I've been saying it since about 1996, i should invest in oil..
maybe build a huge tank in my backyard.

but i never did it. I just recieved an email confirming my long held views on oil.

[I include the sender's remarks at top; he's Jason Keehn, the rave promoter and enthusiast. This line of reasoning is developed at length by Richard Heinberg in his new book (mentioned by JK). He used data from "everywhere", American geologists, oil industry folks, etc., to kind of triangulate a best guess between everybody's optimistic/pessimistic scenarios. He put "the end" in the next few (5-10) years. The point being, we are yes at 'the peak', and all the rest of the oil is too expensive to get out of the ground, basically. His last two chapters (done in his newsletter series, MuseLetter) are called "Managing the Collapse" (parts one and two). He begins his closing remarks by saying, 'stand in a city, your city, and look around at everything for a few minutes; realize how every single thing there has depended upon oil (gas) for transportation etc. Now remove the oil/gas....']




==============================================================



This is very bleak, but as far as I can figure out, it's the truth. FTW has
been predicting this situation for a few years now. Not to mention Richard
Heinberg, whose new book, The Party's Over, is just out. Buy your Prius
now, while you've got a chance. Buy a bike. Invest in gold maybe, or better
yet, some out of the way nook where you don't have to travel very far for
food... Prepare for a massive depression if US invades Iraq, and maybe one
anyway... and pray that Steven Greer's brand new free energy gizmo is more
than just hype... oil is peaking. . . [on the other hand, feb.14 was a bit
of a miracle--any more scheduled soon?]

---------------------

What, Me Worry?
Dis-Integration
by Michael C. Ruppert

Feb. 28 2003, 1200 PST (FTW) -- So many emails. So many people worried and
confused. So many people acting as if it doesn't make sense.
Yes, there's good reason to be confused. Israeli Foreign Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's nephew refuses to be drafted while his uncle all but threatens
to attack Belgium for its OK to prosecute Ariel Sharon for war crimes when
he leaves office. NATO is, or will soon be, dead. France, Germany and
Russia are sponsoring a Security Council resolution to prevent what France
has called "an illegitimate war". Turkey, with 85% of its people opposing
the invasion, is extorting the U.S. blind as budget deficit projections
leave orbit. Ari Fleischer is hysterically laughed out of the White House
Press room by reporters after insisting with a straight face that George W.
Bush would never bribe another country for a vote. Americans are renaming
French fries as Liberty fries while the larger powers Germany and Russia
... who make France's stance credible - stand back and let France take both
the heat - et la gloire!
Aside from the tense laughter over words we have real threats. In Colombia,
FARC guerillas shoot down a CIA contract plane; kill one occupant and hold
three others hostage while President Bush uses statutory authority to send
150 more Green Berets to follow the 70 he just sent. North Korea is having
the time of its life cutting business deals with China and Seoul while
using its possibly one nuclear weapon to make the U.S. divert bombers and
elements of the 1st Air Cavalry away from the Gulf. In the Philippines Abu
Sayyaf rebels have prompted the U.S. to commit 1,700 more troops to take an
active role in the fighting. And the U.S. is now sending 10,000 troops to
the Dominican Republic for a training exercise that looks much more like
preparation for intervention in either Venezuela or Colombia.
The Lilliputians know how to deal with Gulliver and Gulliver is having a
real hard time.
What of Bush himself? The Washington Post tells us that U.S. embassies
around the globe are inundating Washington with cables saying that the
world both hates and mistrusts this "dry drunk", megalomaniac who would be
laughable except for the fact that he represents a power structure as
demented as he is. As if to go Tony Blair ... who recently plagiarized a
graduate research paper to compile his sensitive intelligence dossier on
Iraq ... "one better", George W. recently cited figures to support his tax
cut from a report that doesn't exist. He was caught in that lie by
NewsDay's James Toedtman. And retired Air Force Chief of Staff Tony McPeak
is publicly saying on a Portland, Oregon TV station that Bush should admit
he's made a mistake and that, as far as Iraq is concerned, "I regard the
nuclear threat as zero. I regard the connection between Saddam and al-Qaida
as less than zero."
As The Sydney Herald tells us that 114 countries are urging the United
States to back down from the invasion Capitol Hill Blue is reporting that
senior Bush advisors are quietly trying to find a way out of war with Iraq
now that they have realized that it is a no-win situation.
"What's happening? We don't get it!"
You would if you had been listening to what we have been saying for
eighteen months. Peak Oil is here. The world is starting to run out. There
is no more oil to find and what's left can't be put into your gas tank or
our power generating stations quickly. Global production capacity is
stretched like a rubber band about to break and the slightest hiccup in
world oil production will crash the global economy like a Styrofoam cup
under an elephant's foot at a Rave party. Don't believe me? Well then
perhaps recent warnings by Goldman Sachs and James Baker might. Those
warnings, and an incredibly precise economic analysis by Marshall Auerback,
were recently published by The Prudent Bear at:
http://www.prudentbear.com/archive_...International+P
erspective&content_idx=20368.
To make it simple, the problem is this: In spite of microscopic fig leaves
stating that OPEC will ramp up production to meet oil needs, the fact is
that OPEC just can't do it. Goldman Sachs knows it. James Baker knows it.
Bush knows it. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, having survived U.S. coup attempts,
now holds a "whip hand" as Venezuelan production still lags behind. Saudi
Arabia is unstable. Nigeria, the world's sixth largest producer ... just
had an oil strike. Its production is down and every other producing
facility is on overtime. In the latest issue of FTW we poke yet another
hole in the grand illusion about an Iraqi windfall. It may take two to five
years and as much as $50 billion in new investment to increase Iraqi
production from two to five million barrels a day as the rest of the
world's reserves dry up.
The planet is currently consuming a billion barrels of oil every 12 days.
Peak Oil is here now. What difference does it make if Saudi Arabia and OPEC
might be able to add five million barrels a day? It's who gets it that
matters.
Worse, countries like India and Pakistan have announced a version of panic
buying to build up their reserves before the war. This places a further
strain on production capacity. With the invasion, if the Iraqi supply is
interrupted for just a month then the markets will see the light and there
will be a capitulation sell-off on Wall Street that might take the Dow down
to 4000. Ten million could be unemployed inside of six months. U.S.
reserves are at 27 year lows and the administration is prepared to open up
our Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) which can sustain the US for about
75 days. Tap into the SPR and what do you think prices will do? And if
prices double or triple what do you think will happen to your job? Your
checkbook?
Gas prices have not yet begun to rise. This is what FTW has been saying
since October of 2001. There may soon come a day when we will all look back
on $2 gas the way I look back on the 28 cent premium gas I bought in 1969.
Now think for a moment what happens if the U.S. backs down, as I think it
should. 36% of all the proven recoverable reserves in the world are in Iraq
and Saudi Arabia. Not all oil reserves are recoverable. Only lunatics
believe that wells, pipelines and refineries are already in place and paid
for in the smaller fields that have not been developed. A perceived
American power vacuum would unleash a polite, at first, but ultimately
frantic, scramble for Saudi and Iraqi oil in the full knowledge that
whoever loses out will be the first civilization to collapse; the first of
many.
Yes, it all makes perfect sense.
Michael C. Ruppert
Editor / Publisher
From The Wilderness Publications

