Grim News on the Oil Front!

USA is on track for, importing between $400,000,000,000 & $500,000,000,000 worth of Oil products, during 2011!
About 1/2 Trillion Dollars!

How many electric cars could that build?
How many jobs would be created?

Want an economic recovery?
Build alternative energy transportation, domestically, while reducing the rate of incurring foreign debt!
 
DrkAngel said:
USA is on track for, importing between $400,000,000,000 & $500,000,000,000 worth of Oil products, during 2011!
About 1/2 Trillion Dollars!

And of that 1/2 trillion dollars worth of raw economy-powering energy, more than 10 trillion dollars in GDP will be generated!

Let's boycott the substance that allows everyone to sustain a high standard living! What a GREAT Idea!
 
swbluto said:
DrkAngel said:
USA is on track for, importing between $400,000,000,000 & $500,000,000,000 worth of Oil products, during 2011!
About 1/2 Trillion Dollars!

And of that 1/2 trillion dollars worth of raw economy-powering energy, more than 10 trillion dollars in GDP will be generated!

Let's boycott the substance that allows everyone to sustain a high standard living! What a GREAT Idea!


That's money that leaves the US economy to go gold-plate the sand dunes.

We of course need energy. But we can collect it here from this countries resources (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal) to provide that same energy. Then the money we spend on it does to people in this country, who use jobs/shopping/services etc in this country rather than just having it be a hole in the nations economy that pisses cash into the sand.
 
swbluto said:
DrkAngel said:
USA is on track for, importing between $400,000,000,000 & $500,000,000,000 worth of Oil products, during 2011!
About 1/2 Trillion Dollars!

And of that 1/2 trillion dollars worth of raw economy-powering energy, more than 10 trillion dollars in GDP will be generated!
And every slight increase in oil price, drives down the GDP ... as well as the entire economy.

Worse! Those exported US dollars are used to buy the most profitable US businesses.
We are having our country bought from under us, ... and ... we are financing it!
Buying oil, to power businesses, but selling the businesses, to buy the oil!

On the bright side, the oil exporting countries won't allow the US economy to totally collapse ... that would devalue their share of it!
 
DrkAngel said:
swbluto said:
DrkAngel said:
USA is on track for, importing between $400,000,000,000 & $500,000,000,000 worth of Oil products, during 2011!
About 1/2 Trillion Dollars!

And of that 1/2 trillion dollars worth of raw economy-powering energy, more than 10 trillion dollars in GDP will be generated!
And every slight increase in oil price, drives down the GDP ... as well as the entire economy.

Economics 101: When prices go up, people use less of it. Less oil = less energy = less GDP. The fact that oil itself largely powers the modern physical economy isn't changed by this dynamic.

Worse! Those exported US dollars are used to buy the most profitable US businesses.
We are having our country bought from under us, ... and ... we are financing it!
Buying oil, to power businesses, but selling the businesses, to buy the oil!

On the bright side, the oil exporting countries won't allow the US economy to totally collapse ... that would devalue their share of it!

Oh dear god, don't tell me the Saudis are buying the American businesses from the Japanese that bought up america in the 80's! That can't be! Oh wait, that's right, the Japanese didn't buy up America. 'Twas just a bunch of xenophobic fear mongering that apparently hasn't disappeared. :roll:
 
liveforphysics said:
swbluto said:
DrkAngel said:
USA is on track for, importing between $400,000,000,000 & $500,000,000,000 worth of Oil products, during 2011!
About 1/2 Trillion Dollars!

And of that 1/2 trillion dollars worth of raw economy-powering energy, more than 10 trillion dollars in GDP will be generated!

Let's boycott the substance that allows everyone to sustain a high standard living! What a GREAT Idea!


That's money that leaves the US economy to go gold-plate the sand dunes.

The nature of trade tends to be mutually beneficial, yes. They get to gold-plate their sand dunes, and we get to enjoy our 99 cent McDonald's cheeseburgers. :p


We of course need energy. But we can collect it here from this countries resources (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal) to provide that same energy. Then the money we spend on it does to people in this country, who use jobs/shopping/services etc in this country rather than just having it be a hole in the nations economy that pisses cash into the sand.

Yep, we should harvest energy from whatever sources we can and especially become less dependent on volatile sources/supplies of energy if economic stability is desired. But, naturally, people harvest energy from whatever sources are most economical, and oil happens to be the most economical (At least it was the last time I recalled... I haven't checked recently.). If it so happens that the sand dune people are the largest shareholders of the globe's oil reserves, then that's merely semi-tragic happenstance.
 
dnmun said:
most people here never have to sacrifice for the oil we get. it is the guys in the army and marines getting killed and maimed so we can have access to the oil in the persian gulf.

