Peak oil may have just passed....ouch
thing2
thing2
> http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>
http://www.financialsense.com/series3/intro.htm
something else worth reading.
regards
Thing
Peter Ashby
Yet another thing worth bearing in mind, if we burn all the oil, gas and
coal we know about and is economic at the moment we will raise global
temperatures 7C and flood most of the world's major cities. If we burn
everything including stuff which isn't currently economic and cause the
clathrates in the ocean to release their methane (one of the trigger
points) then temperatures go up 13C.
So regardless we can't afford to do it and the sooner we build that into
our economics the better.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
Gordon
> http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
>
Goodness, so that is where the web site is.
I have read both Hubbert's Peak and Beyond Oil by Kenneth S Deffeyes and
while they could be combined into a book of 1.5 times the size of either,
each of them makes fasanating reading. Kenneth has worked in the oil
industry, you know a real world sort of chap vs the theory chap.
I suggest that you all read the book. The world is addicted to oil, it is
supporting the population of the planet earth.
The "good" news is that the the population of the US of A is 5% of the
world population and yet it consumes 25% of this planets resources.
WeeWillyWonka
>http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
Onwards, nuclear power!
willy
thingy
At present we have enough uranium for 40 years....oh look just as oil
totally runs out.
regards
Thing
thingy
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:20:58 +1300, thing2 wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
>>
>
> Goodness, so that is where the web site is.
Yes, initially I wondered about the fringe kook factor, then I looked at
the url, double checked it, then I read his [auto]bio on the web page,
oil practically comes out of his pours, even his father....this isnt
just some loon predicting the end of the world...
> I have read both Hubbert's Peak and Beyond Oil by Kenneth S Deffeyes and
> while they could be combined into a book of 1.5 times the size of either,
> each of them makes fasanating reading. Kenneth has worked in the oil
> industry, you know a real world sort of chap vs the theory chap.
Considering getting a copy,....a future click to Amazon is on the cards
though, $10US is not bad.
> I suggest that you all read the book. The world is addicted to oil, it is
> supporting the population of the planet earth.
I have googled quite a bit. What really worries me is that there is no
viable, efficient, large scale alternative on the near horizon. AND it
needs to be very near because to build the plants on the scale needed to
produce this wonder fuel will take 5~10 years...
> The "good" news is that the the population of the US of A is 5% of the
> world population and yet it consumes 25% of this planets resources.
Yes and they are the furthest away, as oil gets really scarce I would
expect Saudi etc to stop selling oil to give their nation more time to
adjust....if they are allowed to of course.....the US sure has a lot of
guns and sure is keen to put in its own puppets where it can.....but it
cant invade that many countries.....
Makes me wonder about just why they are so worried over nuclear weapons,
but in reality its not such a terror threat but a great leveler of
weapon capability. Also even with a nuke, its probbaly less than half
the battle, to be an agressor you have to deliver it a long way.
On the other hand, if you are a US invasion fleet bearing down on Iran
bent on taking its oil at any price, all the Iranians really need is for
one medium range nuke bearing missle (which they have I believe) to get
through and you dont have a fleet anymore.....At the same time the
Iranian state could defend it self by slipping in nukes in a suitcase,
bomb terran and bang goes a US city it only needs one and if the state
funds it, possible.....advanced conventional weapon technology wont save
the US....
regards
Thing
Katipo
See: http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html
/\(**)/\
s.t.e.v.e.
> Peak oil is a myth created to drive prices up.
No, it isnt.
One may argue about the date it will occur, but there is absolutely NO
debate that it will never occur.
John B
"s.t.e.v.e." <s.t.e.v.e.@dontchaluvusenet.org.nz> wrote in
message news:43f6...@news.orcon.net.nz...
Crap. It could well be it will NEVER occur.
WeeWillyWonka
>"s.t.e.v.e." <s.t.e.v.e.@dontchaluvusenet.org.nz> wrote in
>> absolutely NO
>> debate that it will never occur.
>
>Crap. It could well be it will NEVER occur.
What goes up must come down. Even Steve can't get that part wrong.
How come you are?
willy
John B
"WeeWillyWonka" <w...@freenet.net.nz> wrote in message
news:43f6a68...@nntp.aioe.org...
Let's just say water or hydrogen becomes the norm before oil runs
out. Is something like that not possible? Like an alternative?
It's going to have to happen sooner or later anyway. What if it
happens sooner?
What if there's oil on the moon or mars?
WeeWillyWonka
>"WeeWillyWonka" <w...@freenet.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>Crap. It could well be it will NEVER occur.
>>
>> What goes up must come down. Even Steve can't get that part
>> wrong. How come you are?
>
>out. Is something like that not possible? Like an alternative?
