Peak Oil on Coast to Coast with Art Bell , 2am EST Mon.

[JohnyCanuck]

Matt Savinar of www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net will be on the Coast to Coast radio program with Art Bell. Show starts at 1:00AM EST Monday Oct 25. but Matt's not until the 2nd hour of the show which would be 2am EST or 11pm Pacific.


Sun 10.24 >>
Author Matt Savinar claims worldwide oil production will peak in our near future, and he’ll cover alternatives that are becoming available

www.coasttocoastam.com

www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html

[autorank]

1. Has it ever occurred to anybody that the "peak oil" concept serves the oil

industry. It just did to me. Seriously, if there is a public perception that we're on the 'eve of destruction' for cheap fuel because of some notion of finiteness propagated by a bunch of people who are NOT geologists, who benefits? Exxon, etc. I'm not saying this is deliberate but it sure pushes prices and profits up; or, at least, makes us more willing to accept high prices. What a mess. As someone said, "I can't understand why they charge so much for something that costs them $8 a barrel to get out of the ground."

I think we're being rolled!

This type of thinking is exactly what the xtians believe -- we're on the eve of destruction...the world as we know it is coming to an end...the sky is falling.

I'm pro-science and I'd like to see the same type of consensus panels for "peak oil" as we DEMAND for global warming and stem cell research.

N.B. Just remember, the site that promotes the "peak oil" concept is one that, at times, has trashed Kerry for not being vigilant enough during the '80's senate investigations.

And please, no flames. This is meant as a call for real science, less hysteria, and caution against accepting concepts that arise from sources that have been critical of our guy in the past.

[JohnyCanuck]

2. What do you mean "people who are NOT geologists."

Seriously, if there is a public perception that we're on the 'eve of destruction' for cheap fuel because of some notion of finiteness propagated by a bunch of people who are NOT geologists, who benefits?

You mean people like these who are "NOT geologists?"

By a happy coincidence, the day after The Wall Street Journal featured Colin Campbell on its front page with a headline characterizing him as a "doomsayer," one of Campbell's closest collaborators visited Eugene.

Jean Laherrère, like Campbell, is a petroleum geologist, and together they wrote an influential article in the March 1998 Scientific American magazine titled "The End of Cheap Oil." They believe world oil production will soon peak, ending an era of economic expansion fueled by ever-increasing supplies.

Laherrère was in Eugene last week to visit his friend and colleague Walter Youngquist. Youngquist, a former University of Oregon professor of geology, has warned for years - in his 1997 book "GeoDestinies" and other works - that consumption of petroleum and other resources can't continue to grow indefinitely. Laherrère and Youngquist are members of the Association for Study of the Peak Oil, founded by Campbell.

These men are not saying anything revolutionary. In 1956, a geologist named M. King Hubbert predicted that oil production in the continental United States would follow a bell-shaped curve, peaking in about 1969. Production peaked in 1970 and has been declining ever since. In their Scientific American article, Campbell and Laherrère argued that world oil production could be expected to follow the Hubbert curve.

www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/27/ed.edit.oilpeak.0927.html

Here are a few entries from a list of "experts" on Peak Oil from the website www.hubbertpeak.com. I see academics, geologists and petroleum engineers etc. listed among them.


Doug Reynolds
Assistant Professor and Graduate Director in the Economics Department at the University of Alaska, Dr. Reynolds is the author of Energy Grades and Historic Economic Growth.



Walter Youngquist
Retired Professor of Geology at the University of Oregon, Dr. Walter Youngquist is the author of GeoDestinies: The inevitable control of Earth resources over nations and individuals. Dr. Youngquist has collaborated with Richard Duncan in developing scenarios of future oil production.


Jack Zagar
Jack Zagar has twenty-six years experience in North Sea, Middle East, Gulf of Mexico, and onshore U.S.A. operations, primarily with a major international oil company in petroleum reservoir engineering and reservoir management; economic evaluations of projects, property trades, and asset sales; corporate planning and world oil reserve estimates in collaboration with Dr. Colin Campbell.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/experts/

[autorank]

3. "Consensus Panels"

You make some very good points.

