.
The ability to effectively use and manipulate people = wealth. Right, Hustler?

[Dman]

This thread is taking a turn for the worse.

Let’s back up a little bit. What set me off was meshou’s response that paying more at the pump may cause children in poor families to starve.

Now, there are always exceptions, but for the most part if you are having children and you can’t afford a spike in gas prices, then you obviously are to blame yourself. Don’t blame anyone else, not Bush, not society, not “the man”, not large corporations. If you’re so enlightened about all these issues, then why the hell haven’t you covered your arse enough so that you can take care of yourself and your family before you got yourself into that mess. It’s no surprise that kids need food and gas prices rise.

Being wealthy or not wealthy is caused by myriad factors, independent of intelligence for the most part. Not necessarily related to being smart or dumb. What is smart or dumb is being able to take care of yourself and your family or not. Understanding how this world works and figuring out a way to survive and take care of yourself and your family is not difficult in this country. Everyone is dealt a random hand, and what you do with it is up to you. You can take a crappy hand and work your butt off, or you can blow it all and whine about it, playing the victim. Or you can half-ass it and blame society. Same goes for people who are dealt a great hand. They can exploit it, or they can blow it. The smart people take the hand they’ve got, good or bad, and do something about it. The not-so-smart ones would rather blame others and be victims.

I saw a post a few days back where a certain someone was trying to get a job, and would work around 20 hours a week. Evidently this was the most this person could work in a week, because this person wants to go to college. Well guess what, when you don’t want to work real hard, you lose the right to complain about stuff like high gas prices preventing you from feeding your kids. Some of us worked well over 40 hours a week while going to college, because that’s what had to be done. Some of us still went into debt by going to college, because that’s what had to be done.

So lose the childish insults and get out there and earn your living, you’ll find it’s more rewarding than complaining about how you don’t have any money. If you really want it, it’s there.

I never heard a response as to how such a poor person had so much free time to post on internet bulletin boards either. That’s the type of priorities I’m talking about. People forget this when speaking of most poor people…but if you look at how they truly live (I’ve known plenty in my day) they perpetuate their own situation. They spend all kinds of money on cigarettes, going to bars, drinking, cable TV, fast food, etc. but when they have to suddenly spend an extra $25 at the pump, they can’t feed their kids? Give me a break. It’s all about your priorities. If you’d rather “have a life” than get two jobs so you can pay your bills and go to school, that’s fine. Just don’t whine about not having any money to take care of necessities.

I sacrificed considerably to get to where I am today, because I was just smart enough to see how my world works and what I could do about it to get to where I wanted to be. I took responsibility for myself. I know you could care less, but my point is that this is why I have little/no sympathy for sniveling kids who complain that life is too hard. Instead of bitching about it, take some initiative and do something about it. For starters, if you’re as poor as you say you are and you want to go to college, apply for grants. That’s free money to go to school. That’s how I started. Take advantage of any legal opportunity you can. Quit worrying about “having a life”, and make your life, earn it.

And for the record I’m a registered democrat.


BTW – look for coupons. I got a bunch of $2.00 off the purchase of 10 gallons or more coupons from Shell Gas in the mail a couple weeks ago. Also, if you’re financially disciplined enough (most people aren’t, but we’re a bright crowd here) use a credit card that gives cashback rewards or some other type of rewards. Use it to pay for your gas and then pay it off in full each month. You have to pay for gas anyways, may as well get something out of it. Speaking of coupons, my wife and I save an average of 20 – 25% on groceries every time we shop, just by taking the 30 minutes it takes to clip coupons. That’s around $50 off a $250 grocery store bill. Open your eyes and use your head, there are plenty of ways (legal and moral) to save and make money right in front of you, you don’t even have to be creative.

[meshou]

I never heard a response as to how such a poor person had so much free time to post on internet bulletin boards either. That’s the type of priorities I’m talking about. People forget this when speaking of most poor people…but if you look at how they truly live (I’ve known plenty in my day) they perpetuate their own situation. They spend all kinds of money on cigarettes, going to bars, drinking, cable TV, fast food, etc. but when they have to suddenly spend an extra $25 at the pump, they can’t feed their kids? Give me a break. It’s all about your priorities. If you’d rather “have a life” than get two jobs so you can pay your bills and go to school, that’s fine. Just don’t whine about not having any money to take care of necessities.
I work 45 hours a week. I spend maybe an hour and a half here a day. I type fast.