Sure, nuclear power is specifically *the superb* alternative if the
Greenie-weenies wake up in time. But that's irrelevant to the
question which is PEAK OIL. Oil production must eventually decline.
Stay on topic.
>What if there's oil on the moon or mars?
There will be. Limited application there in the absence of oxygen.
Never be economic to transport it here. If there was an oil-soaked
asteroid, they could shift it into Earth orbit, but then what?
willy
WeeWillyWonka
>In article <p2khc3-...@katrina.thing.dyndns.org>,
>> totally runs out.
>
We need energy which does not produce carbon dioxide.
willy
John B
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, "John B" <m...@anywherenearthere.com> wrote:
>>"WeeWillyWonka" <w...@freenet.net.nz> wrote in message
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, "John B" <m...@anywherenearthere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Crap. It could well be it will NEVER occur.
>>>
>>> What goes up must come down. Even Steve can't get that part
>>> wrong. How come you are?
>>
>>Let's just say water or hydrogen becomes the norm before oil
>>runs
>>out. Is something like that not possible? Like an alternative?
>
> Sure, nuclear power is specifically *the superb* alternative if
> the
> Greenie-weenies wake up in time. But that's irrelevant to the
> question which is PEAK OIL. Oil production must eventually
> decline.
> Stay on topic.
Not if there is not a great need for it any more. I was on topic.
>
>>What if there's oil on the moon or mars?
>
> There will be. Limited application there in the absence of
> oxygen.
> Never be economic to transport it here.
Not at this stage. But it will become so.
Dibley Fanshaw
"John B" <m...@anywherenearthere.com> wrote:
> >> Peak oil is a myth created to drive prices up.
> >
> > No, it isnt.
> >
> > One may argue about the date it will occur, but there is
> > absolutely NO
> > debate that it will never occur.
>
> Crap. It could well be it will NEVER occur.
If rising atmospheric carbon causes the arse to fall out of the Earth's
climate it could bring our demand for oil to a shuddering halt, but as
things stand at the moment things don't look too good.
€ They have checked everywhere on Earth (there's nowhere else to look)
€ They know pretty well how much is there and the remaining stocks are
getting harder to extract (for technical or political reasons)
€ The demand is rising exponentially as China and India join the fray.
€ Yes, there's a lot of coal and methane hydrates but how much more
carbon can the atmosphere take?
€ Forget hydrogen, it gives less energy than is needed to extract it
from water.
€ Any fuel on other planets will almost certainly require more energy to
retrieve than it will contain.
Having said that, we will survive Peak Oil, but life will not be as we
know it. We (NZ) will have to become a lot more self-sufficent for
starters, although we've had a head start in developing sailing ships,
who knows? The problem will be moving our produce from port to customer.
--
Dibley
Peter Ashby
> >>What if there's oil on the moon or mars?
> >
> > There will be. Limited application there in the absence of
> > oxygen.
> > Never be economic to transport it here.
>
> Not at this stage. But it will become so.
By which point, it will be far, far more economic to use alcohols, bio
diesel, batteries and/or fuel cells of whatever fuel. So you are talking
out of your arse.
Peter Ashby
>
> Having said that, we will survive Peak Oil, but life will not be as we
> know it. We (NZ) will have to become a lot more self-sufficent for
> starters, although we've had a head start in developing sailing ships,
> who knows? The problem will be moving our produce from port to customer.
And whether we can find any customers with the money to pay for it while
they deal with the flooding of their coastlines, etc, etc, etc. Still,
at least NZ won't starve.
-Newsman-
Rights have already been claimed by Bush's mob. This potential resource
was entered as a share-price boosting "profit" on Enron's balance sheet
several years ago, and further authenticated by its top international
auditors, Arthur Andersen.
Enron and Arthur Andersen went bust as a result, and Enron's top hood
and Bush's oh-so-generous campaign contributor, Kenneth Lay, was last
seen headed for the court in handcuffs.
It's unarguable - these corporate mates of Bush's are so arrogant,
venal, corrupt and conspiratorial they can only be commies.
-Newsman-
was entered as a share-price boosting "profit" on Enron's balance sheet
several years ago, and further authenticated by its top international
auditors, Arthur Andersen.
Enron and Arthur Andersen went bust as a result, and Enron's top hood
and Bush's oh-so-generous campaign contributor, Kenneth Lay, was last
seen headed for the court in handcuffs.
It's unarguable - these corporate mates of Bush's are so arrogant,
venal, corrupt and conspiratorial they can only be commies.
/ sarcasm off /
But that is not to imply Kenneth Lay and his accomplices were uniquely
partisan in their buying of the biddable Bush. They also did exactly the
same sort of thing with an equally compliant Clinton during his tenure
of the Oval Office.