I'm not saying we have an endless supply of oil or that geologists argue that there is. It's like everything else on the planet. The rate of decline and the implications for world supply and prices are a more complex matter. That's the type of information that is best filtered through panels of geologists and economists who can present a consensus view. There are scientists on university campuses that dismiss global warming as a significant phenomena. The consensus view in science is that it is significant. That's all I'd like to see regarding the oil supply. There is too much room for a rip off by big oil. They frequently claim 'market jitters' are responsible for any type of price increase. Imagine what they'd do with 'market panic?' My comments about 'peak oil' and my skepticism are more related to how it's used by FT which has said some nasty things about Kerry.

[immoderate]

4. Are you suggesting that there is unlimited oil?

Or as I have seen proposed by some very fringe theorists that the oil supply will replenish itself as fast as we can use it?


:tinfoilhat: Why do we need panels of consensus to tell us something that common sense provides? I would think the burden of proof would be the other way. Let those who say that oil will not run out explain.

Even if this is true, it does not mitigate the environmental problems involved in oil dependence.

--IMM

[sangh0]

6. You should learn to read

I have a suspicion that "I'm not saying we have an endless supply of oil or that geologists argue that there is" means that he is NOT SUGGESTING an unlimited supply of oil.

[autorank]

7. Thanks, gave me a chuckle!

[immoderate]

14. Then there will be a Peak Oil

You can't have it both ways.

I'm going to take your suggestion and learn how to read, unless you're being sarcastic, in which case I won't.

Thanks for da tip!

--IMM

[sangh0]

17. Nope - Religious claims are no substitute for logic and reason

and I don't see any reason to believe your predictions. You seem to have trouble understanding what's been written in the past, so I doubt you can read the future

[immoderate]

22. Are you giving up religion?

I did when I was three.

--IMM

[sangh0]

23. Nope, just the religious claims

I'm keeping the religion

[immoderate]

21. I'll practice reading this: Chomsky on Peak Oil

Learn to read, I will, I will. Before you learn to think, anyway.


http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/archives/000912.html

Peak Oil Theory
Posted by Noam Chomsky at July 26, 2004 10:43 AM
The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost. ...

The date can be pushed back much farther if more costly (or maybe some to-be-discovered improved) technology is used. As for the estimates of cost, by reasonable standards one could argue that oil is far under-priced. In real terms, it's not particularly high now as compared with other commodities, from some reasonable base line. And low-priced oil leads to heavier use and less effort to create sustainable alternatives.

That I think is a far more serious problem than production peaking. In fact, one could argue that the earlier production peaks, the better off the human species (and a lot more) is, because of the effects of unconstrained use of hydrocarbons on the environment.

Talk about "shrinking our economies" is pretty meaningless. Our economies would shrink substantially if we got rid of huge expenditures for the military, for incarceration, and other highly destructive activities. Sustainable economies might lead to highly improved quality of life.

Posted by Noam Chomsky at July 26, 2004 10:43 AM |

I added the emphasis. Do you think that Chomsky is the tool of the oil companies? Ha ha!

You are waiting for consensus? Oh yea, I have consensus, therefore I am.

--IMM

[sangh0]

24. So what?

Am I supposed to think that because Chomsky said it, it must be true?

That's called "argument by authority", and it's what organized religion is about. And here I thought you had given that up.

[immoderate]

27. Well logic didn't work

You agreed that oil is not unlimited. If it is not unlimited, then it will come to an end. Sometime before that end we will hit peak production.

After that point, oil will become increasingly more expensive to produce. At some point it will take more energy and resources to produce than it yields.

Can you point out the flaw in this argument? You seem to be saying that it's always been here, so it can't go way?

Explain what I am missing. I think there already is a consensus on this. (Though consensus does not prove it.) You get logical only when it suits you. So convince with some reason other than oil company paranoia.

--IMM

[sangh0]

29. YOUR logic doesn't work

because you ignore relevant info. Specifically

1) Technological advances that increase energy efficiency

and, most importantly

2) The possible development of an alternative source of energy. If that happens BEFORE we run out of oil, we will NOT run our of oil.

There's a famous saying that goes something like "I have confidence in America's ability to do what needed, as soon as it's exhausted all the other possibilities"

[immoderate]

33. I know, because it's logical.

You are immune.

--IMM

[sangh0]

34. Dont you development of alternative sources of energy might affect this?

I don't see where you took that into consideration while perusing your "logic"

[immoderate]

30. It's not that Chomsky said it, it's what he said

You have posed absolutely *no* argument that refutes the idea of peak oil production.

But you're good at shooting at the messenger.

