Mega Disasters: Oil Apocalypse

[escapee]

Of all the major apocalypse prediction made in the past, the following is the most believable in my humble opinion. Are you ready for this upcoming major event ? ( I'm not )

YouTube - Mega Disasters: Oil Apocalypse

Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash

Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, bankers, and investors in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global "Peak Oil."

YouTube - Matt Simmons on Peak Oil (CNBC)

Matt Simmons :" Peak oil will replace global warming as the main issue by 2008-2009";

[WanderingOak]

As we have already seen, we don't need a 'Saudi 911' to make fuel prices go haywire. Any difficulties with oil production or distribution, either natural or man made, will cause prices to skyrocket even further. People will start to panic the way they did after Katrina and Rita.


The physical restriction of the world's fuel resources combined with current financial shenanigans are going to make for some very interesting times over the next few years. How we react to these setbacks is going to determine what kind of world we will be living in afterwards. We could be living in a localized, solar and wind powered 'green utopia', or the US could wind up being a dystopian nightmare that would make modern third world nations look downright luxurious by comparison.

[schola]

Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, bankers, and investors in the world

That is how you know if it is BS or not. If it is all over the media and all of the top so-and-sos are behind it, it's BS.
If you have never heard of it in the mainstream media, it is legit.

Global Warming? Media won't shut up about it. Al Gore. United Nations. - BS

War on Terror? Media won't shut up about it. George Bush. - BS

Peak Oil? Discovery Channel specials. News articles - BS

Barack Obama - Media darling. - BS

Imminent Economic Collapse? Ben Bernanke says everything is fine. Every pencil neck on CNBC says the market is going to turn around any second now - Legit

North American Union and One World Government - Huh? Never heard of it. What the hell are you talking about? - Legit

Ron Paul - Who the hell is he? - Legit

Hope this helps.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by schola

Global Warming? Media won't shut up about it. Al Gore. United Nations. - BS

If you don't mind, could you outline specifically what aspects of Global Warming are BS?

[schola]

That post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

The point is, any issue that is so heavily reported on by the media and politically charged should be treated very skeptically.

Anthropomorphic global warming is such an issue. The media intentionally only reports one side. There is big money and politics fueling both sides of the debate, although you might only be familiar with the money on one side. That is intentional too.

We're living in the Matrix.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Thanks for the clarification. I was ready to start a new thread to discuss whether or not global warming exists.

[schola]

I don't like debating subjects when I haven't deeply researched the issue. That happens a lot on internet forums.

But even though I try to stay out it still happens to me quite often.

Feel free to make a thread if you want though. I'll probably chime in with some of the things that I do know about global warming.

In my opnion, the only thing the layman can do with an issue like global warming is to look at who is pushing a the issue, who is denying it, the motivators for each, and the history. Leave the science for the scientists.

There are people who have a lot to gain not if global warming and peak oil are true but if people believe they are true. That is why I am skeptical.

[escapee]

You said that imminent economic collapse is "legit" but Peak oil is "BS" ?

YouTube - Oil Hits New Record!!! PEAK OIL + SEXY Dancing / Strip

[Gabo]

If we run out of oil, we will make do with other stuff.
Already there is a huge expansion of alternative fuels and energies due to the rising prices of oil. Imagine if oil prices triple or quadruple due to peak oil. Electric cars would be the norm within a few years.

[coollikeme]

to me. Talk about pushing an agenda. Maybe if we drill are own oil, we would not have to count on the Saudis. We do have reserves in case you did not know. The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!

[escapee]

Folks , we have a peak oil, demand exceeding a fixed supply of oil ( due to Peak oil ) and an incessant PAPER money growth by CBs all over the world to "STIMULATE ECONOMY GROWTH" that's so heavily dependent on oil. What will it mean to our future ( or more precisely, the price of black gold ? )

Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash

In short, the so called "alternatives" to oil are actually "derivatives" of oil. Analyst John Michael Greer offers the following rather lucid explanation of this often over-looked relationship:go down while cost begins to go up.

