Freebies - should we think again maybe?

grateful_dead

oh my god, how old are you? 12?

you need to go to school mate

grateful_dead

"Are We 'Running Out'? I Thought
There Was 40 Years of the Stuff Left"

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.



(Graph: Dr. C.J. Campbell/Petroconsultants)

...

The end-of-the-fossil-hydrocarbons scenario is not therefore

a doom-and-gloom picture painted by pessimistic end-of-the

world prophets, but a view of scarcity in the coming years

and decades that must be taken seriously.

The Australian Financial Review echoed the sentiments of Deutsche Bank in a January 2005 article entitled, "Staring Down the Barrel of a Crisis":

The world's oil production may be about to reach its peak,

forever. Such apocalyptic prophecies often surface in the

middle of the northern hemisphere winter. What is unusual is

that this time the doomsday scenario has gained serious

credibility among respected analysts and commentators.



Given the credentials of those sounding the alarm the loudest, it is extremely unwise for you to causally dismiss this as just more "1970s doom-and gloom."





"What About the Oil Sands in Canada and the Oil Shale in the American West?"





The good news is that we have a massive amount of untapped "non conventional" oil located in the oil sands up in Canada.



The bad news is that, unlike conventional sources of oil, oil derived from these oil sands is extremely financially and energetically intensive to extract. Whereas conventional oil has enjoyed a rate of "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI) of about 30 to 1, the oil sands rate of return hovers around 1.5 to 1.



This means that we would have to expend 20 times as much energy to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.



Where to find such a huge amount of capital is largely a moot point because, even with massive improvements in extraction technology, the oil sands in Canada are projected to only produce a paltry 2.2 million barrels per day by 2015. This doesn't even account for any unexpected production decreases or cost overruns, both of which have been endemic to many of the oil sands projects.



(Update 8/15/2006: Oil Sands Production Costs Skyrocket)



More optimistic reports anticipate 4 million barrels per day of oil coming from the oil sands by 2020. Even if the optimists are correct, 4 million barrels per day isn't that much oil when you consider our colossal and ever-growing demand in conjunction with the small amount of time we have left before the global peak:



1.We currently need 83.5 million barrels per day.



2.We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day

by 2020.



3.We will be losing over 1 million barrels per day of

production per year, every year, once we hit the

backside of the global oil production curve.



4.The general consensus among now disinterested

scientists is that oil production will peak by 2010 at

the latest.



The huge reserves of oil shale in the American west suffer from similar problems. While Shell Oil has an experimental oil shale program, even Steve Mut - the CEO of their Unconventional Resources Unit - has sounded less than optimistic when questioned about the ability of oil shale to soften the coming crash. According to journalist Stuart Staniford's coverage of a recent conference on Peak Oil:



In response to questions, Steve guesstimated that oil shale

production would still be pretty negligible by 2015, but

might, if things go really well, get to 5mbpd by 2030.



Disinterested observers are even less optimistic about oil shale. Geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist points out:



The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United

States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold

"recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the

world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the

United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any

time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out

of shale have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil"

(and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may

be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal

the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a

net energy loss, the operation is a failure.



This means any attempt to replace conventional oil with oil shale will actually make our situation worse as the project will consume more energy than it will produce, regardless of how high the price goes.



Further problems with oil shale have been documented by economist Professor James Hamilton who writes:



A recent Rand study concluded it will be at least 12 years

before oil shale reaches the production growth phase. And

that is a technological assessment, not a reference to the

environmental review process. If it takes 15 years to get an

oil refinery built and approved, despite well known

technology and well understood environmental issues,

viewing oil shale as something that could make major

contributions to world energy supplies in the immediate

future seems highly unrealistic.

"What About So Called 'Reserve Growth'"?

In recent years, the USGS and other agencies have revised their estimates of oil reserves upwards. Peak Oil "deniers" often point to this revisions as proof that fears of a global oil shortage are unfounded. Unfortunately, these upwards revisions are best classified as "paper barrels", meaning they exist on paper only, not in the real world:

A.USGS Poor Track Record

As recently as 1972, the USGS was releasing circulars that estimated US domestic oil production would not peak until well into the 21st century, and possibly not until the 22nd century. (See Theobald, Schweinfurth & Duncan, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 650)

This was despite the fact US production had already peaked in 1970, just as Hubbert had predicted. Richard Heinberg reminds us, "in 1973, Congress demanded an investigation of the USGS for its failure to foresee the 1970 US oil production peak."