What exactly is your argument that refutes the idea of peak oil?

--IMM

[sangh0]

35. Developing an alternative source of energy

duh

[immoderate]

44. Right. That is the sum of your argument.

You could have said that in the first place.

--IMM

[immoderate]

5. Furthermore

The point is that as oil becomes more scarce, it takes more energy to extract it than it provides. How do you get around that?

--IMM

[autorank]

8. Not trying to get around anything.

My comments are on methodology and sourcing. How do you determine the availability of oil, the rate of decline, and the economic and political impact? The best way is to emulate this process for global warming...get smart dudes & dudettes together and work it out. Then you work from there, modifying any conclusions as you gather more data. The sourcing issue is this: who benefits from a panic about "peak oil?" Not you and me because it means higher prices. I'm not implying anything nefarious, just that this has to be studied carefully but quickly and the truth needs to emerge. It's an important issue and I'm not willing to take any factionalized version of this.

[sangh0]

9. Another point

Oil HAS been getting more scarce, and the price has gone DOWN in real terms.

[autorank]

11. Good point. I never underestimate the cleverness of oil company

shit heads to use whatever excuse they can find to create 'market events.' I was in NYC when we had the first 'shock.' Turned out it was a 'refining issue' as much as anything else. There are some positives, however. During the days of the initial oil crisis, summer days, the air and atmosphere in NYC and surrounding areas cleared up. Went from a normal 90 plus degrees, muggy and stifling to low 80's and clear sky. Aside from the unfortunate incidents involving people getting shot in gas lines, it was the best 2-3 weeks of weather I experienced in 10 years in New York.

[sangh0]

12. Yeah, a couple of shootings can really ruin your day

or not.

[autorank]

20. Depends on where you get hit and if you've got your gas already.

[sangh0]

25. Hah!

Well, as long as I got my gas, I can drive to the hospital!!

[immoderate]

15. does this help to explain it?

Graph of Oil Discoveries:



Note that even if discoveries weren't declining, the demand will far outshadow what we can do.

--IMM

[sangh0]

16. Boy, that's a neat trick

I've never seen a graph accurately predict future discoveries.

Do you have one of those for sources of renewable energy? That would really clear things up!!

[immoderate]

19. Can you read the blue part? That's not a prediction.

Do you think it's going to shoot up somehow? We call this a trend.

What about demand? Do you think it will go down? (Barring some discovery of alternate cheap energy source of course.)

So you think oil supplies are not decreasing and demand is not increasing. And I am perpetrating some oil company hoax? I mean I keep my hoarded oil next to Saddam's WMDs?

Do you have a source for this besides wishful thinking?

--IMM

[sangh0]

26. No, it's not a prediction

That's my point!!

Barring some discovery of alternate cheap energy source of course.

Again, *MY* point. You were arguing that the price of oil will go up NO MATTER WHAT. Now it's "Barring some discovery of alternate cheap energy source"

Glad you've come around to my point of view!!

Do you have a source for this besides wishful thinking?

Yes, your fantasies because I never said anything like that. I just pointed out that it's not so simple as "price will go up and won't come down"

[immoderate]

28. Not so fast.

what alternative cheap energy source do you think will come along before we hit peak oil?

There will still be a demand for petrochemicals. And extracting oil will still be expensive, and polluting. It will not make oil cheap in any sense.

--IMM

[sangh0]

31. That's why I asked for a chart of future discoveries!!!

what alternative cheap energy source do you think will come along before we hit peak oil?

Unlike you, I will not act as if I can predict the future.

There will still be a demand for petrochemicals

How do you know this?

[immoderate]

32. Because...

...it's the major raw material used in plastics and fertilizers, and to a lesser degree phameceuticals. I don't see us giving these up so soon. Pardon the predictions, but it's hard to consider the future without doing some projections.

Are you saying you don't consider the future? Doesn't sound like you do.

--IMM

[sangh0]

37. Development of alternative materials

Pardon the predictions, but it's hard to consider the future without doing some projections.

Projections are not predictions. Projections assume that other variable remain the same. In the real world, other variables never stay the same.

*IF* nothing else changes and *IF* we continue to use oil at an increasing rate and *IF* we do not discover more oil at a quicker rate and *IF* we do not develop alternative sources of energy *THEN* we have the problem you are concerned with.

You have yet to explain it as dependent on many factors. You have been speaking of it as inevitable. You are wrong.