We would have access to the oil in the gulf anyway. The only difference is who gets to sell it. Those soldiers aren't dying so I can get my oil, they're dying so someone else can make a tidy profit out of it.
 
jonathanm said:
dnmun said:
most people here never have to sacrifice for the oil we get. it is the guys in the army and marines getting killed and maimed so we can have access to the oil in the persian gulf.

We would have access to the oil in the gulf anyway. The only difference is who gets to sell it. Those soldiers aren't dying so I can get my oil, they're dying so someone else can make a tidy profit out of it.
Sellers need buyers. Our young people get killed and maimed so we can maintain 70mph on the freeway in an Escalade.
 
swbluto said:
DrkAngel said:
USA is on track for, importing between $400,000,000,000 & $500,000,000,000 worth of Oil products, during 2011!
About 1/2 Trillion Dollars!

And every slight increase in oil price, drives down the GDP ... as well as the entire economy.
Economics 101: When prices go up, people use less of it. Less oil = less energy = less GDP. The fact that oil itself largely powers the modern physical economy isn't changed by this dynamic.

And of that 1/2 trillion dollars worth of raw economy-powering energy, more than 10 trillion dollars in GDP will be generated!
Worse! Those exported US dollars are used to buy the most profitable US businesses.
We are having our country bought from under us, ... and ... we are financing it!
Buying oil, to power businesses, but selling the businesses, to buy the oil!

On the bright side, the oil exporting countries won't allow the US economy to totally collapse ... that would devalue their share of it!

Oh dear god, don't tell me the Saudis are buying the American businesses from the Japanese that bought up america in the 80's! That can't be! Oh wait, that's right, the Japanese didn't buy up America. 'Twas just a bunch of xenophobic fear mongering that apparently hasn't disappeared. :roll:

Foreign Ownership of US Domestic Industries

"Foreign Ownership of US Domestic Industries

This data comes from IRS (Internal Revenue Service) – Current as of 2002 (latest data available).

Foreign ownership refers to ownership of assets of a particular industry by foreign controlled domestic U.S. Corporations (FDC) 50% or more owned by a foreign entity.
FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF SELECTED U.S. INDUSTRIES

Industry Percentage Foreign Owned
Sound recording industries 97%
Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage 79% (Equals control of "Raw Materials")
Motion picture and sound recording industries 75% (Majority Control of the media)
Metal ore mining 65%
Motion picture and video industries 64% (Majority Control of the media)


Wineries and distilleries 64%
Database, directory, and other publishers 63% (Majority Control of the media)
Book publishers 63% (Majority Control of the media)
Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product 62%
Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment 57%


Rubber product 53%
Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 53%
Plastics and rubber products manufacturing 52%
Plastics product 51%
Other insurance related activities 51%


Boiler, tank, and shipping container 50%
Glass and glass product 48%
Coal mining 48%
Sugar and confectionery product 48%
Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying 47%


Advertising and related services 41% (Control of the media)
Pharmaceutical and medicine 40%
Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products 40%
Securities brokerage 38%
Other general purpose machinery 37%


Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media 36%
Support activities for mining 36%
Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation 32%
Chemical manufacturing 30%
Industrial machinery 30%


Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities 30%
Other food 29%
Motor vehicles and parts 29%
Machinery manufacturing 28%
Other electrical equipment and component 28%


Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities 27%
Architectural, engineering, and related services 26%
Credit card issuing and other consumer credit 26%
Petroleum refineries (including integrated) 25% (Using oil profits to take control of our, in country, refining!? )
Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments 25%


Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 25% (Using oil profits to take control of our domestic oil, and coal, production!?)
Transportation equipment manufacturing 25%
Commercial and service industry machinery 25%
Basic chemical 24%
Investment banking and securities dealing 24%


Semiconductor and other electronic component 23%
Paint, coating, and adhesive. 22%
Printing and related support activities 21%
Chemical product and preparation 20%
Iron, steel mills, and steel products 20%


Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery 20%
Publishing industries 20%
Medical equipment and supplies 20%


FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF MAJOR U.S. INDUSTRIES

Industry Percentage Foreign Owned
Mining 27%
Information 24%
Manufacturing 20%
Professional, scientific, and technical services 20%
Finance and insurance 11%

The IRS no longer publishes this data.

Possibly because it is so frightening?
Almost certainly the "sell out" has progressed much further!

I am not trying to scare anyone "senseless"!
I am ... trying to scare everyone "sensible"!

This country is actually helping finance its own sale! And oil imports are the major factor! We are trading our most profitable businesses and properties for consumable fuel. (Quite literally, "going up in smoke".)

Anything that helps slow this trend must be tried. After enough steps, hopefully, we might have some hope of reversing it.

