Peak oil conspiracy spreads to compromised military

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Post by BenTC »

icarus wrote:academic naval gazing.
Double entendre?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Professor Science
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:51 pm

Post by Professor Science »

Before the discussion progresses much further, I would like to explicitly state my initial post was a direct application of Poes Law, and that no one called me out usage of the tone implied with words like liberal conspiracy and penetrate speaks to the atmosphere in the overall forum.
The pursuit of knowledge is in the best of interest of all mankind.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

I think you are just making that up. :D

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I just assumed it was ironically intended as I've never heard it described as a "liberal" theory.

Peak oil has a lot of followers, though. But as I said, I think it's a bit overblown. We've developed an extremely adaptable society.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

TallDave wrote:I just assumed it was ironically intended as I've never heard it described as a "liberal" theory.

Peak oil has a lot of followers, though. But as I said, I think it's a bit overblown. We've developed an extremely adaptable society.
Peak Oil is one of those millennialist cults that takes a small grain of truth and, ignoring all other facts (denying all other facts) takes that small grain and extrapolates it to absurdist conclusions. It is pure disasturbationism. There are three types of Peak Oilers:

a) Opportunists: People like T Boone Pickens who use it to sow FUD in order to motivate people to go along with his latest Get T Boone Pickens Even Richer scheme, or use it to pursue a political agenda (like the Club of Rome).
b) Bunkertarians: Survivalists who grew up in their daddy's bomb shelter, live on MREs, and think reloading ammo, spotting mine fields, and identifying types of black helicopters are great father and son hobbies. Chiliasts waiting for the world to end so all those people they don't like will just die off from evolutionary unfitness, or else will be weeded out by the second coming.
c) Greens: People who think that killing off 2/3 of the earths population, and making the rest live an agrarian/guild medeival lifestyle is just the sort of thing that mother earth needs to heal herself.

So, no conspiracy needed, just a lot of nutters doing nutty things for nutty reasons that all happen to wind up moving in the same direction with the same ideas.

Jboily
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:50 am

Post by Jboily »

WizWom wrote:
Jboily wrote:We are on a train heading for a cliff, and the breaks are not working. We will see shortage of oil by 2011 to 2015. It will take time to develop and deploy alternative sources. It is not that the resources in the ground will be depleted, it is the rate at witch we can extract it and time to be deployed alternatives that matter !
You - and apparently, the author - have absolutely NO CLUE about the current real state of explored and ready to pump oil. And very little clue about the amount of oil that could be very quickly drilled for quite cheaply.

At the moment - with no new drilling - the world has 54 years worth of oil ready to pump and ship AT TODAY'S PRICES.
....
quote]
Wiz, You obviously have not read the book, nor study the issue deeply!
The problem is not about the amount of reserve in the ground, it is the rate at which we can pump it out. The worldwide extraction rate is currently decreasing steadily, and any amount of investment will only increase it a little. The new discoveries will only comes online in a decade or so, and the rate of the discovery of large wells is well bellow what is needed to match the demand increase. Eventually, the maximum achievable rate of extraction will be lower then the worldwide demand for oil.

StevePoling
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: grand rapids, MI
Contact:

Post by StevePoling »

how hard is it to convert a gasoline engine to run on propane? I don't think it's terribly hard. given the fact that massive reserves of shale gas have been found under the midwest, as well as under France, I think a switch to natural gas will precede peak oil doomsday.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

StevePoling wrote:how hard is it to convert a gasoline engine to run on propane? I don't think it's terribly hard. given the fact that massive reserves of shale gas have been found under the midwest, as well as under France, I think a switch to natural gas will precede peak oil doomsday.
Propane? Where d'you get propane from, other than as a residual cracking byproduct?

Yeah, many millions of cars are already converted to LPG (a mix of propane/butane) in Europe and Australia. Some manufacturers [have] also produce[d] factory fitted cars with LPG capability. The main benefit is the cheaper cost, as it is a byproduct. (It is half the price of liquid fuels in the UK.) You could never run all cars on the stuff, there isn't enough.

Done. Available. Go buy one, if you think it make sense.

Compressed natural gas is also available. Volvo produced a production run of CNG cars. Did not prove popular. No longer made, as far as I am aware.