I would like another job, but my schedule is far from regular.

I do not eat fast food, watch TV, go to bars, or drink. I'm not bad off-- but I was going to go to community college soon to get some prerequsites out of the way. Now that is looking more doubtful. It's 550 a seimester, but it's twenty five miles away.

My priorities are not making me poor. I am well off considering my income. But my future looks more doubtful if, no matter how I crunch the numbers, I can't afford an extra 1000 a month and reduced hours (yes, they'd have to be reduced, as my work punishes you for daring have priorities other than work; lovely place, hope to be working somewhere else soon).

[ApeTheDog]

If the system was fair, it would make sense to blame people who are poor for remaining so. But the system is not fair. Poor people aren't always given cards they can get anywhere with. Some are born poor, given no education, made to go to school in a ghetto. Forget the movies, the american dream. It is practically impossible to go from rags to richess.

Meshou is working hard to support two people and has given up on doing some things she'd rather do. I respect that and I don't think there's anything more she could be doing than she already is.

[eyebyte_atWork]

It is easy for the middle class to overlook or plainly not know that the senario described above is alot more common.

Heck - I was lucky and determined - I also know people from the old neighborhood that did not make it and still live in utter poverty. THeir failure to succeed is not their fault - where I was barely able to get my degree they were cut short due to life and it's issues. Not everyone can go back and finish.

[kendoiwan]

This thread is taking a turn for the worse.

Let’s back up a little bit. What set me off was meshou’s response that paying more at the pump may cause children in poor families to starve.

Now, there are always exceptions, but for the most part if you are having children and you can’t afford a spike in gas prices, then you obviously are to blame yourself. Don’t blame anyone else, not Bush, not society, not “the man”, not large corporations. If you’re so enlightened about all these issues, then why the hell haven’t you covered your arse enough so that you can take care of yourself and your family before you got yourself into that mess. It’s no surprise that kids need food and gas prices rise.

Being wealthy or not wealthy is caused by myriad factors, independent of intelligence for the most part. Not necessarily related to being smart or dumb. What is smart or dumb is being able to take care of yourself and your family or not. Understanding how this world works and figuring out a way to survive and take care of yourself and your family is not difficult in this country. Everyone is dealt a random hand, and what you do with it is up to you. You can take a crappy hand and work your butt off, or you can blow it all and whine about it, playing the victim. Or you can half-ass it and blame society. Same goes for people who are dealt a great hand. They can exploit it, or they can blow it. The smart people take the hand they’ve got, good or bad, and do something about it. The not-so-smart ones would rather blame others and be victims.

I saw a post a few days back where a certain someone was trying to get a job, and would work around 20 hours a week. Evidently this was the most this person could work in a week, because this person wants to go to college. Well guess what, when you don’t want to work real hard, you lose the right to complain about stuff like high gas prices preventing you from feeding your kids. Some of us worked well over 40 hours a week while going to college, because that’s what had to be done. Some of us still went into debt by going to college, because that’s what had to be done.

So lose the childish insults and get out there and earn your living, you’ll find it’s more rewarding than complaining about how you don’t have any money. If you really want it, it’s there.

I never heard a response as to how such a poor person had so much free time to post on internet bulletin boards either. That’s the type of priorities I’m talking about. People forget this when speaking of most poor people…but if you look at how they truly live (I’ve known plenty in my day) they perpetuate their own situation. They spend all kinds of money on cigarettes, going to bars, drinking, cable TV, fast food, etc. but when they have to suddenly spend an extra $25 at the pump, they can’t feed their kids? Give me a break. It’s all about your priorities. If you’d rather “have a life” than get two jobs so you can pay your bills and go to school, that’s fine. Just don’t whine about not having any money to take care of necessities.

I sacrificed considerably to get to where I am today, because I was just smart enough to see how my world works and what I could do about it to get to where I wanted to be. I took responsibility for myself. I know you could care less, but my point is that this is why I have little/no sympathy for sniveling kids who complain that life is too hard. Instead of bitching about it, take some initiative and do something about it. For starters, if you’re as poor as you say you are and you want to go to college, apply for grants. That’s free money to go to school. That’s how I started. Take advantage of any legal opportunity you can. Quit worrying about “having a life”, and make your life, earn it.

And for the record I’m a registered democrat.