This article gives the full background: US Intentions
- A Sobering Look at the Oil Numbers Behind the U.S. Panic to Invade Iraq
- Bush Knew of Peak Oil Before Taking Office
- Natural Gas Picture Worsens

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr...ntegration.html

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Saudi promises oil in event of war Tuesday, March 11, 2003 Posted: 8:47 AM EST (1347 GMT) VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia has promised that the world will not run short of oil in the event of a war with Iraq. Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said Tuesday his country -- the world's biggest exporter -- had enough spare capacity to pump more oil should Iraq's 1.7 million barrels a day be threatened, despite calls from other members not to open taps further. "We will make sure there is enough oil in the market," al-Naimi told reporters before a meeting of the cartel in Vienna. "There will be no shortage." The world market requires 77 million barrels a day and fears of a war and loss of Baghdad's oil supplies could push the price of oil to crippling levels. NYMEX-traded U.S. crude has been trading at $37.40 barrels. Prices remain not far from a record $41-a-barrel set during the 1990 -1991 Gulf crisis. Al-Naimi said fears over war was to blame for the sharp rise in oil prices, not a shortage of supply. "Eliminate the drums of war and you will have the price where it should be," he said. Iran, a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, has said it will oppose any move to formally suspend output limits. The 10-nations, excluding Iraq, pump 24.5 million barrels a day. Iran said Monday it would oppose any bid by Western-friendly OPEC states to impose a policy that Tehran says implies support for a U.S. attack against Baghdad, by controlling fuel costs. "Iran will not back politically motivated decisions," Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh told the official IRNA news agency in Tehran. OPEC should not adopt any policy that implies support for a "U.S. military assault against one of OPEC's member states," he said. Other OPEC members, although they don't want the formal output quotas suspended, are content to let those with spare capacity to supply more oil. Talks on a policy began at 1200 GMT and any deal will be ratified at a formal gathering scheduled for 1500 GMT. "It doesn't really matter what OPEC decides officially,'' Gary Ross of New York consultancy PIRA Energy told Reuters. "Saudi Arabia has made its policy clear. They've told customers they won't allow a shortage.'' Saudi Arabia already has lifted daily production to more than nine million barrels -- just short of its 10.5 million bpd capacity. It hopes to convince the United States and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the group that coordinates consumer country strategic stocks, that it can compensate for war stoppages without the need for a drawdown from emergency reserves.

