Could "Peak Oil" be another layer of deception?

[Beam Me Up]

I used to believe in the "Peak Oil" scenario--it explained much of the behavior of the elites and was, no doubt, used to justify the national security state's facilitation of the events of 9/11. "Peak Oil" places the hydrocarbon industry at the heart of national security and the interests of the national security state.

But those whose fortunes and hegemony are tied to energy are actually tied to ENERGY MARKETS. They want to maintain their wealth and power THROUGH CENTRALIZED CONSOLIDATION OF THE MARKETS of both money (fiat) and energy (hydrocarbon resources). The last thing on Earth they want is for their hold on energy sources to become decentralized. This is WHY, I believe, they have not supported (invested in) alternative energy as a way of securing renewable energy for our advanced civilization. THAT WOULD BE A DECENTRALIZED MARKET.

I'm not a geologist, not anywhere close, but these two articles are of interest:

US in race to unlock new energy source

Green groups warn against moving methane hydrates from beneath seabed

David Adam, science correspondent
Monday April 4, 2005
The Guardian

More than a mile below the choppy Gulf of Mexico waters lies a vast, untapped source of energy. Locked in mysterious crystals, the sediment beneath the seabed holds enough natural gas to fuel America's energy-guzzling society for decades, or to bring about sufficient climate change to melt the planet's glaciers and cause catastrophic flooding, depending on whom you talk to.

No prizes for guessing the US government's preferred line. This week it will dispatch a drilling vessel to the region, on a mission to bring this virtually inexhaustible new supply of fossil fuel to power stations within a decade.

The ship will hunt for methane hydrates, a weird combination of gas and water produced in the crushing pressures deep within the earth - literally, ice that burns.

The stakes could not be higher: scientists reckon there could be more valuable carbon fuel stored in the vast methane hydrate deposits scattered under the world's seabed and Arctic permafrost than in all of the known reserves of coal, oil and gas put together....

Scientists Create, Study Methane Hydrates In 'Ocean Floor' Lab

SAN DIEGO, CA -- Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory have recreated the high-pressure, low-temperature conditions of the seafloor in a tabletop apparatus for the study of methane-hydrates, an abundant but currently out-of-reach source of natural gas trapped within sediments below the ocean floor. Michael Eaton, a Stony Brook University graduate student working for Brookhaven chemist Devinder Mahajan, will present a talk outlining the use of the apparatus for the creation and study of methane hydrates during a special two-day symposium co-organized by Mahajan at the 229th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Diego, California. The talk is scheduled for Sunday, March 13, at 3:05 p.m. in room Madeleine C-D of the Hyatt Regency.

Scientists Explore Large Gas Hydrate Field Off Oregon Coast; Details Emerge Of Possible New Energy Source (September 11, 2002) -- Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) scientists have completed a two-month expedition off the coast of Oregon to investigate the origin and distribution of frozen deposits of natural gas known as "gas ...

"The amount of natural gas that is tied up in methane hydrates beneath the seafloor and in permafrost on Earth is several orders of magnitude higher than all other known conventional sources of natural gas -- enough to meet our energy needs for several decades," Mahajan says. But extracting this resource poses several challenges...

More at links

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Not at all

There are a couple of points I need to address:

First, methane hydrate clathrates are many years from being exploitable, and recovering them would utterly destroy the coastal plains where the (declining numbers of) fish live. Destroy that fauna, and you'd seriously damage the ocean ecology in the entire ocean.

Second, there's the possibility of releasing a huge amount of methane in the process. Even small amounts of free methane can kill living organisms as well as gasoline engines.

Third, that freed methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, some 20-50 times as powerful as carbon dioxide, depending on the temperature and pressure.

So that's the brief against using seabed methane. Not that it can't be done, just that it's not an easy solution.

Then, there's the idea that Peak Oil is a rhetorical thing. To an extent, that's true, as it's true for nearly anything we see in the media. But the idea is based on projections of our oil use, our new-oil discovery rate, and new technology development cycles. Sadly, there is nothing that can be ready fast enough to replace oil as the main energy source for our world.

