Oh, I’m sorry –
I guess I should have taken your citation to that statistic as proof of your “Mad Max” scenario as totally representative of a ratio of approximately 9:1 of non-combat versus combat casualties? Of 3:1 “wounded” (which of course says nothing as to the severity of the injury) to killed in the combat casualty category? Of which the majority of non-combat casualties were due to illness or “psychological” reasons?
I can completely see why you cited to the number now…
BTW:
Just to clafify, my quotes on “injuries” above is merely to denote that there is no distinction between a truly maiming injury and a minor injury in the statistic, not to downplay the significance of injuries over all.
1000 billion barrels? (I usually call it a trillion.)
Glad you measured it.
You don’t seem to understand what I am saying. I figured that you just plugged a 3% increase for every year and thought it would be good. Unfortunately you don’t seem to realize that again you are ignoring human behavior. And your math is a complete fantasy.
You are taking somebody’s guess as to how much oil there is, looked at what the increase in oil use is right now, and assumed that it is a straight line trend. I am sorry but that is a faulty way to think. This takes absolutely nothing into account.
If the price of gas triples, will people be using the same amount of gas? Hell no. The Hummer is going to turn into a Geo Metro.
And what technology needs is not oil, but a brain. Oil didn’t invent everything, people did with their brains.
And so it takes oil to make something. I can measure the total amount of stored energy in the compact florescent light bulbs I purchased for my home. I spent $30 on 12 light bulbs. So the total energy, including human work, and oil, storage, equals $30.
Now I figured what I will save. Thos bulbs will pay for themselves within a year. So I am now using $30 less energy each year. Next year I will save another $30 in oil.
And this is a conservative estimate. I believe my actual electric bill is down 10%.
If your simple math is correct, then we run out late in the year 24 years from now. 2028. I don’t have the slightest idea what technology will have created in 24 years, and I don’t know how you can act like you do.
You even ignore what technology already exists. If the car companies have the ability to build a car that can get 100 MPG, with all the power of a Mustang, what will happen when all cars suddenly get 100 MPG? How will that affect your math? And that is technology that existed over 10 years ago.
I can do the freakin math, but it looks to me like your math sucks.
The fact the an experimental car gets 100 mpg does nothing to address the fundamental factors at play here:
You still need a massive amount of fossil fuels to build the car in the first place.
You need to add an additional mile of road for every car introduced into the economy. It takes a massive amount of fossil fuels to build roads.
Increasing fuel efficiency does nothing to address the fact that every consumer item, pesticide, etc. . . has a petrochemical (oil) base.
Increasing gas mileage in consumer cars does nothing to address the fact that well over 50 percent of all oil consumption is by industrial and military source.
Regarding increasing oil consumption:
We have an economy that requires growth. Growth, whether in the human body or in the economy, requires a constantly increasing supply of energy.
Our economic growth and energy consumption have gone up practically in lockstop with each other over the past century. (with an occasional aberation)
If the amount of energy we have is limited, the economy can’t grow. It doesn’t have the ability to be steady state, so it just collapses.
Hence, so long as we have a growth based economic system, our oil consumption has to keep going up!
A crash is inevitable under these circumstances.
As far as how much growth - its not somebody’s “guess.” We need economic growth to keep going. Economic growth requires energy.
That is why consumption will keep going up till we crash.
BTW, 47,000 extra troops just got the order to go to Iraq.
They are going there to secure the oil supplies, so our economy won’t starve.
If there were alternatives available, if the laws of supply and demand were going to solve this for us, if technology was going to fix this for us, do you think we would be blowing this much money and this many lives in Iraq?
Why aren’t you getting this?
One more thing regarding technology - name me one major modern technological innovation that was researhched - mass produced - distributed in the context of a severe energy shortage.
Without energy, technology is useless.
We get our energy from fossil fuels. No fossil fuels, no technology.
Matt
P.S.
When I get a chance, I will do the math for you in a very simple, clear fashion.
I wrote the above post very quickly and it may not have been completely clear.
As far as using your brain to invent technology.: you can’t use your brain to invent something unless you have energy (food).
Likewise, the economy can’t use an invention unless it has energy (oil).
The Nazis had jet fighters, guided missles, etc. … as did the Japanese. But they ran out of fuel. We had plenty, so we run.
Energy is fundamental to everything else. We get our energy from fossil fuels.
Consequently, fossil fuels are fundamental to everything!
I just wanna know how you came to the 1 trillion barrel number. do you have some omniscient ability you arent telling anybody about? how do you know of all oil sources in the world, both discovered and not?
Russian and Ukranian scientists over the past years have come up with their own theory in regards to oil.
this is a good one also
“Why aren’t you getting this?”