[immoderate]

41. Those are a lot of ifs.

And you must satisfy ALL of them because they are connected with ands.

The critical one I think is "*IF* we do not discover more oil at a quicker rate". Where do you propose we explore for this plentiful cheap oil? We are using oil at an increasing rate. Just wait till those Chinese and Indians get cars. Even if we do discover this, that'll just push back the peak of production.

Some say that peak will happen in as few as ten years. A handful of the most optimistic might go for 50 or more.

When we reach peak, that will trigger a vigorous search for alternatives. But there is little on the immediate horizon. I favor hydrogen power. But hydrogen is not an energy source. I calculated once that solar collectors equal in area to all the roof tops in the United States could provide energy equal to our consumption. But I don't think we will achieve that quick enough to satisfy your, ah, what can we call it, hypothesis.

I don't think that nuclear, as we know it is acceptable. I don't think that exotic technologies like cold fusion will be discovered soon enough. I.e., cold fusion is still science fiction as far as I know.

Peak production is the point after which oil production diminishes, and that even if all your ifs come true is inevitable. How not?

--IMM

[immoderate]

36. So let me sum up what you are saying.

All the trends point to a peak oil. At least you have said nothing to refute this.

You say this will not happen, but you don't make predictions.

What am I missing here?

--IMM

[sangh0]

38. No, i won't let you, but you'll do it anyway

All the trends point to a peak oil. At least you have said nothing to refute this.

Correct

You say this will not happen, but you don't make predictions.

There's your mistake. I never said it won't happen.

What am I missing here?

A link to the post where I said it won't happen

on edit: I just reviewed the thread. You've been arguing that since the supply of oil is finite, THERE MUST BE PEAK OIL.

It's a very simple argument, and very wrong.

Even if the supply of oil is finite, there will NOT be Peak Oil *UNLESS* we do not develop an alternative source of energy.

[JohnyCanuck]

43. And developing another source of energy

that will match petroleum in versatility and energy density will be no easy matter. The main benefit of petroleum when compared to its potential competitors is that as a source of energy it has one heck of a big energy punch in a relativeley small volume/weight (i.e. very high energy density). As of right now there are no practical alternatives that can come close to competing with conventional petroleum in usefulness, ease of production, and all round versatility for mankind. And that's not even taking into account the other benefits we get from petroleum as a feedstock for a whole bunch of different products fundamental to our consumer society.

You appear to be willing to take it on faith that the guys in the white lab coats will pull an energy rabbit out of their hat in time to save our bacon. Well maybe they will and maybe I'll win the lottery next week as well, but it would be a mistake to base my future plans on it. In any case, The time for making such a discovery and getting the infrastructure in place for a seemless switch over appears to be quickly running out.

Broadly speaking, our situation is this: our society demands energy inputs on a scale, absolute and per capita, that can't possibly be maintained for more than a little while longer. Sustainable energy sources can only provide a small fraction of the energy we're used to getting from fossil fuels. As fossil fuel supplies dwindle, in other words, everybody will have to get used to living on a small fraction of the energy we've been using as a matter of course.

Of course this is an unpopular thing to say. Quite a few people nowadays are insisting that it's not true, that we can continue our present lavish, energy-wasting lifestyle indefinitely by switching from oil to some other energy source: hydrogen, biodiesel, abiotic oil, fusion power, "free energy" technology, and so on down the list of technological snake oil. Crippling issues of scale, and the massive technical problems involved in switching an oil-based civilization to some other fuel in time to make a difference, stand in the path of such projects, but those get little air time; if we want endless supplies of energy badly enough, the logic seems to be, the universe will give it to us. The problem is that the universe did give it to us - in the form of immense deposits of fossil fuels stored up over hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis - and we wasted it. Now we're in the position of a lottery winner who's spent millions of dollars in a few short years and is running out of money. The odds of hitting another million-dollar jackpot are minute, and no amount of wishful thinking will enable us to keep up our current lifestyle by getting a job at the local hamburger joint.

www.hubbertpeak.com/whatToDo/DeindustrialAge.htm

Considering that Hydrogen is frequently touted as the fuel that will run our industrialized societies in the future lets take a look at some of the many problems associated with a switch to a hydrogen economy, not the least being that it currently takes more energy to derive the hydrogen, whether by electrolysis of water or by extracting it from natural gas (the preferred method) than we can get by burning the hydrogen or using it in a fuel cell to produce electricity. By the way the Energy Returned on Energy Invested in conventional Petroleum from a land based pre-peak oil well can range upwards of 30 to 1 while for oil produced from tar sands it's something like a measly 1.5 to 1.