The greatest danger with a trade imbalance is that, the Dollar should devalue, causing inflation and "recession". It has not declined as far as warranted, indicating that it is being artificially supported. Some might think this to be a good thing, unfortunately, instead, it is primed for a catastrophic collapse.

Sadly, the bright side is that the foreign investors, can't risk the collapse of their US investments, and are probably the ones artificially supporting the US Dollar!

They must keep their US businesses functioning and profitable, sending more money to the owner countries. Bleeding the US dry, as long as there is any life in it.
 
Well, for my 2 cents worth. The world will not 'simply' run out - there will be a big war at the very least. If that happens, there could be gasoline 'shortages' without notice. Infact American BILDERBERGERS have about 5 on their hands already. Most of them are for control of oil rich country's. On the oil front here are some simple figures (and I'm not saying it will happen this way). Current RECOVERABLE oil reserves with our technology = 1.33 trillion barrels of oil. Current global consumption = 85 million barrels per day = about 41 years of oil left. Demand increase exponentially every year & DOUBLES about every 20, but we have already reached peak production, so there will be an increasing gap between supply & demand - hence high prices. Anyway one of the reasons we all have eBikes, is because we are different. If you prepare for the worst, and nothing happens, you haven't really lost anything. If you don't prepare for an emergency, and something happens, you can potentionally loose everything. Hold on to your eBike !
 
Exxon spill highlights gaps in pipeline oversight
AP – 56 mins ago

By GARANCE BURKE - Associated Press, MATTHEW BROWN - Associated Press

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Three weeks after a broken Exxon Mobil pipeline spilled 1,000 barrels of oil into the Yellowstone River, federal officials remain unsure how many pipelines carrying hazardous fuels cross the nation's rivers and streams, nor can they say how deeply those pipelines are buried.

The spill into the Montana river amid historic flooding this month drew attention to what had long been an overlooked part of the nation's energy infrastructure: the presence of pipelines underneath rivers coursing throughout the country. The spill raised concern that other underwater pipelines may have been exposed to debris by high and fast-moving waters that swept much of the U.S. in recent months.

As regulators scramble to gauge what other lines might be at risk, lawmakers from both parties are raising alarms that another spill could be imminent unless the government steps up oversight of the largely self-regulated pipeline industry.

"If we don't know where the (pipelines) are in the ground and how many crossings are under rivers and streams so we can check on them, we're asking for another catastrophe," said U.S. Sen. Jon Tester.

Tester, a Montana Democrat, said he was dismayed that the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration could not immediately provide an inventory of pipeline crossings when he requested the information. "We had massive water this year, make no mistake about that. We need to re-evaluate the impact of those floods on the river crossings," he said.

Pipeline safety officials provided The Associated Press with a preliminary estimate of 35,000 river, stream and lake crossings within the country's half-million-mile network of natural gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines. They said a review of pipeline crossings in the Missouri River basin in Montana and Wyoming is under way and there are plans to expand that effort nationwide.

But the federal government still can't pinpoint exactly where the crossings are, and has no information about additional spots where smaller gas distribution and gathering pipelines traverse streams, said spokesman Damon Hill.

Federal regulations require that pipelines crossing rivers be buried at least four feet underneath most riverbeds. They can be placed at shallower depths if the soil is rocky. There is no requirement for companies to periodically re-evaluate the original depth.

Flooding rivers can scour river bottoms and expose pipelines to powerful water currents and damaging debris. That's the prevailing theory of what happened to Exxon Mobil in Montana although the investigation into the spill is not complete.

At a Thursday hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co. president Gary Pruessing responded to an Associated Press report that external corrosion was found on the Montana pipeline before it ruptured.

Safety regulators said the 1/2-inch steel pipe was 20 percent corroded, which does not require repair under federal rules.

"We have no reason to believe it has anything to do with this incident," Pruessing said. "It was likely an original fabrication issue and was certainly within tolerance."

Exxon Mobil had recently examined the Montana pipeline prior to its July 1 failure in response to local officials' concerns that the river bank was eroding amid violent river flows brought on by a record winter snowpack. Yet when another company with an adjacent natural gas line shut down the line over floodwater concerns, Exxon Mobil did not, a decision the company has since acknowledged was a mistake.

A survey conducted by Exxon Mobil last December indicated its pipeline was buried at least five feet beneath the river bottom.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, said prior to Thursday's hearing that he was concerned current depth requirements did not go far enough, particularly in light of recent accidents. Last year, an Enbridge Inc. pipeline ruptured in Upton's district, spilling more than 800,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River.

"The Yellowstone River incident is disconcerting in that it appears the operator and regulators had properly maintained and inspected the line where it ruptured, yet the spill still occurred," Upton said. "My concern is not that regulators are not doing their job, but rather whether or not the proper regulatory requirements are in place to prevent future incidents."