Because I believe your logic is flawed.
For example, you mention that efficiency is ok, but doesn’t address production. But it does. More efficient transportation would mean less oil used for production. I assume the oil you are referring to includes the transportation of items.
“One more thing regarding technology - name me one major modern technological innovation that was researched - mass produced - distributed in the context of a severe energy shortage.”
The moped. It was created in Japan by Honda during the war because he needed to get around, and simply attached a motor to a bike, so he could save gas. He quickly found out that everybody wanted one.
Now you keep ignoring psychology in this issue. People are already reacting to an increase in the price of gas. Altering their vacation plans.
I never said that oil and gas prices didn’t affect the economy. That is the psychology I am talking about. Economy cars suddenly become more attractive. Including to the industries you keep mentioning. They will be the first to react to the increases in oil prices.
Also America entered WWII following the Depression, and suddenly war made things very tight. People had to tighten their belts, and cut their consumption of most everything. And yet there was a jump in technology. Technology has more to do with desperation then anything else.
A good example is with what happened to American cars. The American car companies thought nobody would buy anything but American made cars. They got lazy and were putting out gas guzzling pieces of crap. Then when there was a drop in the production of oil, suddenly foreign cars became popular.
People started buying them because they didn’t want to spend so much money on gas. But then they found out that the foreign cars were more reliable. More recently it has been shown that American cars have improved dramatically just because of this little kick in the ass.
And remember that the experimental car exists. Their plans were not to just throw out the car, but slowly introduce everything in it over time.
I just watched a special on the Bermuda Triangle on The Discovery Channel. And they happened to mention that there was enough natural gas in the Ocean just off of New Orleans to supply America for 70 years. (I don’t know where they came up with this number, but I don’t know how you came up with yours either.)
For some reason you are locked onto this limiting belief that oil is the only energy source, and nothing will ever replace it. Yet things are replaced all the time. And more often not because they need to be replaced instead of just because oil tells them to.
Technology is what we use to help solve problems. It is not just the cell phone in your pocket. I recently heard of a manufacturing process that used some strong acid with a waste disposal problem. A little research and they found out that orange juice worked just as well, was cheaper, and had no waste disposal issues. That is technology at work.
A good economy, and plentiful oil do not benefit technology, just infomercials and the production of crap. True technology is born of necessity.
Everything that oil is used for can find a substitute. And I am fairly certain they can make oil if they want to. That fossil fuel had to come from somewhere after all. What it came from are the animals and plants from the past. I don’t think it should be that hard to replicate, if not improve upon what nature does.
Also you don’t seem to understand what improving efficiency does. It squeezes more energy out of the same amount of oil, or other energy producing item, or makes the item require less energy to produce the same result.
What is see here is a person carrying a sign that says the world will end tomorrow. You seem so blinded by your belief that you cannot see anything else. Every problem has a solution. Every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. This is the entire basis of supply and demand. If oil goes up, people use less of it, and find alternatives.
Now while oil is a national interest, and part of the reason we have any interest in the Mid-East, it is not the only reason we are at war there. A stable Mid-East is of benefit to the whole world. Are we going to get a stable Mid-East because of Iraq? I don’t know. But I think it is a step in the right direction.
People keep complaining that America just leaves people like Saddam in charge there, even though we didn’t put him there. (Even if we did business with him.) But if we take Him out, then they complain that we are just attacking Muslims, or that we just want the oil, even though we could have taken it in the first Gulf War, or could have just released pressure on Saddam, allowing him to sell oil on the market regularly, thereby benefiting America because the oil would have been just as available.
I have got to quit writing novels here.
Matt I would be happy to hear your thoughts on abiotic oil. Russian science is good science, remember who got to space first. It seems logical that the oil is coming from the mantle. I doubt there was enough biological matter buried to create oil in the quantities that exist. If they are right, peak oil’s ramifications with constantly refilling oil reserves is null and void.
Dave12 –
I’ve read a little bit about that too – especially concerning the phenomenon of “tapped” oil wells refilling. I’d love to find out more about this.
1.02 $CAN a liter, in Montreal yesterday.
That`s a quarter of a gallon.
The US equivalent, after currency conversion @ 1 $CAN = 0.727 $US, would be roughly around 2.97$ a gallon.
Nevermind that refineries rake in 17 cents a liter, when they used to be at the 4c/l before.
Sad to say, the experts of 2-3 years back were right.
It only takes so much oil to build a car if you use oil fired generation to supply the energy. Nuclear fission is relatively clean (as compared to coal or oil burning plants) and fissile materials are a renewable resource. You can build a reactor around somewhat enriched U 238 or you can do it like the Candian CanDo plant and use U 238 with a natural amount of U 235 in it. It takes a huge core so the neutron leakage isn’t so high but it can, and has been done.
