Slashdot Mirror

we're running out of oil faster than anyone wants to admit.

Things look pretty bad based on that report. Per capita oil production starts a nose dive this year.

The problem is that the sites I found say that report is wrong.

I probably shouldn't bother replying to this AC, but someone might have believed him.

We will run into an oil shortage, but we still have some time to develop alternatives.

-

funny thing is, we're running out of oil faster than anyone wants to admit. Its also interesting that Saudi Arabia has more than 1/4 of all the worlds reserves, Nort America is quickly going to run out even if we start digging up our parkland. So seeing as oil is the most important thing in the world we better start sucking up to Saudi Arabia, theyve kinda got our nuts in a vice.

Humor me for a second while we're on the subject of "Big Oil". For the moment, accept the following, or peruse the following links until satisfied:

1. Industrialized society is absolutely dependent on oil.
2. There are no conventional rewewable energy sources that can replace oil.
3. World peak production of oil will occur in the next 10 years.

Industrialized society will collapse and billions will starve trapped inside a system that cannot support them. The horrifying truth is that this future is more acceptable to the powers that be than the alternative. Like people trapped in a gas chamber (industrial world) the oxygen (oil) is running out and the strong (rich) are on the top getting the last few gasps crushing the people below them. The few would rather have billions die than risk losing control. For most educated people presented with these ideas the situation would appear hopeless. Here we are at the beginning of the 21st century addicted to a drug that is both destroying our environment and enslaving us, yet absolutely essential for continued survival. And the supply is running out never to be replaced. Perhaps the end of civilization will mirror the collapse of a star, burning progressively heavier nuclei in a futile attempt to stave off gravitational collapse. Indeed this outcome would be easier to accept than alternative. The "alternative" requires you to accept a new and shocking paradigm summed up in the following statement:

* Closed systems do not exist.

Everything in the universe is freely exchanging energy at all times. The challenge is to figure out how to channel and direct this energy. This problem was solved by Nicola Tesla (and many others) but supressed or simply ignored by the mainstream. The Western mind only sees what it EXPECTS to see, not what is actually there. As proof that closed systems are an illusion and a crutch, consider the common refrigerator magnet stuck to a refrigerator. This closed system will remain static for an indefinite period of time with no energy input. This should already be setting off alarm bells. How can a magnet constantly attract and defy gravity in its attempts to pull it to the floor??? If the magnet was glued to the refrigerator it would be easier to accept as a physical bond would exist to support the magnet. No such bond exists besides the field of the magnet. A field that is governed by the same laws of thermodynamics that insure that entropy in a closed system will increase over time. This is not the case and the system will remain in equilibrium for many years with no apparent outside influence. This is a baffling mystery that has yet to be solved by mainstream physics. So how does the magnet stay put?

Since closed systems do not exist, clearly energy is coming from somewhere to replenish the field. But this isn't normal energy. The energy coming into replenish the field actually REDUCES entropy. How would this be detectable? Conventional electricity flowing through a conductor will lose some of its energy in the form of heat. Any time there is a flow there will be some resistive loss (thermodynamics again). Some materials when cooled sufficently loss their resistance to flow, and become superconductors and do not loss energy. Now, if this new type of energy were to flow through a conductor the most obvious side effect would be a DECREASE in temperature.

Now this is preposterous, how can energy travel through a lossy conductor yet GAIN energy from its travel? No idea. It's weird stuff and there really aren't any textbooks on it. We do know that this energy will run electric motors and light bulbs just fine though. There appears to be an infinite amount of this energy available free for the taking. For a much more indepth explaination check out this and for a $75 demonstration of this "cold" current that you can build yourself check out this. Please don't be turned off by my meandering slightly schizo style. It's VERY difficult to talk about this stuff and not look like a crack pot. Kind of like talking about heavier than air flight before the Wright brothers. But things are beginning to fall apart and we need to begin the process of switching from under unity lossy systems to over unity energy systems. If this switch over is not successful, billions will die. I encourage you to educate yourself and become involved in the revolution. This is a unique time, the fate of civilization depends on what you do right now.

So don't fuck up, I kind of want to see the good side win for a change.

I live in Alberta Canada and we're in the process of dropping about a billion bux a year into tar sands development. Now along comes Lovins telling us we don't know what we're doing.

If you read the website you may note about 1/2 way through that Lovins is suggesting that methane be used via a reformer as the hydrogen source.

Here in Alberta it turns out that we also supply huge quantities of methane.

For those who are interested, visit the HubbertPeak website where you can read up on how North America will reach maximum methane "Production" maybe this year or next. Then please realise that the word "production" really means "depleation".

Gas well declining production rates for wells drilled today are between 30% and 50% per year. 10 years ago the decline rates were under 20% per year because bigger gas pockets were drilled.

There are many many pockets yet to find and drill, but the combined output of all of these increasingly small pockets will not make up for the declines from the large pockets found in the past. However we look at it - we are going over the top and in very short order.

When this happens there will be a rude awakening. The population is presently quite ignorant of the amount of methane that can be supplied. Within 2 years I expect that the economists will be telling the exploration geologists and engineers that they better get busy "producting" more fuel at which point I expect the response will be "and from where would you guys like us to get it?" The warnings are being ignored.