The media was all aglow recently with Spencer Abraham's announcement that the U.S. now has a roadmap for making the transition to a hydrogen economy. Secretary of Energy Abraham announced the plan at the Global Forum on Personal Transportation held in Dearborn, Mich. In his presentation, he touted the line that hydrogen produced from renewable resources can provide unlimited energy with no impact on the environment. Secretary Abraham noted that the transition to hydrogen would be a long-term process, which will require the participation of both industry and government.

<snip>

The document is at least 80 percent public relations. While admitting that in all areas there are serious problems to be overcome before we will be able to make a transition to hydrogen fuel cells, nowhere does this document take a serious look at the obstacles. Instead, this paper paints a pretty picture of our hydrogen future and leaves the details to future research and investment. So let us look at a few of the difficulties of developing a hydrogen fuel cell economy.

First off, because hydrogen is the simplest element, it will leak from any container, no mater how strong and no matter how well insulated. For this reason, hydrogen in storage tanks will always evaporate, at a rate of at least 1.7 percent per day. Hydrogen is very reactive. When hydrogen gas comes into contact with metal surfaces it decomposes into hydrogen atoms, which are so very small that they can penetrate metal. This causes structural changes that make the metal brittle.

Perhaps the largest problem for hydrogen fuel cell transportation is the size of the fuel tanks. In gaseous form, a volume of 238,000 litres of hydrogen gas is necessary to replace the energy capacity of 20 gallons of gasoline.

<snip>

A third option is the use of powdered metals to store the hydrogen in the form of metal hydrides. In this case, the storage volume would be little more than the volume of the metals themselves. Moreover, stored in this form, hydrogen would be far less reactive. However, as you can imagine, the weight of the metals will make the storage tank very heavy.

www.culturechange.org/hydrogen.htm

More on the EROEI problem

When an energy source that has an EROEI ratio of 4:1 is replaced with another, alternative, energy source which has an EROEI ratio of 2:1, twice as much gross energy has to be produced in order to reap the same net quantity of resulting usable energy.

This can be worse than it looks. Consider that I inherited one barrel of oil, and the EROEI was 4:1. I could use my one barrel and end up with four barrels. Now consider that the EROEI was 2:1, and I still wanted four barrels. Well, I can use my one barrel to extract two barrels, then I have to use those two barrels to extract the four barrels that I want. Thus with an EROEI of 2:1, it has cost me three barrels to gain four; whereas with an EROEI of 4:1, it only cost me one barrel.

This means that when a society moves to using energy sources that have lower EROEIs, the actual amount of energy available to use (for manufacturing, transport, heating etc.) inevitably will diminish

www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#tarsands_table

[Sterling]

39. Sounds like Sang is engaging in faith based thinking

He has faith we will discover a new way to run all our machines even though there is little being done to that end and the level of conversion needed to avoid disaster is huge.

If we did what Gore suggested and started a "Manhattan Project" to solve this problem we would still most likely be screwed. At the rate we are going we are assured of disaster.

[immoderate]

42. What???!!! Sanity??

And we were having so much fun!!

--IMM

[sangh0]

45. Where did I say we would DEFINITELY develop an alternative energy source?

I merely pointed out that our energy policies (or lack thereof) might change in the future.

Or are you another crystal ball reader?

[radwriter0555]

18. BINGO... now you're THINKING and NOT buying the lies of the oil

cos..

Thank you!!!!!

[951]

10. isnt that the show that paranoid RW'er listen to for jollies

[Blue_Tires]

13. i used to listen to Bell years ago

isn't he the guy who's still out trying to find UFO's?

[Phoonzang]

40. About Art Bell...

I used to listen to Art Bell for years. It was a great program, a nice change from crappy right wing talk radio. I stopped listening to the program once he left and this right-wing idiot George Noory took over.

Art quit the program after it was taken over by Clear Channel and they tried to dictate what he was to talk about. He still hosts on the weekends but the majority of the show is under Noory.

They still talk about the some of the good stuff like UFOs, ghosts, etc., but Noory always has these end-times biblical prophets on. Its armageddon and angels, with a sprinking of something interesting now.