Sorry, occrider, but this is fool's gold.

The world's oil reserves are running out, and one day there won't be oil. This is incontestable. Not admitting this is as good as sticking your head in the sand. Having Saudi Arabia increase their oil production only serves to accelerate this process.

It's really unfortunate that the world depends so much on oil. I dread the consequences of the massive oil shortage. Crises, depressions, and wars will certainly break out, worldwide. You betcha.

OK...think of it in this extremely simplified way.

There is oil in the world.
The amount of oil is not infinite, as the world is not infinite.
Oil does not "replenish."
Oil production/extraction is proceeding (and excalating) daily at extremely high rates.
Ergo, the oil will run out.

No more oil = no more civilization. I bet there is no way any of you can just close your eyes and listen for a second to the noise around you without hearing a car passing by in the distance. Or two, or three... Or maybe a plane. Or truck.

JohnSmith, great thread! We need the wake-up call that even if certain nations are coveting oil deposits in a certain Middle Eastern country, the acquisition of this oil is fundamentally not going to solve anything.

You know what, I just thought of this after posting the above.

When faced with this oil crisis, countries that consume the most oil (mainly western ones) should actually step down their oil useage. There is no other way to avert crisis. Alternative energy sources are on the rise, but oh so painfully slowly.

And spare us the nuclear energy! That's even worse than oil!

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Sorry, occrider, but this is fool's gold.

I never said that we had unlimited supplies of oil. I merely posted that article with respects to the short term oil supply. Anyway the situation may be less bleak than the article implies. Keep in mind 90% of the Earth's oceans are unexplored. And water covers 70% of the planet. It's likely that there are very lucrative supplies of oil underneath the ocean although it will be expensive to extract. At any rate there are also large desposits in Siberia that are relatively unexplored or untapped at the current moment. Anyway that still leads us back to the original problem that oil will run out eventually but there are currentely a lot of alternative energy sources under development. No they are not mainstream at the current moment but we will adapt to find a way ... it's not like we're gonna be sitting on our asses waiting for things to roll to a stop. I envision that as gas and oil prices rise, there will be a strong technological drive to make alternative fuel engines and eventually drive down those costs to the consumer. As for one very futuristic energy source, one theory is to place solar collectors in orbit or on the moon. Even with 3% efficiency of these collectors, a massive amount of energy can be beamed back to Earth through microwaves. Not exactly sure of the details since I read the article a while ago. At any rate cost is again a barrier. But I think in due time we will make massive efforts to find an energy source other than oil.

And what is so wrong with nuclear power? I'm sure it produces far less pollution than coal, or oil based power plants.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I never said that we had unlimited supplies of oil. I merely posted that article with respects to the short term oil supply. Anyway the situation may be less bleak than the article implies. Keep in mind 90% of the Earth's oceans are unexplored. And water covers 70% of the planet. It's likely that there are very lucrative supplies of oil underneath the ocean although it will be expensive to extract.

And therein lies the rub. I think that it will be astronomically expensive to extract this oil, especially in the areas of the ocean that are incredibly deep. And as more and more oil runs out, we will have to go deeper and deeper. Who knows what kinds of risks will be present? Indeed, the ocean is the #1 most dangerous element for mankind, closely followed by space. No one can claim that they know all about the ocean and how it works. There are many unknowns, there is still a lot of research being done. Digging for oil there would be inherently risky.

quote:

At any rate there are also large desposits in Siberia that are relatively unexplored or untapped at the current moment. Anyway that still leads us back to the original problem that oil will run out eventually but there are currentely a lot of alternative energy sources under development.

This is actually my main and only hope (the alternative energy). See my comments below.

quote:

No they are not mainstream at the current moment but we will adapt to find a way ... it's not like we're gonna be sitting on our asses waiting for things to roll to a stop. I envision that as gas and oil prices rise, there will be a strong technological drive to make alternative fuel engines and eventually drive down those costs to the consumer.

