Peak oil a hoax? Prove it.

[wintler2]

Knowledge about fundamental realities of our situation is bad? Wrong.

LOL
"fundamental realities" = "we are running out of our precious oil without which our precious way of life can and will not exist"
Right?

Nope, thats what you keep saying i'm saying, even tho i've never said it.
I'm saying we are at or past the peak of conventional oil production, and that means growthist economics and globalised capitalism are systems which have reached their zenith in influence, because they're increasingly impossible.

Every kilowatt generated by any source of power other than oil can serve as a "replacement" for a killowatt of power generated from oil. What about this is so hard for you to fathom?

Lots, its simply not true. Electricity isn't portable except for superprivelidged prius drivers, is not half a solution to oil decline for even just the 1st world.

Oh, I forgot. Only oil distributed by Big Oil can preserve our precious way of life. Decentralized renewable power is nothing but a pipe dream! Head for the hills, everybody, before the inevitably imminent oil shortages cause our society to collapse! Pray for $20 a gallon gas, if only to preserve our precious way of life for another decade or so! Right?

You have so many strawmen you should start growing mushrooms. Do you notice that you never quote me, you just pretend i'm saying things i'm simply not.

Who are you calling Big Oil, and whats this monopoly nonsense?

ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

The monopoly is on distribution, not production, just as it has been since the days of Standard Oil.

Ha ha, so you're telling me there are oil producers unable to distribute their product to willing buyers?? There are black markets in nuclear weapons, drugs, stolen property, people, cigarettes, designer goods, endangered species, porn, you name it, and yet the oil companies are somehow managing to keep cheap oil from finding buyers.

In the heart of the Empire, maybe just maybe, but in SE Asia, S America, China, & Africa, not a chance.

[Nordic]

If you read the whole thread, I think my take on Peak Oil comes through loud and clear. I think leftist scare mongering about Peak Oil is overblown. And even if it is not overblown, it is unhelpful because it plays right into the hands of our controllers.

There is plenty of energy all around us. The sun is still shining, the wind is still blowing, the oceans are still churning and the earth is still cooling. What matters most is getting the distribution of energy out of the hands of the few and into the hands of the many. Peak Oil hand wringing does nothing to bring this about and in fact serves the longstanding agenda of Big Oil, which is to suck every possible dollar out of the masses through price rigging while keeping a complete stranglehold on the distribution of power.

Certainly we need to move to renewable energy sources yesterday, with or without Peak Oil. Certainly we need to stop wasting so much damn energy yesterday, with or without Peak Oil. But we should not embrace anything simply because said thing might marginally reduce oil and gas consumption. We should embrace only those solutions that address the fundamental problem, which is Big Oil's current monopoly on the distribution of power. It is more important to decentralize and democratize the distribution of energy than it is to conserve our precious oil without which our precious way of life can and will not exist at any cost.

But please, by all means, feel free to disagree. That is what discussion is about.

I just don't see how this makes any sense.

There's nothing quite like Peak Oil and Global Warming to make people wake the fuck up to the pressing need to get off the oil teat.

I don't understand what your point of view is -- you seem to be suggesting that Peak Oil is a fiction, a conspiracy to keep people HOOKED on oil? That just makes no sense to me.

You want to keep people hooked on oil even worse than they are now, just drop the damn price back down to a buck a gallon. It'll be hummers in every driveway, mcMansions with the air conditioning turned up to full blast.

[Hammer of Los]

Big Oil denies Peak Oil because they'd inevitably have less control over & profit from 'their' oil if everybody understood how little was left.

Artificially low production caused by caps on production, by wars and revolutions has caused the price of oil to sky rocket from the '70's onwards. This gives the oil companies record profits.

After I think the '70's for the first time, caps on production were lifted in the US because international oil prices were starting to fall due to OPEC's increasing role in supplying the world oil markets. No longer being able to maintain artificially high prices (good for the US oil industry, bad for the economy and people generally) due to growing international competition, US oil companies began for the first time to extract as much oil as quickly as they could.

Peak oil, which I believe is the point of maximum production, may be a medium to near term prospect for the United States oil extraction, I very much doubt it is for many other parts of the world. In fact the majority of the world is a long, long way away from maximising the output even from existing wells, never mind new wells or even new oil fields. The middle east oil fields as we can see have suffered from so much "instability" they have long produced at way below maximum capacity.