. . every other energy source currently used in modern societies gets a substantial "energy subsidy" from oil. The energy used in uranium mining and reactor construction, for example, comes from diesel rather than nuclear power, just as sunlight doesn’t make solar panels. What rarely seems to have been noticed is the way these "energy subsidies" intersect with the challenges of declining petroleum production to [preemptievely sabotage] the future of alternative energy production in industrial societies.The Archdruid Report: The Paradox of Production


Without an affordable supply of oil coupled with healthy and robust financial markets to capitalize the transition, a non-chaotic adaptation phase is unlikely as the raw materials and investment capital necessary to fuel such a large-scale transition will have evaporated.

YES! THE SKY IS FAILING, THE SKY IS FAILING.

If you have not planted your own food and herbs, the time is now ...

[escapee]

We are set to drill more oil in 2009 and 2010, more than we have ever drilled.

Even AWNR will only provide a maximum of 1.2 million per barrels per day, short of 13 million barrels to support the energy usage of US ( US produces 5 millions barrel per day and uses 20 million barrels a day). It will certainly be helpful in time of crisis but definitely not at the current consumption rate. I don't know how anybody can be optimistic about future once you fully understand peak oil, population growth, our dependency on oil to produce the so called "alternatives" and the current monetary system predicated on growth.

US oil production peaked in 1970 and has since in declining mode( 10 million bs - > 5 million bs, may add another 1.2 m with ANWR )

Global oil production peaked in 2005-06.

The end of our current oil-powered lavish lifestyle may be imminent. We have underestimated our planet's ability to heal itself ( pollution, global warming and et c) through resource limitation. population shall be reduced significantly by 2030 if the chart is accurate ( e = energy/population )

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf...o/xvi-2-93.pdf

[ThoughtAddict]

The question about peak oil is not one of if... it is one of when.

Credible estimates vary to the tune of 150 years difference. Some put the peak several years ago. CERA and Exxon put it around 2040. Many credible studies see a plateau that we are at the beginning of which will last 15-30 years. At the end of the plateau, there will be a drop as production is unable to keep up with demand. The ultimate result is skyrocketing prices.

The definition of "peak oil" is different from source to source. There are myriad variables which can change the forecast.

The central truth is that we have to find a way to reduce demand before the bottom falls out, or we will have serious, serious problems. World War size problems. We cannot increase supply to meet demand. The current US debate over drilling is a heated response being driven by oil companies to open up land and increase profits. It is unlikely to have a significant impact on US gas prices. The central reason for this is that the markets are global. The oil companies have no problem drilling in the US and selling to China. It is likely that they would end up doing so with wells in the US, as BP did with offshore drilling and Asian markets.

See The Oil Drum | Peak Oil - Whom to Believe? Part One - "There's Plenty of Oil, CERAiously" and theoildrum.com generally for educated discussion on peak oil and oil prices.
See Hill Heat : Drilling for Answers on Oil and Gas Prices, Profits, and Alternatives for insight on how the oil companies think. The Exxon representative especially seems utterly unconcerned with anything other than pushing an agenda for higher profits through increased access to US oil supplies.

[machoman]

I thought of starting a thread on this topic but decided not to after seeing this thread...

So people living in 2011, what do you say?? I don't know whether to believe "peak oil crisis" or "peak oil debunked".

[AlmostGodess]

Is it possible to discuss important matters without calling them "disasters" and "mega-disasters"? If the event is already qualified as a disaster, what's the point talking about it?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Is it possible to discuss important matters without calling them "disasters" and "mega-disasters"? If the event is already qualified as a disaster, what's the point talking about it?

The word disaster is by no means an indication of closure. Once disaster strikes, recovery must be initiated. Peak oil will be disastrous to society if we do not wean ourselves off of oil. According to numerous experts peak oil already happened and the turmoil we are seeing currently is the fallout from that.

As far as events that haven't happened yet, we talk about them in order to potentially prevent their possibility of occurance or to circumvent what would be the next sequential step in a downward spiral toward disaster.

