We're already past peak oil. Get ready for a post-carbon America or get out!

[BenIsForRon]

Yeah.

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/we-entered-peak-oil-iea-source-reportedly-claims/

No seriously, it was going to happen one day, why is it so hard to believe it has already happened?

Fossil fuels distort our perception of "efficiency". Some think that our current agriculture system is efficient because it uses very little human labor. The truth is: for every one calorie of food you eat, TEN calories of fossil fuel energy went into producing that food. That doesn't sound efficient to me... but maybe I'm retarded.

[hugolp]

In the 70's stagflation peak-oil was promoted to hide the increase of prices because of inflation from the FED. A lot of guru's claimed it was the end of petrol, and that in a few years petrol would be imposible to buy. We are still here.

Now the Fed has "printed" an enormous quantity of money and prices will rise heavily in the future. And suddelnty all this stories about peak-oil come out again? Give me a break.

Look, maybe peak-oil has come, maybe not. The truth is the oil industry is a very small market and the information is very secret. All this graphs about the oil ending and stuff are the same they said in the 70's. But, even if there is really peak-oil (I dont deny it, I just say only a few people know for sure) the price increase would be gradual. As petrol gets harder to get price will go up, but this process will happen over years, decades. The fact that petrol went to $150, then down to $30, and then up to $80 in less than a year (!!) is because of monetary manipulation, not because of peak-oil.

There might be peak-oil, but the price increase of peak-oil is just nothing compare with the price increase because of monetary manipulation. In the 70's they blamed the arabs to hide the Fed actions. Today they are going to do it again, and probably they are going to blame the chinese also. Anything to hide what the Fed has done.

[revolutionisnow]

^
^
Good post.

[Bman]

Yeah.

Nope.

Even if we did reach, so called, peak oil we would only know in retrospect.

[jmdrake]

Peak oil is a scam just like "man made global warming". This statist government has taken our best oil reserves off the table. (Alaska's north slope. Off shore oil etc.)

Plus that doesn't even cover things like oil sands or shale oil. We have 3 times the amount of oil in shale than ALL of Saudi Arabia.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146161

Note that the price of oil is falling even as gas prices rise again. That wouldn't happen if the peak oil predictions were true. And why do the oil giants need low oil prices right now? To stave off "wildcatters" like this man who drilled for oil in his backyard.

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8348967

[WClint]

What type of lunatic would want us to implement a cap and trade in the middle of a global recession... a democrat or a dumb-o-crat

Dem’s should use this report to pass the cap & trade bill. They should also spread the news about the planned wind farms off the Atlantic coast;158,000 wind towers built by six factories in this country. And 22,000 companies in 32 states, now working on green energy projects.

It’ time to project the positive to the American people. Let the right-wing spew their vomit!
2 people liked this comment.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

We have the solution to all of our energy needs and have had it for a long time....NUCLEAR POWER. France uses mostly Nuclear power and they have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. Eco zealots and Enviro-Marxists hate Nuclear power though, because it doesn't take us back 400 years.

As for vehicles. Let the free-market decide whether or not a new product is viable. Seriously, the Government cannot mandate our preferences.

[eok321]

Anybody read mike rupperts stuff?

Heres a clip of his new film

YouTube - COLLAPSE - Theatrical Movie Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyHIOg5aHk)

[BenIsForRon]

In the 70's stagflation peak-oil was promoted to hide the increase of prices because of inflation from the FED. A lot of guru's claimed it was the end of petrol, and that in a few years petrol would be imposible to buy. We are still here



You know that US oil production peaked in 1970, right? I think that had more to do with the gas problems of '73. Of course fed manipulation didn't help.

I think fed manipulation has caused the volatility we've seen in recent years as well. But that doesn't mean that oil production can't fall off significantly, while demand in China and India continues to skyrocket. Peak oil + fed manipulation of currency is a recipe for disaster.

[bigronaldo]

We have the solution to all of our energy needs and have had it for a long time....NUCLEAR POWER. France uses mostly Nuclear power and they have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. Eco zealots and Enviro-Marxists hate Nuclear power though, because it doesn't take us back 400 years.


That's true, but you're only talking about the small market of electricity. Electricity only accounts for about 10% of oil use in America. Coal and natural gas have bigger shares in electricity than oil. So in regards to the original post on "peak oil", going nuclear wouldn't have a huge impact.

Also, while we do have some uranium in America, you're talking about a finite commodity just like oil. We would most likely import most of it from Canada where there are vast supplies of uranium, anyway.

Not that I'm not in favor of going nuclear, just that has to be part of the solution, not the whole solution.