In March 2000 the USGS released a report indicating more "reserve growth." Colin Campbell responded to the report by reminding us of the ludicrous estimates put out by the USGS in the 1960s and early 1970s:

Let us not forget that McKelvey, a previous director of the

USGS, succumbed to government pressure in the 1960s to

discredit Hubbert’s study of depletion, which was

subsequently vindicated in the early 1970’s after US

production actually peaked as Hubbert had predicted. It did

so . . . in a very damaging report . . . that successfully

misled many economists and planners for years to come.

These deeply flawed upward estimates were released because the USGS is a political organization and optimistic estimates are looked upon favorably by both politicians and the markets.

B.EIA Admits Cooking Its Books

In 1998, the EIA released a report showing significant oil reserve growth. In a footnote to report, the EIA explained:

These adjustments to the estimates are based on non

-technical considerations that support domestic supply

growth to the levels necessary to meet projected demand

levels. (EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 1998, p.17)

In other words, they predicted how much they think we're going to use, and then told us, "Guess what, nothing to worry about - that's how much we've got!"

C.OPEC's "Spurious Revisions" AKA "Cooking the Books"

During the 1980s, several OPEC countries issued some rather "interesting" upwardly revised estimates of their proven reserves of petroleum. Ron Swenson, proprietor of the website HubbertsPeak.com explains:

Many OPEC countries have been announcing reserve

numbers which are frankly very strange. Either their

reported reserves remain the same year after year,

suggesting that new discoveries exactly match production,

or they have suddenly increased their reported reserves by

unfeasibly large amounts.

The table 1/2 way down this page graphically illustrates Swenson's points. How were such large increases in reserve size possible without correspondingly large discoveries? The answer is quite fascinating as it connects to the Reagan administration's amazingly simple strategy to collapse the Soviet Union: bring down the price of oil. Professor Richard Heinberg explains:

Soon after assuming office in 1981, the Reagan

Administration abandoned the established policy of pursuing

détente with the Soviet Union and instead instituted a

massive arms buildup; it also fomented proxy wars in areas

of Soviet influence, while denying the Soviets desperately

needed oil equipment and technology. Then, in the mid

-1980s, Washington persuaded Saudi Arabia to flood the

world market with cheap oil. Throughout the last decade of

its existence, the USSR pumped and sold its oil at the

maximum possible rate in order to earn income with which

to keep up in the arms race and prosecute its war in

Afghanistan. Yet with markets awash with cheap Saudi oil,

the Soviets were earning less even as they pumped more.

Two years after their oil production peaked, the economy of

the USSR crumbled and its government collapsed.

(See also, Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy to Hasten the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Peter Schweizer)

While Reagan's strategy to collapse the Soviets was as simple as it was effective, it came with a catch: the amount of oil an OPEC nation such as Saudi Arabia could pump was tied to the amount of proven reserves it reported as compared to the other OPEC nations. The only way Saudi Arabia could continue to flood the market in support of Reagan's strategy was to revise its oil reserve estimates upwards. (If they had not done so, the Reagan adiministration would have withdrawn their military support of the Saudi Royal family.)

In order to stay competitive under OPEC's proportional export rule, the other OPEC nations issued similarly bogus upward estimates. Thus most, if not all, of the so-called "reserve growth" in the Middle East is only on paper, not in the ground.

Update 1/23/2006: Kuwait's reported reserves cut by 50%

Update 8/01/2006: Major bombshell regarding Saudi Arabia's oil production and reserve status disclosed at ASPO conference.

"If the Environmentalists Would Get Out

of the Way, Can't We Just Drill in ANWR?"

While some folks desperately cling to the belief that oil is a renewable resource, others hold on to the equally delusional idea that tapping the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve will solve, or at least delay, this crisis. While drilling for oil in ANWR will certainly make a lot of money for the companies doing the drilling, it won't do much to help the overall situation for three reasons:

1. According of the Department of Energy, drilling in ANWR

will only lower oil prices by less than fifty cents;

2. ANWR contains 10 billion barrels of oil - or about the

amount the US consumes in a little more than a year.

3. As with all oil projects, ANWR will take about 10 years to

come online. Once it does, its production will peak at

875,000 barrels per day - but not till the year 2025. By

then the US is projected to need a whopping 35 million

barrels per day while the world is projected to need 120

million barrels per day.