You can make a reactor based on Pu 239 I think it is (it’s been almost 20 years since I was in the nuke business so I’m rusty) and a couple of other trans-uranic elements. If you can’t find the shit you can make it in a breeder reactor. I seem to remember Thorium as a parent nuclide that could be used in a breeder to crank out a good fissile fuel.
Fusion looks good on the BE/A curve but you know it’s got stability problems so control is a bit of an issue.
Anyway, all is not lost if we get low on oil.
Anyone know what the parent components are to the new synthetic lube oils? They might come in handy in the future too.
Mage:
You are not understanging some basic concepts here. I encourage you to go to my site and read the free excerpts. You probably won’t though.
During WW II, things got tight for the average American, because all of our oil was being used to produced and distribute technology for the military. There was plenty of energy - that is why we won!
Steely Eyes:
All the raw materials used to make a care - steel, etc. . . are shipped on boats powered by oil.
All the plastic, the tires, etc. . are made from oil.
All the electronics and other parts have to be shipped using oil.
The car has to be manufactured in a plant powered by oil and electiricity - which comes from natural gas, which is running out too.
Oil is crucial at every step. This is why I wish people would forget about the mpg issue - it is just a small aspect of a much bigger issue.
BB and DAvey 12: Regarding those theories, here is an excerpt from my book (which is in q and a format - I’m skipping the q.):
The scientist you speak of is a man by the name of Dr. Thomas Gold. In his 1999 book, The Deep Hot Biosphere," he proposes a theory that oil comes from deep in the Earth?s crust, left over from some primordial event in the formation of the Earth, when hydrocarbons were formed. If his theory were true, it would mean that fossil fuels are actually renewable resources.
Unfortunately, his theory has been proven to be false, time and time again. As Steve Drury, who reviewed Gold’s book for Geological Magazine, puts it, “Any Earth scientist will take a perverse delight in reading the book, because it is entertaining stuff, but even a beginner will see the gaping holes where Gold has deftly avoided the vast bulk of mundane evidence regarding our planet’s hydrocarbons.” When asked about the validity of theories such as Gold’s, Dr. Colin Campbell responded:
Oil sometimes does occur in fractured or weathered crystalline rocks, which may have led people to accept this theory, but in all cases there is an easy explanation of lateral migration from normal sources. Isotopic evidence provides a clear link to the organic origins. No one in the industry gives the slightest credence to these theories: after drilling for 150 years they know a bit about it. Another misleading idea is about oilfields being refilled. Some are, but the oil simply is leaking in from a deeper accumulation.
Finally, the deep-earth hypothesis has a fatal flaw: If oil were, indeed, formed under intense heat and pressure in the center of the Earth, it would tend to disintegrate as it rose from the regions of high temperature and pressure to the benign, cooler, low-pressure world closer to the Earth’s surface.
Matt
Davey,
Two more things: If the Russians were so right, why haven’t they been able to stop the decline of their oil fields?
Simiarly, the US domestic production peaked in 1970 and has been declining 2-3 percent per year. We’ve got all the money, muscle and ingenuity in the world, but we can’t stop the decline.
If there was any validity to these theories, I guarantee you the oil companies would not be merging and diversifyin the way they are. They are taking the actions of companies who know the end is near and are trying to plan as profitable a decline as possible.
That should speak volumes considering they’ve got more money and technology at their disposal than God.
Matt
Matt:
I have a question: Do you have any price data, corresponding to real, inflation- and tax-adjusted dollars, that would indicate that supply is restricting while demand is expanding, an effect that I believe you are claiming has been occurring for years?
The gas and oil price data I’ve seen seem to show that prices peaked back in the late 70s/ early 80s (I’m going from memory here).
Your are right BB oil and other commodities have been in a decline in inflation adjusted (i.e. CPI) dollars since the early 1980’s.
In fact I have read some studies that argue that some commodities are now the cheapest they have every been in history in relative terms. As a side not the conquest of the New World by the Spanish was during a period of the highest commodity prices in history (hence the high prices driving war argument I guess?).
The big question is do you think the trend of declining real commodity prices will continue or reverse?
Matt,
A couple questions. Do you have a reliable source that shows the Russian fields in decline? I find it highly unlikely since even if it were true they wouldn’t be broadcasting this information. The US did not have access to this research until recently, and I’m sure as costs increase it will be more viable to drill in certain places, especially the tundra of Siberia. Also, did you even read my links…you obviously didn’t, because Gold plagiarized his research off all the Russian scientists, and misrepresented it. He is no reliable source.
Davey,
Would a report from the CIA be reliable enough from you?
Just google it.
They peaked in 1987.
Matt