StevePoling
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: grand rapids, MI
Contact:

Post by StevePoling »

Sorry for imprecision about propane (which reminds me i have to start the grill) and some form of natural gas. All I'm saying is that we have alternatives to petroleum that appear to be much more plentiful than was thought just a couple years ago when the peak oil bandwagon started rolling.

jsbiff
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:33 pm

Post by jsbiff »

Professor Science wrote:Before the discussion progresses much further, I would like to explicitly state my initial post was a direct application of Poes Law, and that no one called me out usage of the tone implied with words like liberal conspiracy and penetrate speaks to the atmosphere in the overall forum.
I didn't figure you were completely serious, but were just trying to be funny, while drawing our attention to a bit of news. Also, even if you intended it to be serious, I try to follow the bit of advice, "Don't feed the trolls". I find if someone is a bit nutty, the best thing is either to not respond at all, or to respond as politely and rationally as possible, without actively calling them nutty or stupid, or otherwise stoking their rage. Talk to the idea, not the person.

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Post by dch24 »

To draw attention to the news, please have a look at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... -wikileaks
WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices
US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%
...
Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 ... According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then - possibly as early as 2012 - global oil production would have hit its highest point. ... The Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.

One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray."

It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves.

"Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output."

The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."

Seven months later, the US embassy in Riyadh went further in two more cables. "Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."

A fourth cable, in October 2009, claimed that escalating electricity demand by Saudi Arabia may further constrain Saudi oil exports. "Demand [for electricity] is expected to grow 10% a year over the next decade as a result of population and economic growth. As a result it will need to double its generation capacity to 68,000MW in 2018," it said.
It usually happens that oil-in-hand but not on-tap can push prices down (temporarily). But I would guess that Saudis are looking for new energy tech just as intensely as Europe or North America.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

But if you were the Saudis wouldn't you say that if you were trying to maximize the value of a wasting commodity?

And look at what is happening in places like Iran and Mexico:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... tlook.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

WillKell
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 4:50 pm
Location: Dallas,TX
Contact:

Post by WillKell »

Peak oil again! The ghost of M. King Hubbert lives on!

When Hubbert did his math he view the technology to him was static, that is the problem.... it never is!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/10/ne ... il-fields/

Think of it more like Moore's law. At any given moment in history only a certain technology existed to place so many resistors in a given area, but this changes as time goes by.

There is no real history of resources being any different!

See "The Ultimate Resource II" by Julian Lincoln Simon.

Where Hubbert becomes right is in the long run. Carbon based fuels do not contain enough joules per "whatever" gallon, pound, ton, etc. to meet our future needs.

We are going to need much more power than fossil fuels will ever be able to deliver, thus fussion as a stepping stone!

Saludos

Will

Jboily
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:50 am

Post by Jboily »

WillKell wrote:Peak oil again! The ghost of M. King Hubbert lives on!

When Hubbert did his math he view the technology to him was static, that is the problem.... it never is!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/10/ne ... il-fields/

Think of it more like Moore's law. At any given moment in history only a certain technology existed to place so many resistors in a given area, but this changes as time goes by.

There is no real history of resources being any different!

See "The Ultimate Resource II" by Julian Lincoln Simon.

Where Hubbert becomes right is in the long run. Carbon based fuels do not contain enough joules per "whatever" gallon, pound, ton, etc. to meet our future needs.

We are going to need much more power than fossil fuels will ever be able to deliver, thus fussion as a stepping stone!

Saludos

Will
Great link, thank's!

The main thing I am noticing here is the following;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within five years, analysts and executives predict, the newly unlocked fields are expected to produce 1 million to 2 million barrels of oil per day, enough to boost U.S. production 20 percent to 40 percent. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates production will grow a more modest 500,000 barrels per day.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

2015 is still 4 years from now. We are still left with a deficit in 2013-2014. Also, the US is not alone, the wolrd consoumption is still growing very quickly, and these new oil resources are not available everywhere.

So, as you said, we (in America) might be "OK" for a short period after 2015, then we still need something else, some time after, but also we are sitil in trouble waters before then.

Cheers,

jb

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

The Alberta oil sands got up to 1 million barrels a day 20 years sooner than anyone in Canada expected when they first started development. A couple years ago, officials from the Alberta oil patch went to a industry conference in Texas and were basically told, 'get production up to 5 million barrels a day,' - no small challenge there!

Osama Bin Laden claimed OPEC should be getting $100.00 a barrel, it probably never occured to him how this would drive up the price of food for the arab world. As others have mentioned, peak oil isn't so much about running out of oil as how high prices disrupt the global economy.
CHoff

Post Reply