The international price is enormously over inflated right now.

But then oil is horribly polluting, and we should burn less of it anyway.

Me, I don't drive, and have a fear of flying. I like to walk. Or actually, I prefer sitting down.

Stickdog though, you always bring clarity. What a fantastic marvellous poster you are! I think you make some very good points.

I found this link, it's a good guide to the history of crude oil prices, and shows you what actually effects the price of oil;

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

[JackRiddler]

.

This debate is puzzling. It's wearying. There's a lot of illogic here. A lot of strawmen. A lot of weird juju about how if I think Cheney is saying something (even if he's not), I have to figure out what the opposite is (even if it isn't) and pay no attention to easily seen empirical observations.

Here are some questions relating to easily seen empirical observations.

Why is Saudi Arabia drilling offshore? Why are BP and co. drilling on the ocean floor at a mile's depth and more? Why do the energy companies want to frak the New York and Pennsylvania watersheds although they know the stores of gas are unimpressive compared to the sources they have traditionally tapped? Why have the mining companies resorted to blowing up the tops of mountains and seeing how much coal shakes out? Why was there a scramble for Central Asia, since the greatest oil reserves are still in the Middle East? Why are the Canadian tar sands now considered viable? Why has oil company PR (and the intellectual travesty act of their sock-puppet academies) stopped laughing at solar and wind and now pretends to support them?

The mechanics of EROIE and its decline, given consumption rates of the hydrocarbon sources on which this civilization presently depends for EVERYTHING, should be very easy for anyone to understand. It is in the realm of fact, and is true regardless of what we imagine the consequences should be. The depletion of a finite resource at given consumption rates should be a very easy concept.

In no scheme of logic could the depletion of easily accessed hydrocarbons become an argument in favor of augmenting the oil cartel's power. The only logical consequence from these facts is to terminate these corporations and nationalize what they do. And even that only begins to make sense within a larger plan to convert all energy production and use as quickly as possible to the available alternatives. It is plain that the oil companies have no capitalist interest in propagating the facts about how the easily-accessed hydrocarbons are being depleted, because in the middle and long term that encourages the idea that they have got to go. But they don't have a bloody choice about it, since it's real. So at an enormous cost to humanity, which they don't care about, they are trying to manage the decline as long as possible in a way that leaves them in control and maximizes the resources they will have at their disposal as the decline proceeds. They are also in denial, because they understand the implications to corporate behemoths of the alternatives, which tend to work best in decentralized systems.

In no scheme of logic could this argue on behalf of continuing to use hydrocarbons as before, but with progressively higher prices, without devoting all possible resources toward the conversion. Solar and wind and tides are indeed abundant for potential use, and there is enormous room for cutting consumption through efficiency and ending waste (in war and military spending - in how buildings are heated and cooled - in the choice of transport systems and how they are fueled - in reducing meat consumption to free up 10 times the grain calories for food). Assuming an immediate global mobilization to treat the crisis with the scale of response that it merits, this requires decades of conversion for all infrastructure and in all industries and fields. It still need not mean a die-off. Those who seem to want a die-off are not legitimated simply because they, too, acknowledge the facts of EROEI decline for the easily accessible hydrocarbon energy stores. I don't care how many Nazis believe in peak oil, I'm more worried about all the leftists who come up with laughable arguments for denying it and for portraying anyone who acknowledges it as a crypto-Nazi.

If you want to fight the die-off, about the stupidest thing you can do is put your head in the sand and pretend "peak oil" is a myth made up by the oil companies, although they would have no motive to do so, beyond enabling short-term speculation. Finally, acknowledging the facts of EROEI decline for the easily accessible hydrocarbon energy stores in no way means you must be blind to the facts of speculation to drive up prices in the short term for profit. There is no logical incompatibility in acknowledging that both phenomena are at work.

.

[Elihu]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio

[stickdog99]

If you read the whole thread, I think my take on Peak Oil comes through loud and clear. I think leftist scare mongering about Peak Oil is overblown. And even if it is not overblown, it is unhelpful because it plays right into the hands of our controllers.

There is plenty of energy all around us. The sun is still shining, the wind is still blowing, the oceans are still churning and the earth is still cooling. What matters most is getting the distribution of energy out of the hands of the few and into the hands of the many. Peak Oil hand wringing does nothing to bring this about and in fact serves the longstanding agenda of Big Oil, which is to suck every possible dollar out of the masses through price rigging while keeping a complete stranglehold on the distribution of power.