Click Here to Go to Page Two of LATOC

Topics Covered on Page Two Include: Abiotic Oil Theory, Laws of Supply and Demand/Market Forces, Alternative Energy, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Wave, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Coal, Ethanol, Biodiesel, Thermal Depolymerization, Solar-Nanotechnology, Space-Based Solar Arrays, Hybrid Vehicles, Conservation and Energy Efficiency, Jevon's Paradox, Wars in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, the Military Draft, Possible Solutions and Ways to Prepare
The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.

Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary.

The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3% per year, every year.

...

An 8% yearly decline would cut global oil production by a whopping 50% in under nine years. If a 5% cut in production caused prices to triple in the 1970s, what do you think a 50% cut is going to do?



Other experts are predicting decline rates as high as 10%-to-13%. Some geologists expect 2005 to be the last year of the cheap-oil bonanza, while many estimates coming out of the oil industry indicate "a seemingly unbridgeable supply-demand gap opening up after 2007," which will lead to major fuel shortages and increasingly severe blackouts beginning around 2008-2012. As we slide down the downslope slope of the global oil production curve, we may find ourselves slipping into what some scientists are already calling the coming "post-industrial stone age."

.... http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Hoddie_2

markwi wrote:

if you really want to make a difference trying campaigning to force the usa and australia the worlds biggest polluters,to sign up to the kyoto agreement.

Don't believe everything you read. In many respects the USA and Australia have both already surpassed what Kyoto would have asked of them, long before many of those who did sign up.

markwilkinson

I gave up ordering freebies some time ago. When I first came here I ordered pretty much everything available but I really was ordering stuff just for the sake of it. I've cut right back on it now as it's just wasteful.

I now only order pet foods for the local cats & dogs home and I would probably apply for some free seeds or something like that.

James_Bond

grateful_dead wrote:

oh my god, how old are you? 12?

you need to go to school mate

Yeah, sure. Because you disagree with me. :rolleyes:

jamtart6

markwi wrote:

if you really want to make a difference trying campaigning to force the usa and australia the worlds biggest polluters,to sign up to the kyoto agreement.

As a climate change researcher....i can state that kyoto will offset climate change by about a week! adapt and mitigate - prevention is not going to work!


as for the freebies - i do agree, and only go for what i genuinely would like to try!

vellum

rainbowrisin wrote:

This may be a topsy turvy way of looking at things, but I tend to send off for any freebie that I know myself, or a friend / relative, can use. However, I only apply for freebies to big businesses who I feel don't have an ethical way of conducting themselves. I very, very rarely buy the product as a result of a freebie, as TBH most freebies are for products way beyond my budget or needs, and I try not to buy from exploitative companies anyway.

Everytime I have one of their free samples and then don't buy the product, I like to think i'm nibbling away at their profit margins a tiny bit. Obviously I recycle the packaging.

i think you have a very twisted sense of justice, and humour, make me laugh... :rotfl:

CVID

James_Bond wrote:

I have absolutely no concience for the enviroment at all.

Why should I? Previous generations have made it harder for others to live, why should it stop here? Look at the greed involved in house prices for intance, the petrol prices, the previous 40+ years of pollution....etc,etc

Why should my generation have to clear up this mess that as been left to us by our kind predisesors ?:rolleyes:

Enviroment - NO. Freebies - YES


Long may it continue.


I'll only start to change when the government make fossil fuels a thing of the past, and make electricity for cars etc, standard. But why should they? One Word....

MONEY.

Like a previous poster mentioned, I will not be one of those "Plebs" who fall for the enviroment malaky. It's a joke and complete and utter waste of time. - A drop in the ocean upon ocean.

This is the attitude we're all ap against. The betting has to be that it also owns a 4 x 4 and shouts on its mobile whenever it thinks people can hear it.
Its name is probably O'Leary and it probably O'manages a carbon-spewing O'airline.... 'Pratair' or some such...

lanyroo

ants97 wrote:

do people not realise that shops leave the lights on because they have to be refilled at night. all the people that complain about tesco, b&q etc having their lights on at night would be the first on the vent board moaning that tescos doesn't have any organic tomato soup on the shelves.

if you don't want to have any waste then don't apply for the freebies it is really quite simple.

You miss the point.

B&Q have the lights that are for SALE on - unnecessary.
Tell me what BT need refilling at night?????
Why not only put TVs on when requested by a customer to see what the picture is like.

Don'tskipit

paddock wrote:

well i dont really care about the future . i just want everything thats going FREE if its for nowt send me loads even if i cant use it , GIVE ME !! more .

L.O.L.

Oh dear!
I do feel very sad that someone like you is a member of the MSE site.