BTW – look for coupons. I got a bunch of $2.00 off the purchase of 10 gallons or more coupons from Shell Gas in the mail a couple weeks ago. Also, if you’re financially disciplined enough (most people aren’t, but we’re a bright crowd here) use a credit card that gives cashback rewards or some other type of rewards. Use it to pay for your gas and then pay it off in full each month. You have to pay for gas anyways, may as well get something out of it. Speaking of coupons, my wife and I save an average of 20 – 25% on groceries every time we shop, just by taking the 30 minutes it takes to clip coupons. That’s around $50 off a $250 grocery store bill. Open your eyes and use your head, there are plenty of ways (legal and moral) to save and make money right in front of you, you don’t even have to be creative.

Dude you make it sound as if only everyone excercised better judgement they wouldn't be poor, never mine that resources are finite(everybody can't be rich and somebody has got to be poor, that's how the system sustains itself) that conditions don't change overnight and some people just plain have it easier than others... and children aren't always planned for, most children aren't planned for, remember people have to live down here too almighty one...

[SensEye]

Dude you make it sound as if only everyone excercised better judgement they wouldn't be poor, never mine that resources are finite(everybody can't be rich and somebody has got to be poor, that's how the system sustains itself) that conditions don't change overnight and some people just plain have it easier than others... and children aren't always planned for, most children aren't planned for, remember people have to live down here too almighty one...Isn't it true that if everyone exercised better judgement they wouldn't be poor? Poor vs rich is relative, but I don't think anybody (at least in a 1st world country) is poor unless they have made poor judgements.

It's true that many children aren't planned. But they all should be. I always find it highly ironic that if you wish to adopt a child (a child that already exists but is not wanted) you have to fill out reams of paperwork, and undergo all sorts of scrutiny about your suitablity for parenthood. On, the other hand, if you want to create a new child that requires additional resources to support, just go ahead, no qualification required.

[meshou]

Isn't it true that if everyone exercised better judgement they wouldn't be poor? Poor vs rich is relative, but I don't think anybody (at least in a 1st world country) is poor unless they have made poor judgements.Not nessicarily. Some people are born poor. There's an odd sort of gap between the rich and the poor-- a small amount of resources makes it very difficult to have a larger amount.

For instance-- get a better job. Well, I have been looking, but this is the closest job currently. Well, move closer to jobs. It costs a couple thousand to move. Guesswhat I don't have? Get a better car. Exactly what I've been saving for, but it may take a few months, as that costs money.

It's a long process. Here's my laundry list:

1) Get a better, higher MPG car.

2) Find a job at a better restraunt, preferrably in Dallas proper, as the Medicaid HMO there will cover a lung transplant.

3) Move to Dallas with a section 8 voucher (I qualify, but there may be a waiting list); save four or five hundred in rent.

4) Use money saved to go to community college, so I can get prerequisites out of the way and get an Associate's degree, which qualifies me for a couple slightly higher paying jobs.

5) Pay off my current loan from the gubment, establish credit.

This'll happen on about a six month time scale.


It's true that many children aren't planned. But they all should be. I always find it highly ironic that if you wish to adopt a child (a child that already exists but is not wanted) you have to fill out reams of paperwork, and undergo all sorts of scrutiny about your suitablity for parenthood. On, the other hand, if you want to create a new child that requires additional resources to support, just go ahead, no qualification required.I agree. However, the finer points of birth control is one of those things that tends to get skipped on a no book cirriculum.

[Dman]

If the system was fair, it would make sense to blame people who are poor for remaining so. But the system is not fair. Poor people aren't always given cards they can get anywhere with. Some are born poor, given no education, made to go to school in a ghetto. Forget the movies, the american dream. It is practically impossible to go from rags to richess.

Who said anything about fair. I said it’s what you do with the cards you were dealt that matters. I know all too well people who were born very poor and went to school “in a ghetto” and they managed to create a “successful” life for themselves. No special favors or treatments that anyone else couldn’t have done, it was all about personal ambition, priorities, and a degree of intelligence. Rags to riches? No. Rags to decent, safe, comfortable life? Absolutely. In the vast majority of cases it is a person him/herself that holds oneself down. Once you’re handed your situation in life, everyone makes their own decisions from there on out. Quit defending the victim mentality, it only propagates it. It sucks that life isn’t fair, and it would be nice to make things more fair, but in the meantime suck it up and deal with it. What other choice do you have?


Meshou is working hard to support two people and has given up on doing some things she'd rather do. I respect that and I don't think there's anything more she could be doing than she already is.