Certainly we need to move to renewable energy sources yesterday, with or without Peak Oil. Certainly we need to stop wasting so much damn energy yesterday, with or without Peak Oil. But we should not embrace anything simply because said thing might marginally reduce oil and gas consumption. We should embrace only those solutions that address the fundamental problem, which is Big Oil's current monopoly on the distribution of power. It is more important to decentralize and democratize the distribution of energy than it is to conserve our precious oil without which our precious way of life can and will not exist at any cost.

But please, by all means, feel free to disagree. That is what discussion is about.

I just don't see how this makes any sense.

There's nothing quite like Peak Oil and Global Warming to make people wake the fuck up to the pressing need to get off the oil teat.

I don't understand what your point of view is -- you seem to be suggesting that Peak Oil is a fiction, a conspiracy to keep people HOOKED on oil? That just makes no sense to me.

You want to keep people hooked on oil even worse than they are now, just drop the damn price back down to a buck a gallon. It'll be hummers in every driveway, mcMansions with the air conditioning turned up to full blast.

Is our enemy the idiots who simply do what everyone else around them is doing, or is it those who purposefully set these trends? Is our enemy Joe Sixpack in his giant pickup truck or the Big Oil/Defense Contractor complex?

When oil prices go up to $10 a gallon, I want the left to use the opportunity to exploit Big Oil's hubris by agitating the masses and proposing the real solutions to the real problems: a break up of the energy distribution monopoly, a drastically scaled back military, smarter manufacturing practices and highly distributed, renewable energy sources owned and operated by individuals and/or their local communities. What I don't want to see is a bunch of leftists sitting quietly at home shaking their heads that they saw this whole thing coming while thanking Gaia that Joe Sixpack finally can't afford his giant pickup and bemoaning the end of civilization as we know it because others refused to see what was always so plain to them.

Sorry, but our biggest problem is not that oil is about to run out. It just isn't. Nearly infinite sources of energy are all around us. They aren't about to run out any time soon. Nor will oil running out cause our corporate empires to collapse and force us all to embrace a simpler lifestyle, like it or not. If we want change, we have to cause it. And the place to begin is not just anywhere. It is exactly where they do not want us to begin, and that is with bottom up, locally owned and operated renewable energy sources.

[JackRiddler]

When oil prices go up to $10 a gallon, I want the left to use the opportunity to exploit Big Oil's hubris by agitating the masses and proposing the real solutions to the real problems: a break up of the energy distribution monopoly, a drastically scaled back military, smarter manufacturing practices and highly distributed, renewable energy sources owned and operated by individuals and/or their local communities.

So then what's the argument here all about? Who is disagreeing with any of that?

What I don't want to see is a bunch of leftists sitting quietly at home shaking their heads that they saw this whole thing coming while thanking Gaia that Joe Sixpack finally can't afford his giant pickup and bemoaning the end of civilization as we know it because others refused to see what was always so plain to them.

Strawman, but you know what? Leftists who are sick of Joe Sixpack may have their fucking reasons, such as that many of them grew up under his tyranny, or being beaten up by his little Sixpacks. Why the fuck does everything have to be tailored to the psychology of some ideal Joe Sixpack as he has been defined in this culture, even though most of us don't fit his profile? Do you prefer the way in which most of the ostensible left ("liberals") ape Joe Sixpack's rituals? Do you prefer all the flag-waving and bullshit to make sure Joe Sixpack doesn't feel put-upon by the goodamn eggheads?

But anyway, side-line. Your intolerance of people who prefer Gaia to the Bombing Jesus, too.

Sorry, but our biggest problem is not that oil is about to run out. It just isn't. Nearly infinite sources of energy are all around us. They aren't about to run out any time soon.

Completely naive. Minimum 30 year conversion process, and that's assuming it's treated like a war for survival. The power plants, the grid, the pipelines, the motors large and small, everything about the transport systems, the agriculture, the plastics, the entire materials economy, all of the buildings, the waste disposal, the conversion of the military, the R&D, an enormous shift in values and in what knowledge is valued and taught by the schools and universities... and all this must be replaced while there's still easy hydrocarbon left.