Peak oil on the other hand is most likely inevitable, the question is when. I would argue that it is MUCH further down the road than most globalists would like us to think. America has a minimum of 800 billion barrels of oil in the Green River Formation, and that's the conservative estimate. That's 3 times the reserves in Saudi Arabia. It's oil shale, so it's harder to get to, but it's still there. And companies are making finds all the time.

The great thing about the market is it has this uncanny ability to adapt quickly to changes in environment. It's the government that reacts slowly.

[paulitics]

Peak oil, global Warming, Climate Change, over-population, scarce resources.

The OP is right. You need to reconsider your life on this planet and whether it is worth living.
Just do what the government and TV people tell you. You're a filthy creature that consumes more than your daily output of production that should only be given to the worthy few.

Only Prince Charles, Al Gore, and BenisforRon know what is best for our planet and our carbon emitting species.

[Original_Intent]

Yeah.

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/we-entered-peak-oil-iea-source-reportedly-claims/

No seriously, it was going to happen one day, why is it so hard to believe it has already happened?

Fossil fuels distort our perception of "efficiency". Some think that our current agriculture system is efficient because it uses very little human labor. The truth is: for every one calorie of food you eat, TEN calories of fossil fuel energy went into producing that food. That doesn't sound efficient to me... but maybe I'm retarded.

Yep you are retarded.

Why not talk about how many calories of energy the plant has to absorb from the sun to grow? What does the calories of fissil fuels burned vs. the calories provided in the food have anything to do with anything? Are you proposing that having people out harvesting by hand would increase efficiency? It is this kind of retarded "oh we used 10 calories of x to produce 1 calorie of Y therefore it is inefficient!" argument that has this world as screwed up as it is. So thank you for your contribution.

Now I am right there with you that this shows how corn based ethanol is retarded and inefficient. 100% agree. But unless you have developed some way for us to directly use fossil fuels as a food source - then yes, your point is retarded.

[hugolp]

You know that US oil production peaked in 1970, right? I think that had more to do with the gas problems of '73. Of course fed manipulation didn't help.

I think fed manipulation has caused the volatility we've seen in recent years as well. But that doesn't mean that oil production can't fall off significantly, while demand in China and India continues to skyrocket. Peak oil + fed manipulation of currency is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, we agree, but you have to keep in mind that public oil information is not reliable. I just find very funny that every time the Fed creates stagflation some peak-oil event happens. It did not happen in the 50's, not in the 60's, not in the 80's, not in the 90's, not in 2000... Peak-oil allways come when the Fed is about to create a massive rise in prices. Its just too much for me to believe its random.


We have the solution to all of our energy needs and have had it for a long time....NUCLEAR POWER. France uses mostly Nuclear power and they have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. Eco zealots and Enviro-Marxists hate Nuclear power though, because it doesn't take us back 400 years.

As for vehicles. Let the free-market decide whether or not a new product is viable. Seriously, the Government cannot mandate our preferences.

Well, its not like uranium is very cheap or very plentyful. Uranium prices were rising faster than petrol, and imagine what would happen if a lot of countries would go for it. Plus, if you want to deal with the nuclear waste in a libertarian way it would increase the expenses (though this is true also if you want to deal with the oil polution in a libertarian way).

[BenIsForRon]

Peak oil, global Warming, Climate Change, over-population, scarce resources.

The OP is right. You need to reconsider your life on this planet and whether it is worth living.
Just do what the government and TV people tell you. You're a filthy creature that consumes more than your daily output of production that should only be given to the worthy few.

Only Prince Charles, Al Gore, and BenisforRon know what is best for our planet and our carbon emitting species.

Nice strawman. At least I'm thinking about the environmental effects of industrialization. Sounds like you could give two shits as long as the pollution isn't in your back yard.


Yep you are retarded.

Why not talk about how many calories of energy the plant has to absorb from the sun to grow? What does the calories of fissil fuels burned vs. the calories provided in the food have anything to do with anything? Are you proposing that having people out harvesting by hand would increase efficiency? It is this kind of retarded "oh we used 10 calories of x to produce 1 calorie of Y therefore it is inefficient!" argument that has this world as screwed up as it is. So thank you for your contribution.

Now I am right there with you that this shows how corn based ethanol is retarded and inefficient. 100% agree. But unless you have developed some way for us to directly use fossil fuels as a food source - then yes, your point is retarded.

I work on a farm where we the only petroleum product we use is gas in the tractor. We only use the tractor for big jobs. All harvesting and planting is done by hand. We avoid pesticide use whenever possible, and only use organic pesticides when we do.

So, after the energy spent by the tractor, and the energy spent by the workers, we have a net gain in energy produced on the farm.

Using fossil fuels for all aspects, you have net energy loss. This is economically viable as long as oil is cheap, but that's where peak oil comes into play. It's not going to be cheap forever.