The pipeline safety agency says operators must protect their lines from damage, no matter the depth.

But pipelines that were built and laid in the ground before 1970 — when major pipeline safety rules went into effect — were allowed to remain at their original depth, even if it was less than four feet. Even now, if pipeline operators repairing their pipes find that some segments are too short to meet the depth requirements, the rules let companies keep those segments buried where they are.

One proposed pipeline that would carry crude oil extracted from western Canada's tar sands to refineries in the U.S would cross water bodies 1,904 separate times, including 389 crossings in Montana, 354 in South Dakota, 160 in Nebraska, 368 in Oklahoma and 633 in Texas.

The Keystone XL project — which would run from Alberta, Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast — has drawn fierce opposition from environmental groups who call it an ecological disaster waiting to happen.

"This pipeline would go through the most productive parts of the Ogallala aquifer, the Sandhills region, where there aren't any other oil pipelines," said Anthony Swift, a policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The water table is at ground level in some of that region, so a spill could cause an instant problem."

Pipeline company TransCanada carefully selected each crossing for the Keystone XL project after weighing possible threats of erosion or the potential for floods to scour the riverbed, said spokesman Terry Cunha.

The company plans to place the pipe 25 feet or more below the riverbed at major river crossings, Cunha said.

The furor over the Yellowstone River spill comes 15 years after an even more damaging flood event in Texas in which eight ruptured pipelines spilled more than 35,000 barrels of oil and oil products into the San Jacinto River. More than 500 people were injured when the oil ignited.

That event spurred the National Transportation Safety Board to push for companies to adopt guidelines on how to deal pipeline crossings on flooded rivers. Those guidelines were adopted in 2005.

Former Conoco Pipe Line Co. president Tom Miesner said the guidelines reinforced the industry's longstanding focus on safety.

"No one wants a leak at all, and some of the most expensive leaks are going to be ones that occur in rivers," said Miesner, now an industry consultant and author.
__
Burke reported from San Francisco.
 
Feds say Yellowstone River cleanup will take more people

By MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press – Fri Jul 22, 6:45 pm ET

BILLINGS, Mont. – Exxon Mobil Corp. will have to bring in more people to mop up oil from a broken pipeline beneath the Yellowstone River as receding floodwaters reveal new contamination, federal officials said Friday.

Also Friday, Montana environmental regulators said the pipeline may have leaked up to 1,200 barrels of oil into the scenic river. That equals 50,400 gallons and is 20 percent higher than prior estimates from Exxon Mobil.

Water levels on the Yellowstone have dropped six feet since the July 1 accident. Hundreds of logjams and debris piles, many coated in a layer of drying crude, now litter its banks and islands.

After burning the piles was rejected by state officials, representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency said Friday that oiled debris will have to be pulled apart, run through wood-chippers and hauled away.

EPA on-scene coordinator Craig Myers said that will take more people than the 750 Exxon Mobil now has in Montana for the spill.

"They're planning on ramping that up in short order," Myers said Friday as he toured an area along the river where dozens of cleanup workers were cutting down oil-fouled trees and plants.

Standing in front of a jumble of weathered wood smeared with crude, Myers said the prevalence of the piles "is going to change how many people Exxon has to get in here to deal with those."

Most of the work to date has been concentrated along a roughly 30-mile stretch of river from the spill site in Laurel downstream to east of Billings. Exxon Mobil spokeswoman Claire Hassett would not say how many more people might be brought in or whether that would speed a cleanup that the EPA wants done by Sept. 9.

"We intend to bring in the resources we need to ensure the cleanup is conducted efficiently and thoroughly," Hassett said.
The investigation into why the pipeline broke could take months to complete, pipeline safety officials have said.

Floodwaters pushed oil deep into back waters and side channels along the river, where trees are now ringed with oil several feet off the ground.

Crews also have found oil on numerous islands along the river. Myers said wood chippers and other equipment would be flown to those islands by helicopter, which would also be used to cart away oiled debris for disposal in out-of-state landfills.

A total number of sites with oil has not been established. Forty-six were found from the air in the first days after the spill. Since then, the government has stopped tallying individual sites, and it hasn't it been able to provide any mileage or acreage estimates for land and shoreline impacted by the spill.

The higher spill volume estimate of 50,400 gallons was based on the state's determination that the pipe did not just have a hole in it but was completely severed, said Mike Trombetta with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

Exxon Mobil did not immediately respond to an inquiry from The Associated Press about the higher volume.

The company this week told the EPA it has finished initial cleanup work on four or the original 46 sites. The Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environmental Quality will assess whether the work was adequate.