Nor will oil running out cause our corporate empires to collapse and force us all to embrace a simpler lifestyle, like it or not. If we want change, we have to cause it. And the place to begin is not just anywhere. It is exactly where they do not want us to begin, and that is with bottom up, locally owned and operated renewable energy sources.

Obviously. Who the hell is claiming that this happens without a political fight?

However, pretending that the falling EROEI on hydrocarbons does not exist will do nothing to encourage bottom up, locally owned or renewable, or the collapse of corporate empires. Absolutely nothing. Denial is very likely to assist the corporate empires, to continue the illusion that their way is sustainable and poor little Joe Sixpack need not question his pathetic values or his completely fucked-up world view. That's why they've spent DECADES denying it, and only now, when no one can sustain full denial any more, are they pretending for the first time to be dealing with it, with all their sudden discovery of greenwashing propaganda.

.

[stickdog99]

.
If you want to fight the die-off, about the stupidest thing you can do is put your head in the sand and pretend "peak oil" is a myth made up by the oil companies, although they would have no motive to do so, beyond enabling short-term speculation. Finally, acknowledging the facts of EROEI decline for the easily accessible hydrocarbon energy stores in no way means you must be blind to the facts of speculation to drive up prices in the short term for profit. There is no logical incompatibility in acknowledging that both phenomena are at work.

If you want to fight the die-off, about the stupidest thing you can do is believe that "peak oil" will imminently cause the downfall of all society, inevitably bringing civilization and its current masters crashing down around us regardless of whatever feeble remedies they or we might attempt at this late date. Finally, the undeniable fact that the entire history of oil distribution to date has consisted of of a series of engineered shortages and speculative bubbles designed to drive up prices in the short term for profit offers leftists a political opportunity that they should not forego because it conflicts with their Revelatory dreams of a looming oilpocalypse.

[JackRiddler]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio

Undeniable wisdom. You definitely win whatever point you might be making but not bothering to explicate, and teaching an important lesson to those of us nimrods who think there are less things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in our philosophies.

;

[JackRiddler]

.
If you want to fight the die-off, about the stupidest thing you can do is put your head in the sand and pretend "peak oil" is a myth made up by the oil companies, although they would have no motive to do so, beyond enabling short-term speculation. Finally, acknowledging the facts of EROEI decline for the easily accessible hydrocarbon energy stores in no way means you must be blind to the facts of speculation to drive up prices in the short term for profit. There is no logical incompatibility in acknowledging that both phenomena are at work.

If you want to fight the die-off, about the stupidest thing you can do is believe that "peak oil" will imminently cause the downfall of all society, inevitably bringing civilization and its current masters crashing down around us regardless of whatever feeble remedies they or we might attempt at this late date. Finally, the undeniable fact that the entire history of oil distribution to date has consisted of of a series of engineered shortages and speculative bubbles designed to drive up prices in the short term for profit offers leftists a political opportunity that they should not forego because it conflicts with their Revelatory dreams of a looming oilpocalypse.

Why is Saudi Arabia drilling offshore? Why are BP and co. drilling on the ocean floor at a mile's depth and more? Why do the energy companies want to frak the New York and Pennsylvania watersheds although they know the stores of gas are unimpressive compared to the sources they have traditionally tapped? Why have the mining companies resorted to blowing up the tops of mountains and seeing how much coal shakes out? Why was there a scramble for Central Asia, since the greatest oil reserves are still in the Middle East? Why are the Canadian tar sands now considered viable? Why has oil company PR (and the intellectual travesty act of their sock-puppet academies) stopped laughing at solar and wind and now pretends to support them?

The mechanics of EROIE and its decline, given consumption rates of the hydrocarbon sources on which this civilization presently depends for EVERYTHING, should be very easy for anyone to understand. It is in the realm of fact, and is true regardless of what we imagine the consequences should be. The depletion of a finite resource at given consumption rates should be a very easy concept.

(repeat ad infinitum)

None of this entails certain belief in an imminent total apocalypse that takes care of the political struggle (and kills most everyone). Your strawman. It absolutely does not prescribe doing nothing while waiting for it as the best thing to do. Your strawman.

.

[stickdog99]

Completely naive. Minimum 30 year conversion process, and that's assuming it's treated like a war for survival. The power plants, the grid, the pipelines, the motors large and small, everything about the transport systems, the agriculture, the plastics, the entire materials economy, all of the buildings, the waste disposal, the conversion of the military, the R&D, an enormous shift in values and in what knowledge is valued and taught by the schools and universities... and all this must be replaced while there's still easy hydrocarbon left.