For those who are interested, please review this artical on the declining production rates from the North Sea.

Pages 6 and 7 contain the shortest summary of why. On page 6 you can see the cumulative production rates of the various fields plotted by year. What these plots show is that the first 13 feilds collectively produced more oil that all of the remaining 100's of fields combined. On page 7 you can see the cummulation of all fields in one graph.

If one looks only at the top of the curve - the combined production rate - then one would probably conclude there is no problem. Production generally has been increasing from the North Sea for the last 25 years.

However if one looks at the individual field production rates the picture looks a LOT DIFFERENT. North Sea prodution has peaked and the production will drop by probably over 7% per year henseforth. This represents about 1/2 of European oil production.

The giant Ghwar field in Saudi Arabia will peak very shortly and when it does the Middle east will not be able to sustain its production rates either.

North American Natural gas production is probably already at peak. There is a minor decline in demand presently which explains the lowered prices.

Please understand that gas wells depleat faster than oil wells. Its like the air in the tires of your car.

A tire will "whosh" for a while if you take out the valve stem - then suddenly it stops "whosing" and the tire is flat. Same with a gas well. If you have a really big tire and a relatively small hole in it, then the tire may "whosh" for a long while. But it eventually will go flat. When a gas well goes flat there is nothing to fill it up again.

IMHO the only alternative is Nuclear. However I'll be very happy to see all usable alternative energy sources tapped first.

Of courese, nuclear is not politically correct. Natural gas is. This is why companies like Calpine (CPN - NYSE) are planning on building so many natural gas fired power stations that they alone will burn up all the natural gas that can be "produced" in North America by the time their plants are built.

Free enterprise is a wonderful economic system and I suppose it has pursued its insanities in the past.

A few years from now I wonder who will be questioning the wisdom of building all those gas fired power plants?

I did a rough estimate of the number of drilling rigs that would need to be active in 3-4 years in order to grow the gas production. Some stats can be found from the Baker Hughes (BHI - NYSE) rig counts. In order to increase the prodcution rates and supply the increased gas that Calpine alone wants - the Gas and Oil drilling industry will need to probably more than double in size.

Most likely this will not be possible.

According to the best estimates, The Earth's oil supply will last another 10 years maybe 15. See http://www.hubbertpeak.com for excellent details.

According to the best estimates, The Earth's oil supply will last another 10 years maybe 15. See http://www.hubbertpeak.com for excellent details.

So what are they doing about it?

There are two issues here; firstly that the US population are living an unsustainable lifestyle that is destroying the planet's ability to support life; and secondly, that what benefits the US may not benefit other countries.

It is generally agreed that the best way to stop global warming is to lower emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; unless we do, we could see the end of the rainforests. Yet the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases is dragging its heels over constructive action because it would damage US industry.

The overall mean surface temperature is predicted to rise by 3 degrees C over the next century; this would mean an environmental preservation bill totalling trillions of dollars, not to mention the partial destruction of low-lying countries like Egypt and the Netherlands and cities like Manhattan.

If, as New Scientist reports this week, global warming 'turns off' the North Atlantic Drift, the mean temperatures in Europe are going to start resembling those in Siberia; which will mean the productivity and fertility of Europe will be badly hit. As a Briton, I'm not exactly thrilled by this possibility!

If the economy of a country is ruined by global warming, it seems only reasonable to press for compensation on the world stage; which means that the largest producers of greenhouse gases and consumers of energy will be making the largest payout.

Compare energy usage among the following five countries;

Electricity consumption per capita

US 13477 kWh
Japan 7523 kWh
France 6966 kWh
UK 5525 kWh
Russia 5397 kWh
(Source: CIA)

It should be pretty obvious that the US is producing rather more than its fair share of carbon dioxide. I'm not pretending that the US is the only overconsumer; but the US consumes a *lot* more than it should - and this isn't sustainable in the long term

>...their overall outlook about the future
>remains optimistic. And technology is the reason.

Technology can be used to provide incalculable benefits; true; the whole of humanity benefits from increased knowledge in fields like medicine and meteorology; but can technology save us from the faulty assumption that we can go on consuming ever-greater amounts of non-renewable natural resources in the hope that we will develop a technofix that will solve the problem.

Necessity is the mother of invention, but there are limits to what you can do. Our entire world runs on a base of non-renewable resources; and we have no workable plans to provide a substitute as yet. It is Panglossian to insist that there's a bright new future up ahead when we've consumed half of the world's estimated reserves of natural resources since World War I and have no real contingency plans in place.

I write this on a machine made from processed oil and silicon and metals; it runs using power generated from burning fossil fuels and the metals were dug out of the ground using fossil fuels. I'm one of the privileged few who can do this. But is it really justifiable to produce more and more computers and assorted gadgetry if we are using scarce resources but aren't adding to the sum assets of humanity by doing so?

Is technology only to be used to bolster the lifestyle of the few who are already rich; or should the free exchange of information be made the platform for building a better life for everyone; a democratic, open and sustainable way of life?

Gideon Hallett