State cleanup standards are stricter than federal rules, and DEQ officials say cleanup will continue until the work would do more harm than good to the environment

Also Friday, state officials said fish caught from the Yellowstone between Park City and Custer should not be eaten pending tests for toxins. Fish continue to accumulate oil in their system for about 40 days after oil gets into water, said Bob Gibson with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

Results from tests on fish captured by wildlife agents this week are expected by early August. Those tests are likely to continue through the summer, Gibson said.
 
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/07/201172081613634207.html
The scourge of 'peak oil'

When demand for oil consistently surpasses supply, experts warn that our lives will look "very differently".
Dahr Jamail Last Modified: 25 Jul 2011 13:21


20117208291539621_20.jpg

"We're going to see major changes in industrial civilisation ... anything with a parking lot is going to be in trouble" [EPA]


Energy derived from oil reaches, quite literally, every aspect of our lives.

From the clothes we wear, to the food we eat, to how we move ourselves around, without oil, our lives would look very differently.

Yet oil is a finite resource. While there is no argument that it won't last forever, there is debate about how much oil is left and how long it might last.

Tom Whipple, an energy scholar, was a CIA analyst for 30 years - and believes we are likely at, or very near, a point in history when the maximum production capacity for oil is reached, a phenomenon often referred to as "peak oil".

"Peak oil is the time when the world's production reaches the highest point, then starts back down again," Whipple told Al Jazeera. "Oil is a finite resource, and [it] someday will go down, and that is what the peak oil discussion is all about."

There are signs that peak oil may have already arrived.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently increased its forecast for average global oil consumption in 2011 to 89.5 million barrels per day (bpd), an increase of 1.2 million bpd over last year.

For 2012, the IEA is expecting another increase of 1.5 million bpd for a total global oil consumption of 91million bpd, leaving analysts such as Whipple to question how production will be able to keep up with increasing consumption. Whipple's analysis matches IEA data which shows world oil production levels have been relatively flat for six years.

"This is getting very close to the figure that some observers believe is the highest the world will ever produce," Whipple wrote of the IEA estimate in the July 14 issue of Peak Oil Review. He told Al Jazeera that peak oil could be reached at some point in the next month, or at the latest, within "a few years".

Low-hanging fruit

Marion King Hubbert, a geoscientist who worked at the Shell oil research lab developed the "Hubbert curve", a logistical model that accurately predicted that oil production in the United States would peak between 1965 and 1970.

His model has described fairly accurately the peak and decline of production from oil fields, wells, regions, and countries. According to Hubbert's model, oil production rates will follow a roughly symmetrical distribution curve based on exploitability and market pressures.

Optimists estimate that peak oil production and global availability will decline beginning in 2020 or later, and don't see a crisis happening that would affect major changes in lifestyles of oil-consuming nations.

A study published in the Energy Policy journal, however, predicts that demand will surpass supply by 2015 unless sustained economic recession constrains demand.

The IEA says that production of conventional crude oil already peaked in 2006, and economic indicators show that, through the first two quarters of 2008, the global economic recession was made worse by a series of record oil prices.

Both production and discovery of new oil fields appear now to be relatively stagnant compared with recent decades, and world oil generating levels reached a plateau several years ago, reports the IEA.

Richard Heinberg, author of ten books related to peak oil and its impact on our economic, food, and transportation systems, believes peak oil is a function of the dominant principles of resource extraction.

"Many people believe it's about running out of oil, and it's not," he told Al Jazeera. "It's about finishing off the low-hanging fruit."

Oil is an energy dense, portable resource, and the energy that has been expended finding and extracting it is minute when compared to the energy it produces.

But Heinberg argues that we have likely already reached the maximum production limits for oil.

"Prices are almost at all-time highs, global output of oil has been stagnant for six years, and look at the cost of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico," he said. "The cost of producing oil has increased dramatically in the last decade, both financially as well as the cost to the environment."

Meanwhile, world demand for crude oil grew at nearly two per cent each year between 1994 and 2006. In 2007, global demand peaked at 85.6 million bpd, but decreased in 2008 and 2009 by a total of 1.8 per cent, reportedly due to rising fuel costs.

Despite the lull, world demand for oil is projected by the IEA to increase more than 21 per cent over 2007 levels by 2030, from 86 million bpd to 104 million bpd, due largely to increases in demand from the transportation sector.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, current world oil consumption is approximately 88 million bpd, enough to fill roughly 5,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools each day.

In 2007 the IEA issued a warning in their World Energy Outlook publication: "Although new oil-production capacity additions from greenfield projects are expected to increase over the next five years, it is very uncertain whether they will be sufficient to compensate for the decline in output at existing fields and keep pace with the projected increase in demand."

The report added, "A supply-side crunch in the period to 2015, involving an abrupt escalation in oil prices, cannot be ruled out."