I would argue that it is MUCH further down the road than most globalists would like us to think. America has a minimum of 800 billion barrels of oil in the Green River Formation, and that's the conservative estimate. That's 3 times the reserves in Saudi Arabia. It's oil shale, so it's harder to get to, but it's still there. And companies are making finds all the time.

The great thing about the market is it has this uncanny ability to adapt quickly to changes in environment. It's the government that reacts slowly.

Oil from shale is incredibly expensive to extract. It's not a viable alternative to prop up our current economic system.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh geeze. Who let Ben out of his cage? :p

For one we wouldn't have the problem of rampant pollution, or the tireless oil is a limited resource and it's running out now! if we actually let the free-market, you know, do what it does best. Meet the consumers preference and demand, and incentivizes innovation and productivity.

Personally, good for you. Doesn't mean I want to toil 12 hours a day doing manual labor when I can hop on the tractor or whatever "new fangled contraption that 19th Century innovators produced". Innovators are trying to move forward not backwards!

Ben, I suppose you fully support the return to agrarian society? Like that won't kill off billions!

PS: What is up with all the enviromentalist - agrarian radicals lately? "Go Green!" -- Yes, Nuclear!

[Original_Intent]

If we ever run out of peak oil then mankind will deal with it. Maybe like you are doing now by only using machinery for the big jobs. Maybe by developing other sources. Maybe by having mass population reduction due to starvation. It doesn't change the fact that you peak oil chicken littles have been shouting the sky is falling for 40 years and we just keep on trucking. If worse came to worse, ANWR has not been touched, Shale oil is expensive to extract now, but if we needed it we could develop better more economical methods of extraction, we just haven't because we still have other cheap sources.

You talk about "net-gain in energy" in your farm, all fossil fuels are is millions of years worth of solar energy stored in carbon that we are now taking advantage of. Even if, and I say a BIG IF, we ever ran out or it became a lot more expensive to get, there is zero doubt in my mind that it won't be the end of the world.

I got no problem with you Gaia worshipping "I live on a net energy gain farm" types. But you don't look at it as every gallon of refined gasoline has something like the energy of 500 (?) man-hours of physical labor stored in it. That means that gas can get HELLA expensive and still be viable from an economic perspective. You realize that if oild gets up around $150/bbl that Shale oil becomes profitable (actually it just needs to maintain over $70/bbl to break even) but no one wants to deal with shale oil when they can get Middle East crude for less. Also another thing about peak oil - we only take a small percentage of the oil out of the ground, and what can be easily extracted are what are calculated in "the reserves" that are still in the ground. But there ARE (costly) methods of being able to get many times the oil out of the ground that we currently take. In other words, almost all oils wells that are shut down as being "non productive" still have the VAST majority of the oil at that location LEFT IN THE GROUND, but it just wasn't cost effective at then-current-prices to extract it. Yes, virtually every well ever drilled still has VAST QUANTITIES of crude oil that can be recovered but just much more costly than current oil prices will support.

But of course the tree hugger environmentalist/GAIA worshipers can't be bothered by silly facts, because they are on a DIVINE MISSION to save the earth from those nasty pollutants called human beings.:rolleyes:

[Original_Intent]

I've given it a bit more thought and decided Ben is right - the planet is running out of calories. So we need to start capturing more of the calories bombarding the planet from our sun, to trap it in our ecosystem so we don't run out of calories. EVeryone please leave your cars running at night to raise the CO2 levels and contribute to global warming - err wait cooling - err wait again "climate change".

It is the only way to save our planet from a net calorie loss that I am assuming will cause - a new ice age? (well at least the current temperature trends support YOUR theory as opposed to that nut-case Algore.) :D

[Danke]

I've given it a bit more thought and decided Ben is right - the planet is running out of calories. So we need to start capturing more of the calories bombarding the planet from our sun, to trap it in our ecosystem so we don't run out of calories. EVeryone please leave your cars running at night to raise the CO2 levels and contribute to global warming - err wait cooling - err wait again "climate change".

It is the only way to save our planet from a net calorie loss that I am assuming will cause - a new ice age? (well at least the current temperature trends support YOUR theory as opposed to that nut-case Algore.) :D

I'd imagine it takes calories to breath. Also, exhaling produces CO2. So I propose we all skip every other breath.

[BenIsForRon]

It's the pesticides and fertilizers that are the problems, not so much the tractors and other machinery. The long distances the food has to travel is another problem.

May I remind you that the free market rarely sees into the future. We've developed an agricultural system, partially through free-market forces, that is completely unsustainable. I'm not saying we should abandon the free market, just that it can make mistakes too, and sometimes doesn't make corrections until after a crisis. Now, if government stopped subsidizing large agricultural corporations, we would be on our way to a more sustainable system.

