Are you prepared for the Oil crash and the end of our current way of life?

Surviving is a LOT different than maintaining our current standard of living though. Personally, I prefer the latter.

There are still many untapped reserves. Heck, right here in the old USA, there's a huge region of oil in the Dakotas, which allegedly has more than all of Saudi Arabia...

Also, we'll continue to see the emergence of hybrids and other technologies to temper our oil appetite, and companies will continue to find new ways to supplement oil based power and product usage. Oil companies will (in an effort to remain profitable) likely be heavy investors in such things, so they can adjust how quickly these substitute solutions are affecting the market.

It is a concern, but I can't see the major oil companies sitting on their thumbs over it...they have been likely planning for it for years. We've got many more decades, I believe, until we'll really see an impact, and that's a lot of time to introduce ways to wean us off our dependency....

Hey man, I just want to say I love your name. Could it be a reference to Acid Mothers Temple, the greatest band ever to come out of Japan?

No, no, no. Peak Oil is a myth based on the theory that oil is formed from dead dinosaurs. Russia has proven conclusively that there is a LOT of oil deep underground. So deep in fact that it could not possibly have formed from decaying organic matter but rather from internal chemical processes that take place constantly within the Earth. The oil companies know this and are waiting for even higher oil prices before they commit to drill those very deep and very expensive holes. Any alleged shortage in oil is only an artificial shortage created or allowed to be created in order to push prices higher.

reply to post by Project-Sign


Even it it takes a while for us to find the pockets of abiotic oil. that is still a good thing. While we are looking for this oil we should also be exploring other sources of energy. I am not saying that this abiotic oil is the ultimate answer, because it still pollutes the environment, but to scare people into believing that we have no more oil and the American way of life is over is bogus. We need to also look at free energy- which I also believe is being suppressed by TPTB for their own good.

reply to post by Project-Sign


You say that Iraqi oil production peaked in 1979 - that is false. Iraqi production peaked just before the invasion of Kuwait.

There is currently an oil rush taking place in Iraq, with proven reserves at 143 billion barrels, and that is just in eastern Iraq. Western Iraq hasn't even been explored yet.
This is why China has moved into Iraq in a big way.

143 billion puts it second behind Saudi Arabia. Onshore production is cheap and easy compared to deepwater, so there is plenty of cheap oil remaining there.

It is the grade of oil which people should be focussing on. Light sweet/brent crude is what companies want. Heavy crude (tar sands) requires heavy refining capacity and is thus undesirable and more costly.

What we will see happen is an increase in the oil price as companies and countries start going after heavy oil once they exhaust light sweet reserves and the offshore deepwater reserves.

Rumour has it that Saudi reserves are largely made up of heavy grades of oil...but then that's one of the best kept secrets in the world.

I'm not trying to derail the thread or anything and I've not had time to read whats been said already, but my thoughts on this are that I'm not too worried about oil running out more than our reliance on gas.

I'm in the UK and just about every houshold has been encouraged to switch to gas for heating over the past 30 years.

When I was a kid mostly houses had coal burning fireplaces, then people went to electric heating and now they changed to gas.

The problem is the UK did have its own gas supply from the North Sea but as that dwindles we are more and more dependent on gas coming from Russia. I think it was last year or maybe the year before when the pipe carrying the gas was shutdown because somebody along its way wasn't happy about something.

I think the UK is in a very risky position because if they decide to switch off the gas for whatever reason theres going to be a lot of deaths in the UK from the cold.

Not to mention some terror group just blowing it up for the hell of it, especially after we leave Afghanistan.

Guys seriously go back and watch the first video I posted on the last page. It is probably the most important video you will ever see! Our rate of increasing consumption will make any new oil discoveries completely useless as it will buy almost no more time. Growth rate is the problem! Really I implore you to watch that video - I dare you to watch that video!

reply to post by Project-Sign


The international Energy Agency says whatever it's member governments, who are run by politicians bought by the oil lobby, want it to say. Stop being so naive!

reply to post by bigyin


There is actually excess supply in the natural gas market at the moment. Qatar's North gas field (very big) has undergone a lot of development and is is producing in large quanitities.

Once Iraqi gas fields are developed, this will drive prices down even further.

If you are interested, take a look at the Shell LNG refinery in Qatar. I think it is the biggest in the world.

reply to post by Perseus Apex


Is there an illuminated version of what you just said because the cliff notes version, provided here, left me looking at my monitor the way that my dog stares at the wall when I torture him with my laser pointer.

~Heff

doesnt the US have hidden reserves in montana?

www.rense.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.electricmotorwheels.com...