As consumption continues to increase in such major users as China, India, and the US, existing oil fields are being depleted and new discoveries are not keeping apace in order to offset growing demand.

"One thing to remember is that there is global depletion," Whipple said. "If you don't come up with new sources every year, you can't keep up. Wells are going dry daily. World depletion is three to four million barrels less oil available each year in existing fields."

Whipple is blunt about what life will look like in a post-peak oil world.

"You're going to see major changes in industrial civilisation," he said, adding that he expects oil to once again approach $150 per barrel in the next 18 months. "In the US, where we aren't used to paying $10 for a gallon of gas like they do in Germany, that [$150 per barrel of oil] will really slow things down."

He believes discretionary driving will basically stop, and added: "Anything with a parking lot out front is going to be in trouble."

Transportation

Transportation is by far the largest user of oil. In 2006, the transportation sector in the US consumed 68.9 per cent of the total oil used in the country. Fifty-five per cent of worldwide oil use is attributed to transportation, according to the 2005 report Peaking of World Oil Production, created for the US Department of Energy.

A continuing escalation in the price of oil could wreak havoc on current systems of conveyance.

Professor Anthony Perl, Director of the Urban Studies Program at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, says: "Things that can't go on forever, don't."

201172083037463734_20.jpg

Los Angeles highway traffic will likely diminish as fewer people are able to afford to drive [EPA]


"We've built a perpetual motion machine, and act like we'll be able to travel further, faster, and infinitely," said Perl, co-author of Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight Without Oil. "It [peak oil] is a crisis in the sense that someone is going to have to change their expectations about mobility, and the idea that anyone can go anywhere is unlikely to continue. Sooner or later, people are going to start wondering how they will get from place to place without their cars."

Due to rising fuel costs, Perl sees flying becoming less of an option for the global population.

"I tell people to go to their favourite travel website like Expedia, and pick your destination and dates, and hit the fare selector for first class, because that's the price it will be in the future for travelling. And ask yourself if you will make the trip. Flying cheap will no longer exist as an option."

Peak oil's 'open secret'

In March 2010, Oxford University published a report claiming that estimates of conventional oil reserves were inflated by one-third.

The report, headed by Britain's former chief scientist, Sir David King, said it was an "open secret" that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) inflated its reserve figures in the 1980s to claim a larger share of the market, and that official sources, such as the IEA, continue to use these inflated figures.

The Oxford experts said that conventional reserves should be put at 850 billion to 900 billion barrels, instead of 1,150 billion to 1,350 billion. They estimate that supply production will "peak" in about 2014 - that is, demand will outstrip production.

The oil and gas industry disputes the notion of peak oil, arguing that new discoveries can keep up with demand. But the facts appear to counter this viewpoint.

Based on IEA data on the rate of decline in existing reserves, new finds with the equivalent oil of Saudi Arabia's reserves, the largest on Earth, would have to be found every four years just to keep pace.

A report by the UK Energy Research Centre, which reviewed more than 500 research studies, suggests that global oil production could peak at any time from right now to 2030 at the latest.

The lead author of the report, Steve Sorrell, said discovering new fields, like the giant Tiber field in the Gulf of Mexico that was discovered by BP, "will only serve to delay peak oil by a matter of days". He added that, of the 70,000 oil fields on Earth, "just 100 giant fields account for 50 per cent of the oil we use. Most of these giant fields are quite old and past their peak of production, and we're not going to find many new ones."

Life without oil

Professor Michael Bomford, a research scientist at Kentucky State University, said that, in the US, far more energy is used when food leaves the farm than the amount of energy required to grow it.

"The long supply chain with food makes consumers particularly vulnerable to spikes in energy prices," Bomford told Al Jazeera.

Evidence of this is clear.

On June 23 French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged world leaders to take action against the "plague" of food price surges. World food prices have risen 37 per cent in a year, driving 44 million more people into poverty.

Wheat nearly doubled in cost during the past twelve months, as Russia and Ukraine cut exports after droughts decimated crops. The UN estimates nations will spend $1.29 trillion on food imports this year alone, making it the most money spent on imports in one year, and a 21 per cent increase over 2010.

Heinberg believes oil prices are now acting as a cap on global economic activity.

"Every time the economy starts to recover it pushes [the price of] oil up, and then the economy falters," he said, "We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If oil price declines, it is because the economy is in the toilet. Global oil scarcity has triggered the limits to growth scenario and we've seen the last of economic growth as we know it, at least in the US."

According to Whipple, compounding the problem is the likelihood that other resources such as coal and natural gas "are not that far behind" oil in their depletion.

"In 40 to 50 years fossil fuels will not be the predominate source of energy, so you'll learn to get a long with a lot less of it," he said, pointing to the fact that it would likely be that amount of time when peak coal and peak natural gas are reached.