Is it just the word 'disaster' that bothers you?

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Is it just the word 'disaster' that bothers you?

Yes. I hate the mornings when I open the newspapers and I see the word disaster in the headlines. I still don't know what happened, but I already know how I should think about that event.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Yes. I hate the mornings when I open the newspapers and I see the word disaster in the headlines. I still don't know what happened, but I already know how I should think about that event.

So you're saying you resist the notion that anything should be considered disastrous or you're saying there's something wrong with the media grabbing public attention by using words like 'disaster'? What about if the word is sufficient to describe the event?

I'm just not following your reasoning to be honest

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

So you're saying you resist the notion that anything should be considered disastrous or you're saying there's something wrong with the media grabbing public attention by using words like 'disaster'? What about if the word is sufficient to describe the event?

I'm just not following your reasoning to be honest

I am saying that I would like to read news that allow me to qualify events myself. This stands both for past events and for future events.

"Disaster"=panic and loss of power. I do not see how panic and feeling one has no power can contribute to finding rational solutions to any problem.

[James Fletcher]

What I find amusing is that this thread was started back in 2008; years before this, most of the peak oil alarmists had predicted that by this time the internet would be nothing more than a legend to pass on to future generations of raggedy children, and that computers would be nothing but fancy collections of scrap metal.

So you're saying you resist the notion that anything should be considered disastrous or you're saying there's something wrong with the media grabbing public attention by using words like 'disaster'? What about if the word is sufficient to describe the event?

It's sufficient to sell newspapers and whatever major network sponsors are advertising.

[Cado]

The system is not as fragile as people make it out to be. That doesn't mean we won't run out of oil but that environmental destruction due to the drilling/use of fossil fuels is a much bigger concern.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Cado

The system is not as fragile as people make it out to be. That doesn't mean we won't run out of oil but that environmental destruction due to the drilling/use of fossil fuels is a much bigger concern.

Very true. The system is fragile, but we already have alternatives and there's bound to be more: energy may be temporarily more expensive, perhaps, but there will not be roving gangs of cannibals.

In the meantime we're on a mad dash to effing things up for the last profitable bit of black gold. See the Alberta tar sands.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

I am saying that I would like to read news that allow me to qualify events myself. This stands both for past events and for future events.

"Disaster"=panic and loss of power. I do not see how panic and feeling one has no power can contribute to finding rational solutions to any problem.

You make a good point but it's you choosing to give the word that power over your capacity to finding rational solutions. To me it's just a word, a word that usually invites solutions. I think for that reason calling something a disaster can be certainly useful.

If you had a newspaper column I'd read it though

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

In the meantime we're on a mad dash to effing things up for the last profitable bit of black gold. See the Alberta tar sands.

Did you know that some of the birds flying over the AB tar sands will just drop dead? Some of the tar sand projects have to use... erm... lets say 'noise machines' for lack of a better word... in order to repel the birds away.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Did you know that some of the birds flying over the AB tar sands will just drop dead? Some of the tar sand projects have to use... erm... lets say 'noise machines' for lack of a better word... in order to repel the birds away.

No, I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me. I did hear it was contaminating the water of several aboriginal communities down stream from that to the point where they had enormous cancer rates.

[ZephyrusX]

Yah, there is that too. If I recall correctly, AB is the most polluted province in Canada despite having a smaller population than Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The oil sands also use a lot of fresh water in order to extract the oil, which contributes to water shortages in remote locations (though to be far, there are other industries that take up a lot of water), which puts strain on small, local farmers.

The thing that annoys me the most though is that the Klein and Stelmach governments contributed very little money to a fund that was suppose to diversify the economy so that we can prosper in a post-oil economy. I grew up in Ontario where the economy largley revolved around the auto-industry. When that went down hill, a lot of people lost their jobs. Is the same thing going to happen to AB in the distant future? Hopefully not. Probably not. But seriously, wake the **** up AB politicans!

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

No, I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me. I did hear it was contaminating the water of several aboriginal communities down stream from that to the point where they had enormous cancer rates.