Originally posted by Project-Sign
reply to post by Donegal_TDI

 

Cheap Nuclear energy? No such thing. Nuclear power plants can cost 10's of Billions and are very energy intensive to construct. It's also not a renewable energy source. Uranium, which has to be found and extracted from the earth at high cost and burning more energy, is also a finite substance. Then there's enrichment, a very energy intensive process. Then there's the problem of Nuclear waste. Billions more for waste facilities. And of course there's the dangers of Nuclear power. Sellafield and Chernobyl have proven that accidents can and do happen.

edit on 19-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

Well your wrong on almost everything you said right there. But in any case you cannot power cars by nuclear reactors, hence the only way to power our transportation with nuclear is indirectly through synfuels and electricity.

reply to post by C0bzz


If you're going to say I'm wrong, point out why please.

Plants do cost Billions. So do waste facilities. As far as I know Uranium is not infinite.

reply to post by MegaMind


Iraqi production peaked at 3.5 million barrels before the first gulf war, but is only pumping 2.4 million barrels per day currently. The Iraqi oil ministry plans to ramp up production to 12 million per day within ten years.

The Iraqi contribution is not the same as some newly discovered offshore reserve...
Iraq could sustain the oil economies for many more years - it's oil is onshore !

Unfortunately, oil analysts don't seem to take into account Iraq.

I'm all for moving away from oil btw. I just don't see it happening while there is cheap oil around.

reply to post by Bagel


Did you watch the video I posted on the last page? It doesn't matter if a new discovery is made that is as much as all the oil ever used before - IF - the rate of use continues to increase even by a small amount annually. It wouldn't buy much more time at all. A ZERO percent increase in usage MUST happen and WILL happen. Growth in oil usage MUST cease. The question is when? And how will it happen? The era of cheap oil is over.

reply to post by MegaMind


I have seen this video before, but thanks for the refresher. The kicker is that if we have a factor of increase that is sustained then the growth is problematic. We do not. The increase might be 2% one year, 4 % the next year and then 1% the next year. If this consistent constant growth was the case we would have maxed out space for people to live on a long time ago. Our rate of growth and consumption are not constant. Populations are decreased by natural disasters, war, disease, famine. stupidity...and when the populations decrease demand decrease, as populations change the demand for what they need changes. The math is clear but there are so many factors involved.

Bunk! The British Petroleum, Deepwater Horizon disaster, completely destroys the myth of Peak Oil.
The depth of that well is over 10 kilometers! Well below any fossil layer. Oil is mainly an abiotic process.

I will concede that there is an accessibility issue, in that, finding new sources of 'sweet' crude oil, near the surface is becoming more difficult. Considering that an estimated 5 million barrels spilled out of that well, I think I'm safe in saying that we have a comfortable window in which to develop some alternatives - and I think we should. But to panic monger, as Rupert and others have done, is not helpful at all.

reply to post by MegaMind


I have seen your video.
Like the previous poster said, there are many factors involved, and not all countries will experience the growth that America had seen.

The math is clear, nice video. To assume that every person will require the same amount of oil over the coming years is not realistic.

You do realise that OPEC manipulates production to maintain the price of oil?
AND...Do you think that oil reached 150 dollars a barrel because of a shortage in production?

I say again, Iraq is not just some offshore oil reserve. 12 million barrels a day will make it the worlds largest producer.

Originally posted by summerbreeze.ddp
reply to post by MegaMind

 

I have seen this video before, but thanks for the refresher. The kicker is that if we have a factor of increase that is sustained then the growth is problematic. We do not. The increase might be 2% one year, 4 % the next year and then 1% the next year. If this consistent constant growth was the case we would have maxed out space for people to live on a long time ago. Our rate of growth and consumption are not constant. Populations are decreased by natural disasters, war, disease, famine. stupidity...and when the populations decrease demand decrease, as populations change the demand for what they need changes. The math is clear but there are so many factors involved.

Increases in population and growth may change year over year but they can be averaged. And when has there been a decrease year over year of the global population? When has there been a decrease year over year of global consumption? Every year we as a planet consume more and grow more as a population. But yes that will change regardless of what we do collectively. Why? Because it cannot be sustained. It is physically impossible.

In that video he gives a simple formula to calculate the doubling time at constant growth. At our current rate of just over a measly 1% per year growth our population on Earth will double in 70 years. That means TWICE the resources and consumption we have now will have to be used in 70 years to keep our standard of living. New technologies will help but eventually population growth world wide WILL be 0%.

reply to post by Project-Sign


You really must feed into the media quite a bit, I mean you do realize as a physics professor in college once told me... There is no oil shortage and won't be for thousands of years.