Whipple said that crude oil production has effectively not been growing since 2005, and that while we may not be past peak oil now, he says, "we're on the plateau, but won't be there longer than another year or two. Then we'll see incontrovertible proof of this [peak oil]."

Bomford is hopeful that we will change the way we feed ourselves before diminishing availability of oil creates even greater crises.

"We won't always have access to fossil fuels, and the apocalyptic part is, will we be forced to change from famine and price spikes, will we be able to change before it's forced upon us? One way or another, change is coming."

Follow Dahr Jamail on Twitter: @DahrJamail
Source: Al Jazeera
 
I could care less about gas prices for my transportation. I haven't bought gas in over 2 years. But what scares the sheet out of me is how this is going to effect food and merchandise prices. And even more of a concern is how "the end of oil" will effect production of every day goods such as medical supplies/equipment. Oil is used in some shape or form for just about every item used in modern day life. Without these products, we will see what life was like in the 1800s. Imagine what life would be like without plastic. :shock:
 
Pure said:
Oil is used in some shape or form for just about every item used in modern day life. Without these products, we will see what life was like in the 1800s. Imagine what life would be like without plastic. :shock:

I don't think plastic is going to go away anytime in the next century. It's just chemistry, and we understand that pretty well. The thing about plastic is that one of it's raw materials was really cheap, but there's a good bit of work to turn the raw material into an end product. We already have the chemistry needed to use organic oils, like soy, to make plastic. The big change, at least from the manufacturing side, will just be the cost of some ingredients goes up.

The 'cheapness' of oil is what allowed us to simply burn it for fuel. Synthetic oils are easily affordable for manufacturing needs, but have a long way to go before they are cheap enough to just burn. And as our electric vehicles components continue to become cheaper, synthetic oils may never be cost effective for burning as fuel.

Pure said:
But what scares the sheet out of me is how this is going to effect food and merchandise prices.
Yes, the effect on food prices should scare the living sheet out of you, as well as the remaining 7 billion people on this planet. Face it, in order to feed 7+ billion people, we need 6" of topsoil, regular and moderate rain, cheap fertilizer, and mild temperatures. Every one of these is directly threatened right now. Agriculture will continue, but it can't continue at the current scale at current prices, and it certainly can't grow to support 9 billion people in a few decades. Wealthy countries will end up taking food from poorer locations, and we'll very likely see famine and wars break out as people can't afford food anymore. There's a strong argument that the fall of the Egyptian government this year, as opposed to last year or next year, was triggered by high food prices and a poor population.
 
Shell trying to stop oil spill leak in North Sea
By BEN MCCONVILLE and TOBY STERLING, Associated Press – Thu Aug 18, 2:21 pm ET

EDINBURGH, Scotland – Royal Dutch Shell PLC said Thursday an operation is under way to stop the leak at its Gannet Alpha platform following the worst North Sea oil spill in more than a decade.

About 1,300 barrels of oil has spewed into the sea since a pipeline at Shell's Gannet Alpha platform was found to be leaking Aug. 12, the company said, though it claims that after shutting the well, only one barrel a day is leaking from the installation to control the build up of pressure in the pipeline.

The pipeline at the Gannet Alpha platform, around 110 miles (180 kilometers) east of Aberdeen, Scotland, still contains up to 660 tons, or 4,620 barrels, of crude oil and needs to be stabilized before it can be shut down.

In the first phase of the operation to shut down the leak, engineers have lowered five giant concrete "blankets" on to a stretch of pipeline to place it back on the seabed after it lifted 4 feet (1.2 meters) off the sea floor.

Work is ongoing to lay concrete blankets to secure the pipeline, Shell spokesman Steve Harris said.

"First, we have to make a risk assessment ... to make sure that we can find a safe way to shut it off," he told the BBC. "We expect the result of the risk assessment very quickly and then divers will go down 300 feet (90 meters) and turn off the remaining amount of oil that is leaking into the sea."

Harris added "work is going on so we can move to the second phase." No time-scale for a full shutdown was given.

Shell's director of exploration and production activities in Europe, Glen Cayley, asserted Thursday the company is "making good progress," but has not yet stopped the remaining leak. The leak is on a relief valve on the pipeline. The pipeline is a "flow line" that carries oil away from the well on the ocean floor.

Cayley said after inspections with remote-controlled submarines and divers, the company expects to "finalize our assessment of how best to close the relief valve safely" later Thursday.

The leak created a slick of about 30,000 acres — or 27,000 football fields — at its greatest extent, and the oil company has been criticized by environmental groups for a lack of transparency about the extent of the pollution.

Shell said Thursday the sheen of oil has receded to just 60 acres and will dissipate entirely without reaching shore.