Oh my God! Humanity must adjust from relying on Big Oil's monopolistic distribution of oil to supply 90% of its power needs to relying on some of the endless free sources of power that surround all of us everyday! How will we ever survive the looming oilpocalypse? Humanity is nothing without Big Oil, and only the most naive would ever deny that!

However, pretending that the falling EROEI on hydrocarbons does not exist will do nothing to encourage bottom up, locally owned or renewable, or the collapse of corporate empires. Absolutely nothing. Denial is very likely to assist the corporate empires, to continue the illusion that their way is sustainable and poor little Joe Sixpack need not question his pathetic values or his completely fucked-up world view. That's why they've spent DECADES denying it, and only now, when no one can sustain full denial any more, are they pretending for the first time to be dealing with it, with all their sudden discovery of greenwashing propaganda.

The rallying cry should be "Big Oil is evil, they have been ripping us off, pushing us into wars and polluting our world for decades" not "will somebody, anybody please save us before we use up all our precious oil."

[JackRiddler]

The rallying cry should be "Big Oil is evil, they have been ripping us off, pushing us into wars and polluting our world for decades" not "will somebody, anybody please save us before we use up all our precious oil."

The latter is no one's rallying cry. Certainly no one here.

However, if it was, the two rallying cries would not be mutually exclusive. False dichotomy.

[stickdog99]

Why is Saudi Arabia drilling offshore? Why are BP and co. drilling on the ocean floor at a mile's depth and more? Why do the energy companies want to frak the New York and Pennsylvania watersheds although they know the stores of gas are unimpressive compared to the sources they have traditionally tapped? Why have the mining companies resorted to blowing up the tops of mountains and seeing how much coal shakes out? Why was there a scramble for Central Asia, since the greatest oil reserves are still in the Middle East? Why are the Canadian tar sands now considered viable? Why has oil company PR (and the intellectual travesty act of their sock-puppet academies) stopped laughing at solar and wind and now pretends to support them?

If the price of cheap oil is rigged high enough, more expensive sources of energy become more viable. What about this is hard to understand? You think it's all supply and demand. I think anybody who even cursorily examines the long history of oil distribution will become rightfully suspicious of such claims. Did you ever hear the story of the boyl who cried wolf?

Now will we reach a point where drilling for and burning so much oil becomes detrimental to humanity? We obviously reached that point a long time ago! Just because oil is cheap and plentiful is no reason to keep using it when cleaner, more democratic and more distributed energy sources are all around us.

Don't you see that every time you pretend that humanity relies on Big Oil for its very existence, you are perpetuating a destructive falsehood? I mean, gasoline engines came into being because gasoline was a cheap byproduct of the production of kerosene. But without gasoline, all of civilization as we know it today would grind to a halt. Right? See how silly that is?

"Without QWERTY keyboards, all of civilization will grind to a halt as typists will need 30 years to learn to adjust to more efficient keyboards!"

"Without the Windows operating system, all of civilization will grind to a halt! We will need 30 years to learn to adjust to better operating systems! Only the most naive fool could possibly contend otherwise!"

[thurnundtaxis]

[
... Minimum 30 year conversion process, and that's assuming it's treated like a war for survival. The power plants, the grid, the pipelines, the motors large and small, everything about the transport systems, the agriculture, the plastics, the entire materials economy, all of the buildings, the waste disposal, the conversion of the military, the R&D, an enormous shift in values and in what knowledge is valued and taught by the schools and universities... and all this must be replaced while there's still easy hydrocarbon left.

That's right, Jack.

And to think that when I was a kid I thought the hippies were going to make sure we were well on our way towards that goal. I was about 7 or 8 during the oil shock of the early Seventies. Maybe I was just a foolish kid, but there was enough talk of environmental issues back then that I thought things were going to be geared up towards alternative energy systems by the time I'd be ready for college.

Then Reagan happened.

...or was it really disco's fault?

[Nordic]

even my super right-wing father, who in spite of his politics has 3 engineering degrees and a fair amount of conmon sense about some things says we should have listened to jimmy carter regarding energy. reagan came along and said "problem? what problem? let's pretend everything is great" and that's what people wanted to believe.