It's now *accepted and tolerated* as the norm that, in America,
corporate executive venality and bribery know no political borders nor
any distinctions. Influence is to be bought, either directly or
laundered via organs such as PACs, for ultimate profit and massive
personal gain, politics or ethics be damned. All pretence to integrity
and decency is long-since trashed - these are merely tiresome obstacles
to unimaginable personal enrichment and the power that goes with it.
Ultimately, all that remains for these arrogant corporate thugs to vaunt
is their stupefying greed and avarice. And all that remains for too many
degenerate US politicians, pious guardians of America's "Freedom and
Democracy" to a man, of course, is to desperately try to conceal their
own dirty dealings and moral bankrupcty (Jack Abramoff et al), some of
these grubby little hacks even grovelling for immunity and absolution
with their, "We'll give the money back"!
From the bottom feeders of the American political system to the very
top of Washington's crawling dungheap of Republican chancers and fixers,
even including an indicted alleged White House perjurer and the most
shameless dissembler of all, the President himself - the corporate US
dollar calls the shots and democracy can go to hell.
To get a whiff of how deeply Kenneth Lay and Enron, together with a
number of his company's fabled circle of corporate accomplices, law
firms and all - *ethics*, anyone? - have financially supported the
Draft-dodging little Podium Poseur, see:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-01.htm
and try:
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast.
Of course, Greg Palast is a polemicist. Nevertheless, the message is all
that counts, and it is his implicit message and those by others wrting
in a similar vein, that those who would discredit the Greg Palasts of
this world must successfully disprove if they are to gain, let alone
enjoy, any credibility.
John Cawston
>
>
> To get a whiff of how deeply Kenneth Lay and Enron, together with a
> number of his company's fabled circle of corporate accomplices, law
> firms and all - *ethics*, anyone? - have financially supported the
> Draft-dodging little Podium Poseur, see:
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-01.htm
>
> and try:
>
> "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast.
>
> Of course, Greg Palast is a polemicist. Nevertheless, the message is
> all that counts, and it is his implicit message and those by others
> wrting in a similar vein, that those who would discredit the Greg
> Palasts of this world must successfully disprove if they are to gain,
> let alone enjoy, any credibility.
Suddenly, TVNZ starts to look pretty good.
JC
>
>
-Newsman-
It's really all so simple. Just refute what these poeple have to say.
I'm sure you'll achieve it in a trice.
John Cawston
Sure. The Supreme Court used the Law to destroy Pelast's ultimate
arguments and the people of the US have been writing books for (in my
time) 40 odd years on the various problems associated with their
political processes. Basically, they sort things out to their own
satisfaction, not yours.
As for Enron, you've already been so soundly spanked by Redbaiter that
you had to hurriedly find some more bipartisan criticism of both parties
to try and rescue some shreds of your credibility.
Finally; using Commondreams and Palast is not a good look for a Newsman,
but entirely consistent with the degree to which media has fallen.
JC
Dibley Fanshaw
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> > Having said that, we will survive Peak Oil, but life will not be as we
> > know it. We (NZ) will have to become a lot more self-sufficent for
> > starters, although we've had a head start in developing sailing ships,
> > who knows? The problem will be moving our produce from port to customer.
>
> And whether we can find any customers with the money to pay for it while
> they deal with the flooding of their coastlines, etc, etc, etc. Still,
> at least NZ won't starve.
Unless of course James Lovelock is correct and we are approaching (or
have already passed) a tipping point that will see a runaway rise in
global temperatures that release yet more carbon from permafrost and
Methane hydrates to push the temperatures even higher.
A tattered remnant of humanity barely hanging on in Antarctica.
see
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,,1707789,00.html
--
Dibley
Peter Ashby
Yes, and note that he is all over the media like a rash trying to sell
his tome. Note also that he is an 'independent scientist' so needs or
generate cash to keep himself solvent. Ergo his output should be
examined carefully for evidence of spin and hyperbole.
Pegter
-Newsman-
James Lovelock is 87 years of age and has a long and illustrious history
in the Scientific commmunity worldwide. In his latter years he has
taken a largely vocational approach to his work.
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovedeten.htm
You may be right about this spritely octogenarian's motives, but I have
a feeling that a man of his advanced years and with his extraordinarily
eclectic background is hardly likely to be desperately grubbing for his
next shilling.
Of course, those brought up in a world centred on little else other than
bleak and blinkered materialism might well hold a cynical contrary view,
and good luck to them.
thing2
> "WeeWillyWonka" <w...@freenet.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:43f6a68...@nntp.aioe.org...