Even if we had started 35 years ago, when we first started understanding these problems, it would have been a close race to switch over. Right now, the best we will be able to do is to intelligently manage a transition lasting some 50 years or more. During that time, our lifestyles are likely to change dramatically. It won't necessarily be hell on Earth, but it will be a Big Deal.

Fear can be used even better than media distractions to control people, and Peak Oil will certainly be worked like a streetwalker in this effort. Climate change and public health issues will also be major factors in fear and social obedience. This doesn't mean the problems won't exist, only that Capitalism will find a way to exploit them, too.

Decentralized energy for living is a good idea, but an industrial civilization requires much more energy than that. Since our economy and our way of life is part of that industrial activity, the real problem won't be keeping warm in the winter, but keeping your landlord from throwing you out on the street when unemployment goes to 75%.

There is much more than this involved, but I hope I've illustrated why we have some big challenges ahead of us. Not that we can't rise to the occasion -- the question is, 'will we?'

--p!

[Beam Me Up]

6. Big Challenges

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It has given me much to think about.

I agree we have BIG challenges ahead of us. The question I would like to have addressed, really, is whether or not "Peak Oil" is an ABSOLUTE reality. I'm reading authors who say, for example, that it doesn't matter whether it is "real" or not--because the powers that be have already begun to chart humanity's course AS IF it is real:

The Most Important Thing You Don't Know About "Peak Oil"

<snip>

Should the oil markets themselves begin to 'connect these dots', then all our lives are going to be impacted violently and immediately. The commodity traders for various interested firms live solely by anticipating conditions and events, not by debating them and verifying them. The old mantra is, you "buy the rumor, sell the news". This is the reason you'll never see "Peak Oil" covered by a respected media outlet. Because as soon as it is recognized that for all practical purposes the situation is already upon us, then a fast and viscious "resource grab" will be initiated. The price of oil in the markets will begin to rise dramatically. This will initiate a circular hedging / hording mentality in large end-users, governments, and multi-nationals. This will then have a myriad of devastating effects, but all average Joe Consumer is going to notice is that the price at the pump will experience a brief and dramatic blip upward, gas lines will form for a short time at the corner-stations, and then suddenly the corner gas-stations will go dry altogether...perhaps getting a few sporadic deliveries, but more likely simply for good. Gasoline will not be available to individual drivers, as precedence is given to heating oil, critical government and commercial uses, public transportation, transport of food and goods, etc. How the situation unfolds after that you can imagine just as well as I....

If this scenario sounds over-dramatic, keep in mind that what I'm talking about is a dawning recognition of something that many analysts have already come to realize: that the "oil grab" is in fact already on, that it's not a temporary 'bottleneck' or passing 'shock', and that the losers in this game will not survive. A global game of 'blind man's bluff' is underway, with all the players pleading ignorance of the issue for as long as possible so they can get their pieces in place...all the while anxiously watching for the first itchy-trigger finger that's going to set the whole thing off.

<snip>

I believe ... the debate over "Peak Oil" itself is already over. It no longer matters whether it is proven or disproven, because there isn't time left to do either. Events in the world are revealing to us the only truth that matters: that a desperate resource war is emergent, one that will not be won by trade sanctions, blustering, or corporate bargaining. This is the only issue which should now be under scrutiny by those who strive to stay "ahead of the curve".

The problem with "Peak Oil" is that it can be used to JUSTIFY radical measures--perhaps I should say, "radical fascism," on "national security" grounds. It also begs the question, as you have in your reply, however challenging it may have been, WHY haven't we made more strives toward becoming a RENEWABLE ENERGY civilization? As you point out, it isn't as if we didn't have any foresight on this matter. I lived through the 70s. I remember Co-Evolution Quarterly and the vision of a sustainable advanced civilization it pointed toward.