Good for her, that’s admirable. But my response was to ‘paying more for gas will lead to starving children you moron’ or something to that effect. Also, she made the decision, noble as it is, to support another person – and must deal with the consequences of that. She was not forced to do that, and if starving or going to college or whatever was more important to her, she should have considered the consequences of deciding to support that person. It’s very simple. Like I said before, children (or anyone you are supporting) need to be fed, and gasoline prices rise. I don’t understand why people don’t get this and get so upset when it happens.

“…and has given up on doing some things she'd rather do” – EXACTLY. Society did not make her do this. Big business did not make her do this. And if she is “starving” because of this decision, who’s to blame again?


Some of you act like I don’t know what being born poor is, or what living in poverty (in this country) is. Trust me I do. Why the fuck do you think I feel the way I do. Because rather than people making the right decisions, they continue to make poor ones (like having unplanned children when they can’t even begin to afford it) and perpetuate their situations and blame anyone who isn’t stupid and does make the right decisions. It’s a victim mentality like I said before. “It can’t be my fault that I’m poor and can’t take care of myself” and “oh, Dman was just lucky”. Bullshit. I watched my stupid friends make stupid decisions (and their parents) time and time again, and then they couldn’t figure out why they were down. They knew goddamn well why, but they wouldn’t admit it. Easier to blame someone else. I learned the hard way to not try and help them, because I did and I paid the price. I got four of my friends good jobs at the place I worked, and every one of them either quit or was fired within a year. Why? Because they made stupid decisions.

And I’m not even talking about going from poor to rich, I’m talking about being able to take care of yourself and your family. No shit it’s harder for some than others. Welcome to life. Choose to be a victim or make something of yourself. I’m no celebrity, I’m no CEO, I’m not independently wealthy. But I crawled out with my own wits and determination to reach a point where I am better off than I could have expected to be. Most of my childhood acquaintances are paying for all the dumb decisions they made, and I am reaping the rewards for the smart decisions I made. So don’t tell me I don’t know. And quit being whiny little bleeding heart victims of society. This is it.


Not nessicarily. Some people are born poor. There's an odd sort of gap between the rich and the poor-- a small amount of resources makes it very difficult to have a larger amount.

I addressed this above.


For instance-- get a better job. Well, I have been looking, but this is the closest job currently. Well, move closer to jobs. It costs a couple thousand to move. Guesswhat I don't have? Get a better car. Exactly what I've been saving for, but it may take a few months, as that costs money.

How did you move in the first place? Why didn’t you move into a place closer to jobs then? There are always options. Some suck, in fact most suck if you’re poor. But there are still options. I used to have to take the bus to work, and due to the late shift had to get a ride home from a co-worker to get home. And pay him gas money, and usually buy him dinner. Sucked, but the benefit was I had a better job than I otherwise would have.


I agree. However, the finer points of birth control is one of those things that tends to get skipped on a no book cirriculum.

Once again – who’s fault is that? I don’t think anyone needs a freakin’ book to understand the concept of birth control and the potential consequences of not using it.

[TwoBigFish]

This picks up from the very beginning - so you'll all have to excuse me, but I didn't read very many of the following posts because I quickly became ... well, I just didn't.

I know we all love to project the future, behavior and consequences, based on probable events, and to some extent I think it is productive to do so ... but I just read this article in it's exhaustive (and exhausting) rambling and, um ... Y2K anybody?

Let's be realistic ... there are major pains before a birth, and there will be economic pain before the lovely birth of a new and non-fossil-dependent society. Western and European countries have always faced major changes with vigor. We went from horses to cars, from leaded to unleaded and we can make this switch (I'm oversimplifying, and I know that the fuel question encompasses much more than "cars" - after all, that is the point of the whole article, but the principle is true nonetheless).

These nay-sayings might come to pass if the world were the uninteresting and predictable mass of sheep that some people (myself on low days) tend to think of it as, but it is not. Mankind is a VARIABLE factor, and cannot be successfully predicted to this extreme.

We will adapt, upgrade, change and invent (necessity is the mother of invention after all). We will complain until we are driven off our padded rear ends, and then we will fix the problem. And guess what? The end result is going to be BETTER. It has always been that way, and will remain so. I'm not particularly an "optimist" but my "realist" side recognizes this trend as another speed bump in history.

From this side it will seem insurmountable, and people will bi*ch and moan all the way up, but it will look like nothing from the other side.