This is assuming that the oil run-out will occur gradually, which is actually most likely to happen. I just hope that people will realize this and, as you've said, push for more development in the alternative energy field, rather than seeing more "hero states" like Saudi Arabia saying they will up their production even more.

quote:

As for one very futuristic energy source, one theory is to place solar collectors in orbit or on the moon. Even with 3% efficiency of these collectors, a massive amount of energy can be beamed back to Earth through microwaves. Not exactly sure of the details since I read the article a while ago. At any rate cost is again a barrier. But I think in due time we will make massive efforts to find an energy source other than oil. And what is so wrong with nuclear power? I'm sure it produces far less pollution than coal, or oil based power plants.

Nuclear power is just pretty darn dangerous. Think Chernobyl. Think of the radiation leaks etc. You can't keep something like that under wraps for good. But above all - think of the waste! This is the main reason I'm opposed to nuclear power. National Geographic had a great article on this a few months ago - it was certainly an eye-opener! The US has mountains of the stuff! (nuclear waste, that is)

What I'd like to bring up as my main hope is Nuclear Fusion which, by the way, has much more potential (as far as energy output is concerned) than nuclear fission (think A-bomb vs. H-bomb... actually, don't think of this, both of those are bad). I did a lot of research on this topic a few years ago in high school, so I'm aware of the developments. To my understanding, Fusion development is in a relatively advanced stage. The only real problem now is bringing down the cost, and achieving "engineering breakthrough" (I *think* that's the term) - that is, having a reactor produce more energy than the energy required to keep it operational.

There are many fusion projects worldwide, for example CERN. And another awesome benefit - all you need is water! Granted, it's not that easy, you need a special isotope, but it's not impossible nor impractical. Also there are no risks whatsoever. To keep the fusion process going, you need the energy to keep the plasma heated at incredibly high temperatures. If a reactor failure were to occur, there would be no "meltdown" - indeed, the reactor would simply stop working. The gas would instantly cool. It's like having boiling water. You must constantly apply heat to keep water boiling. As soon as you withdraw the energy, the water cools. Same thing with nuclear fusion. There's no BOOM. (Thankfully)

Anyway, there are also many other alternatives, mainly wind power and some - admittedly extravagant - rarer ones such as the solar power solution you mentioned. All in all it remains to be seen if humans will demonstrate the wisdom necessary to let go of the oil before it gets critical.

(As a refutation of the last sentence, there are even signs today of such happenings! All the interest in renewable resources, and companies such as Honda producing hybrid and even electric cars, is really admirable. I hope the trend continues.)

ask the folks who live around Yucca Mountain what's wrong with nuclear power.

I prefer things without a government spin on them though, Here's what the People of Nevada Have To say: http://www.citizenalert.org/yucca/intstor2.html

Or maybe you could ask the people who died in chernobyl? How about the thousands of malformed children with cancer in iraq caused by depleted uranium? Or the scores of US soldiers who came down with gulf war syndrome which the govt denies having any connection with DU munitions, despite proof that there is in fact a correlation.

Nuclear Power, while it may seem an option, is even worse.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith ask the folks who live around Yucca Mountain what's wrong with nuclear power. I prefer things without a government spin on them though, Here's what the People of Nevada Have To say: http://www.citizenalert.org/yucca/intstor2.html Or maybe you could ask the people who died in chernobyl? How about the thousands of malformed children with cancer in iraq caused by depleted uranium? Or the scores of US soldiers who came down with gulf war syndrome which the govt denies having any connection with DU munitions, despite proof that there is in fact a correlation. Nuclear Power, while it may seem an option, is even worse.

Well granted it sucks to live around Yucca mountain but when you take an abstract look at pollution, I think that coal, and oil plants produce far more pollution and pose a greater threat to the environment than nuclear waste. Simply based on the scale of waste that is produced. With regards to your second argument you're arguing about the military applications of nuclear power. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about nuclear power as a power source. With regards to Chernobyl and 3 mile island, yes they were terrible incidents caused by poor management of the plants but by today's standards there are a lot more safety precautions in place. My argument is that yes they produce horrible waste but the waste from fossil fuel burning plants are worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode This is assuming that the oil run-out will occur gradually, which is actually most likely to happen. I just hope that people will realize this and, as you've said, push for more development in the alternative energy field, rather than seeing more "hero states" like Saudi Arabia saying they will up their production even more.

I think this will happen. Oil is not going to spontaneously run out one day with nobody the wiser. As oil supplies become scarcer the price of gasoline will continue to rise and eventually consumers and businesses will be cost driven to find alternative sources.