>
>>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, "John B" <m...@anywherenearthere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"s.t.e.v.e." <s.t.e.v.e.@dontchaluvusenet.org.nz> wrote in
>>>
>>>>One may argue about the date it will occur, but there is
>>>>absolutely NO
>>>>debate that it will never occur.
>>>
>>>Crap. It could well be it will NEVER occur.
>>
>>What goes up must come down. Even Steve can't get that part
>>wrong.
>>How come you are?
>>
>>willy
>
>
> Let's just say water or hydrogen becomes the norm before oil runs
> out. Is something like that not possible? Like an alternative?
nope, not on the scale we need.
> It's going to have to happen sooner or later anyway. What if it
> happens sooner?
Too late me thinks.
> What if there's oil on the moon or mars?
Cost of getting it back?
regards
Thing
thing2
> thing2 <nott...@nowhere.commy> wrote:
>
>
>>thing2 wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
>>>
>>>regards
>>>
>>>Thing
>>>
>>
>>http://www.financialsense.com/series3/intro.htm
>>
>>something else worth reading.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Thing
>
>
> Yet another thing worth bearing in mind, if we burn all the oil, gas and
> coal we know about and is economic at the moment we will raise global
> temperatures 7C and flood most of the world's major cities. If we burn
> everything including stuff which isn't currently economic and cause the
> clathrates in the ocean to release their methane (one of the trigger
> points) then temperatures go up 13C.
>
> So regardless we can't afford to do it and the sooner we build that into
> our economics the better.
>
> Peter
From what I have read, it wont matter, we wont be around long enough to
worry about rising sealevels. Flooded cities wont matter, they will long
have been abandoned.
regards
Thing
thing2
lol.....john B would probbaly de-orbit it and put the resultant fire out
once it landed.....
regards
Thing
thing2
No, we need cheap enegy just not to starve....global warming is years
off, we may have as little as 5.
regards
Thing
thing2
> Dibley Fanshaw <dfan...@paradise.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>Having said that, we will survive Peak Oil, but life will not be as we
>>know it. We (NZ) will have to become a lot more self-sufficent for
>>starters, although we've had a head start in developing sailing ships,
>>who knows? The problem will be moving our produce from port to customer.
>
>
> And whether we can find any customers with the money to pay for it while
> they deal with the flooding of their coastlines, etc, etc, etc. Still,
> at least NZ won't starve.
>
> Peter
our population density is based on cheap transportation, actually I
think 70~90% of NZers will starve.
regards
Thing
-Newsman-
Hardly worth bothering about, really, until someone somewhere up there
in the North-East realised there might be votes in it.
Peter Ashby
I suspect starve is a bit strong, also these things will not come about
overnight. As the price of oil rises more happens than that oil sands
become economic, alternatives to oil become economically attractive as
well. The move from steam to diesel or electric trains didn't happen
overnight for eg.
Hmm, I wonder if diesel trains/trucks can run on bio-diesel? I can't see
why not in which case transport from the wheat belt of Canterbury to the
bellies of Auckland can be done by growing oil seed rape or some other
plants at regular intervals on the route with small local refining
plants. It wouldn't take long or cost much to do this, the only minor
problem would be the oil companies.
Of course you could just stick Cantabrian wheat on a sailing ship and
float it to Auckland.
Brian Dooley
There's lots of stuff about biodiesel on Google, and I bet (but
not checked) on modern sail applications.
I think the South Africans put a lot into veggie oil.
There's a guy in Wellington running a truck on ex-chip oil.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Peter Ashby
>
> There's a guy in Wellington running a truck on ex-chip oil.
Good on him, people here in the uk have been prosecuted for the same
thing. They did them for excise avoidance. Not how you encourage
alternative fuels.
s.t.e.v.e.
> There's lots of stuff about biodiesel on Google, and I bet (but
> not checked) on modern sail applications.
>
> I think the South Africans put a lot into veggie oil.
>
> There's a guy in Wellington running a truck on ex-chip oil.
There isn't enough fertile land area to grow food AND the plants to make
enough fuel to satisfy anything more than a very tiny fraction of existing
demand.
Peter Ashby
So we tighten our belts a bit, we already eat far more than we need, and
waste almost as much.
Brian Dooley
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:10:04 GMT, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter
Ashby) wrote:
>Brian Dooley <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>> There's a guy in Wellington running a truck on ex-chip oil.
>
>Good on him, people here in the uk have been prosecuted for the same
>thing. They did them for excise avoidance. Not how you encourage
>alternative fuels.
I don't know the wording of the law here, but excise is collected
on the basis of distance run for diesel, so the same could apply.
Dibley Fanshaw
"s.t.e.v.e." <s.t.e.v.e.@dontchaluvusenet.org.nz> wrote:
Where did you get that statistic from?
--
Dibley
Brian Dooley
Cite?