What happened? We can not ignore the significant influence OIL MARKET HEGEMONY has played in the extreme right wing political direction our country has taken over the past 30-40 years.

[DerekG]

2. It is possible

I have to say, Ruppert and co. still haven't convinced me. There are credible leftist authors who have posited that "Peak Oil" is but a mere scam to drive up prices; some, like David McGowan, have even speculated that it's a grand scheme, whose craftsmen have the aim of world depopulation.

That our ventures in the Middle East are based on greed, and not need, should be considered.

[Gyre]

3. Nobody knows for sure.

There are many components of "peak oil" theory. Would the part you no longer believe in be the preipitous logarithmic decline in easily utilized natural resources, or the exponential rise in the price of petroleum products?

There's the physical reality, there's the political reality, and the reality as it's perceived by the "electorate" (to wit; consumer/tax base).

How all of these realities come together come together is anybody's guess. I personally don't subscribe to the exponential price rises. We've had artificial caps on our gas prices since the 60s and probably before that.

Gyre

[lonestarnot]

5. It makes sense that the amount of earth's oil is finite. Consumption is

not. Resource depletion doesn't appear to matter until it's your supply that's being stolen.

[megatherium]

4. The Saudis say they have 2 million barrels/day of excess capacity.

They, and the USGS, say they have lots more oil, enough to delay peak oil until 2030. Our government expects world petroleum consumption to rise by 50% in that time frame, and they expect the middle east to be able to produce enough to meet that demand.

Other experts of course dispute that. I recommend the books of Kenneth Deffeyes (Hubbert's Peak, and Beyond Oil); he explains why they believe oil is already at peak production, and he also details the pros and cons of the other alternatives (such as sea bed methane hydrates). The message is, alternatives are available but they're more expensive and will take longer to develop than we have time to develop them (without experiencing hardships in the meanwhile).

The big problem with this whole discussion is that the only people who know what the true oil reserve numbers are have strong incentives to not disclose these. The oil companies stock values depend on their reserves; Shell Oil has already admitted to inflating these numbers. The OPEC nations, for their part, dramatically increased their estimates of their reserves, a few years ago -- this was because OPEC changed its rules as to how much each member state can pump, to be proportional to their reserves. Thus they had every reason to inflate these numbers.

So we don't have a clear indication as to how much oil is really out there. We do have ominous signs. The Gharwar oil field in Saudi Arabia is now said to be in decline; they are pumping in salt water to push the oil out, and one-third of what comes out of the oil wells is salt water. Also, the major oil companies report finding only 30 or 40% as much new oil each year as they now produce.

One more thought: Peak oil won't mean an abrupt or precipitous decline in oil production. Oil will be produced at about the current rate for a few more years, dropping only by 10% over the next 15 years -- if the more pessimistic predictions prove correct. However, demand is rising and the oil that gets produced on the downward side of the peak is the more expensive and difficult to produce oil. Expect recessions and inflation.

[Beam Me Up]

7. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

.

[i have issues]

9. There is a DU group on peak oil.

Lots of great discussions, and links.

[not systems]

8. I heard an interesting...

"conspiracy" radio show that outlined a case that peak oil
was a diversion setup to displace anger over corruption and
looting of the US economy. The idea is that things will
get very bad economical and peak oil will be blamed rather
than the people who have rigged the game and fleeced the US.

I think part two was the one with the peak oil theory.

911 Synthetic Terror:
Made in the U.S.A.

Interview with author and researcher, Webster Tarpley.

part 1
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=209.81.10.18&port=80&file=dummy.m3u&mount=/data/20050406-Wed1400.mp3

part 2
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=209.81.10.18&port=80&file=dummy.m3u&mount=/data/20050420-Wed1400.mp3

[PaulaFarrell]

10. that presumes peak oil will only affect the US

there's a very US-centric theme to a lot of these discussions, as though only the US will be be affected. I know the US is the most car-centred, but peak oil will probably affect poor nations more, and more quickly because as prices rise, they will be less able to pay the premium.