But as soon as we get to the other side a bunch of doomsday monkeys will be doing the pee-pee dance and pointing to the next societal behemoth. :)

-C

[panda]

bi*ch
*bitch

[ApeTheDog]

Who is to blame then? The unfair system or the people who are being discriminated against? Also, let's not forget that the system not only discriminates the poor, it also discriminates the rich because they can abuse the system.

The system needs to be improved. It is NOT okay to blame people for not being able to drag themselves out of poverty if they have not been given a proper chance. I'm aware that I'm being wonderfully ignorant and idealistic, but there it is.

Hence, my motivation for saying that I don't think it makes sense to blame the people for not getting out of their problems. The system is to blame.

Now, what happens in reality is something else. We all know reality is not as simple as that. It's not black/white. You can't wait for the perfect society to arise - you have to make due. I can admit that my way of seeing things is wrong. There is no perfect black and white. But can you, Dman, the master of admitting when he is wrong, admit that simply blaming people for their poverty is a mistake?


“…and has given up on doing some things she'd rather do” – EXACTLY. Society did not make her do this. Big business did not make her do this. And if she is “starving” because of this decision, who’s to blame again?

She is to blame for feeling love for her boyfriend?

[kendoiwan]

Isn't it true that if everyone exercised better judgement they wouldn't be poor? Poor vs rich is relative, but I don't think anybody (at least in a 1st world country) is poor unless they have made poor judgements.

It's true that many children aren't planned. But they all should be. I always find it highly ironic that if you wish to adopt a child (a child that already exists but is not wanted) you have to fill out reams of paperwork, and undergo all sorts of scrutiny about your suitablity for parenthood. On, the other hand, if you want to create a new child that requires additional resources to support, just go ahead, no qualification required.


Nope, if someones to be rich then someones to be poor... any economist will tell you that in order for the economy to work there have to be unemployed people... I think 5% is the number... winner takes all somebody gotta lose...

Dman it appears as if you're defending what you said because you said it... this isn't a perfect world and everything ain't as it should be...there is a human element to consider...

[Architectonic]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[Madrigal]

Holy crap I thought Claverhouse was back.

[Architectonic]

Holy crap I thought Claverhouse was back.

I periodically steal his avatar from time to time, this is like the fourth or fifth time.

There you go, I edited my post to make it seem more authentic. :p

[Ckyzxr]

This picks up from the very beginning - so you'll all have to excuse me, but I didn't read very many of the following posts because I quickly became ... well, I just didn't.

I know we all love to project the future, behavior and consequences, based on probable events, and to some extent I think it is productive to do so ... but I just read this article in it's exhaustive (and exhausting) rambling and, um ... Y2K anybody?

Let's be realistic ... there are major pains before a birth, and there will be economic pain before the lovely birth of a new and non-fossil-dependent society. Western and European countries have always faced major changes with vigor. We went from horses to cars, from leaded to unleaded and we can make this switch (I'm oversimplifying, and I know that the fuel question encompasses much more than "cars" - after all, that is the point of the whole article, but the principle is true nonetheless).

These nay-sayings might come to pass if the world were the uninteresting and predictable mass of sheep that some people (myself on low days) tend to think of it as, but it is not. Mankind is a VARIABLE factor, and cannot be successfully predicted to this extreme.

We will adapt, upgrade, change and invent (necessity is the mother of invention after all). We will complain until we are driven off our padded rear ends, and then we will fix the problem. And guess what? The end result is going to be BETTER. It has always been that way, and will remain so. I'm not particularly an "optimist" but my "realist" side recognizes this trend as another speed bump in history.

From this side it will seem insurmountable, and people will bi*ch and moan all the way up, but it will look like nothing from the other side.

But as soon as we get to the other side a bunch of doomsday monkeys will be doing the pee-pee dance and pointing to the next societal behemoth. :)

-C

Aahhhhh.....reason.

I know I'm kinda late to the party, par for me.
Funny how this thread is two years old BTW.

[Wiki]

peak oil debunked

http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/lindsey-williams-the-energy-non-crisis%E2%80%94alaskas-classified-oil-reserve-largest-on-earth/

[Dark Razor]

peak oil debunked Idiocy confirmed:

http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/lindsey-williams-the-energy-non-crisis%E2%80%94alaskas-classified-oil-reserve-largest-on-earth/

Fixed.

[kuranes]

Wonder why the USA didn't get involved in this bidding or conversation...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/08/news/international/brazil_china.ap/index.htm