Scottish Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead said he has asked the British government and the company to be more forthcoming with information. On Wednesday, he said damage from the spill to fisheries is expected to be limited, and a single oil-smeared bird has been found so far.

The slick has remained at sea and there have been no repetition of scenes following the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, where sea life and birds were caught in thick red sludge.

Still, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds urged Shell to involve the Scottish government and environmental groups in the British government's investigation of the spill, warning that puffins, razorbills and guillemots on the open seas were at risk.

The organization's Scottish director, Stuart Housden, said the agency wants details of when Shell's infrastructure in the area was laid and how well it has been maintained.

"The inquiry must be broad enough to cover the preparedness and investment needed by government and industry to prevent future occurrences," he said in a statement Thursday.

Richard Dixon, director of the World Wildlife Fund Scotland, said the oil is toxic if ingested and could harm marine life and mammals.
"It is hard to understand why they took so long to be open about what is happening given what happened to BP in the Gulf of Mexico," he said.
"The public has a right to know what is going on and need confidence in the organization instead of this culture of secrecy."

Dixon said birds and sea life would be damaged by the toxic slick and predicted heavy oil has come to rest on the seabed.

Harris said contingency plans were in place in case of further spillage including planes loaded with detergent ready to tackle a bigger slick.

Kim Blomley, Shell's spokesman in London, said the company has "tried to be as open as is reasonable and possible, given the situation." He pointed to daily media updates and the company's Twitter feed.

The last major spill in the North Sea occurred in 1993, when the oil tanker MV Braer ran aground in the Shetland Islands, spilling around 620,000 barrels of crude into the sea.
___
Toby Sterling reported from Amsterdam.
 
Honestly this stuff gives me pause- my career right now is in IT, I have 3 boys all under 9- We have bicycles and a garden- I want to place myself and my family to be in a place where we can succeed in a world where gas is $10+ a gallon. My focus right now is on food and transportation, I'd like to have several electric bicycles and a functioning electric car with in the next few years. I believe the price to create these will go up significantly with demand by 2016-2020. This does bring to mind security needs to protect these investments as well. We currently live in the city- which has its advantages and disadvantages, both my wife and I easily work within bicycle distance (or even walking distance in the case of my Wife) from work. But we don't have much land for any significant farming efforts beyond basic backyard gardening. I tend to think my local community will be one that will grow closer through this change, but I could be wrong.

I know this is nothing compared with the survivalists out there. But honestly I don't think civilization in the first world will blow up overnight as some of the more paranoid amongst us do.

I try to take a realistic approach to my predictions on how this will change how we function and how progress as a society. I have given up on our ability to be adults in the US and deal with this proactively. I believe our hands will have to be forced and the "fix" will be far more costly as a result.

What are some good common sense ways that you are either preparing or altering your current lifestyle to position yourself for success (or at least to minimize the pain)?
 
CO2 Level ... Global Warming ... Climate Change - facts, figures, explanations ... via NASA!

evidence_CO2.jpg


Great as a reference for Global Warming - Climate change discussions

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Over the past 650,000 years, CO2 have varied from about 180 to peaks near 280 ppm.
Present day, CO2 has exceeded 380 ppm ... 200% ... higher than any previous variance!
And CO2 levels are still increasing! .... Every barrel of oil, ton of coal or 100cfm of natural gas, making it worse.
 
Now they just need to prove that higher CO2 levels are directly causing global warming, global cooling, El Nino, rising sea levels, floods, droughts or whatever this week's disaster is.

I'm not saying it's not, but there's a lot of BSing about, I prefer scientific rigour.
 
Nothing is ever proven. Science just verifies hypotheses to the point that denying their correctness makes a denyer seem anachronistic.

Has climate change been proven? If you start reading articles from Google scholar, High Wire Press, etc. there is an awful lot of similar conclusions, and supporting data. Rigour starts at home. Unfortunately, many are not as scientifically minded as the ES crowd, and simply reject things because they don't match their political viewpoint, without even reading scientific articles.

I think this subject is important enough to warrent a little extra attention prior to making up ones mind.

My only problem with the whole argument, is that it can sometimes be difficult for me to see a way out. We are changing the climate, but can we really stop? If the changing climate doesn't get us, will the social disorder of battling it get us? I, however, am still an optomist (short term).
 
Sancho's Horse said:
Nothing is ever proven. Science just verifies hypotheses to the point that denying their correctness makes a denyer seem anachronistic.

I'm not sure a semantic or philosophical debate about the concept "scientific proof" has much relevance to the topic under discussion?

If a scientific consensus has been reached, with a vanishingly small uncertainty, about the things I mentioned then I'd be delighted to hear of it! As far as I am aware, even general agreement is a fair way off yet.
 
Back
Top