I would also contest you on the point that billions would die if we got off of industrial agriculture. I will say, if we keep doing industrial agriculture, billions will die. We need an orderly decentralization of the food producing process, starting with an end to corn subsidies.

Austrian, I think one of your problems is that you're thinking about farming like you do a factory that prints circuit boards or some other product. There are many more factors that apply to farming than supply, demand, and input/output. The types of inputs you use (human vs chemical/machine), can positively or negatively affect the long term stability of your operation. On top of that, the sustainability of your operation has a direct effect on the livelihood of your neighbors who depend on you for sustenance.

What I'm saying is that you must take into account social costs of the type of agricultural system you're producing. If you compromise the long term survivability of a society, then you must change your ways.

[awake]

Peak oil can come about in two ways; naturally or artificially. The first could be a possibility, the second is within our power to control. If production and exploration are regulated heavily, and we wish attack and invade oil producing countries, then yes we are at peak oil of our own doing.

[bigronaldo]

Oil from shale is incredibly expensive to extract. It's not a viable alternative to prop up our current economic system.

While oil shale is pretty expensive right now (about $25-$30 a barrel to produce), that's why we need to continue research and expansion into this area. Like all things in the free market, it will get cheaper when we start using it more.

Think of LCD TVs back in 2000. Incredibly expensive compared to now. That didn't stop companies from making them. Eventually, manufacturing costs went down, thus prices decreased.

The whole reason why we embrace the free market is because of its ability to adapt to changes. Oil will not just dry up over night. The idea of peak oil is that we will start finding less and less fields to extract oil from, thus causing an increase in oil prices. We haven't reached that point yet (finding less fields that is). Even if we have, the demand for other technologies would increase. This would force manufacturers to produce products that use other technologies. We already have vehicles that run on natural gas. We also have electric cars. Those products, and probably an array of others, would fill the gap for demand. The most popular would most likely win out (think HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray). Once demand gets high enough to make manufacturing costs go down, the prices for such products will go down as well.

Yes, we are completely dependent on oil right now. But to think we will still be dependent on oil once the world is out assumes that the free market doesn't know how to deal with change.

[Carole]

I am surprised that people still are saying oil is a fossil fuel.

Oil Is NOT A Fossil
Fuel - It Is Abiotic
By Jerry Mazza
http://www.rense.com/general67/oils.htm


Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45838
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

[tangent4ronpaul]

Yep you are retarded.

Why not talk about how many calories of energy the plant has to absorb from the sun to grow? What does the calories of fissil fuels burned vs. the calories provided in the food have anything to do with anything? Are you proposing that having people out harvesting by hand would increase efficiency? It is this kind of retarded "oh we used 10 calories of x to produce 1 calorie of Y therefore it is inefficient!" argument that has this world as screwed up as it is. So thank you for your contribution.

I could bring up how many calories of plant matter it takes to produce one calorie of meat protein but I don't feel like getting pelted with virtual rotten vegetables right now.


Now I am right there with you that this shows how corn based ethanol is retarded and inefficient. 100% agree. But unless you have developed some way for us to directly use fossil fuels as a food source - then yes, your point is retarded.

Well, those Kraft cheese slices ARE chemically related to plastic....

-t

[Carole]

What type of lunatic would want us to implement a cap and trade in the middle of a global recession... a democrat or a dumb-o-crat

The kind of lunatic who wants to rule the world and increase their power over the huddled masses. :):D

They are convinced we are sufficiently dumbed down enough to quake with fear at their behest. :D

Did I hear the verb "Gored" - as in we are being Gored?

[dannno]

Anybody read mike rupperts stuff?

Heres a clip of his new film

YouTube - COLLAPSE - Theatrical Movie Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyHIOg5aHk)

Wow, cool..

Everybody always talks about Alex Jones and Bill Cooper predicting 9/11 as a staged terror attack by our govt...

Apparently I'm the only person who talks about Michael Ruppert predicting 9/11 as a staged terror attack by our govt., and perhaps it is because I don't have any evidence except for the fact that I was there and heard him say it first hand somewhere around April, 2001 in one of his lectures.

[bigronaldo]

I am surprised that people still are saying oil is a fossil fuel.

Oil Is NOT A Fossil
Fuel - It Is Abiotic
By Jerry Mazza
http://www.rense.com/general67/oils.htm


Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45838
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

Well, from my understanding, this is only an hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin). Though a recent lab study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091104123032.htm) has shown that some of the earth's oil may come abiotic synthesis.

Either way, I don't think we can conclusively say it is or is not a fossil fuel. Who knows, it could be both. Either way, the solution to "peak oil" (or the absence of peak oil) is to let the free market adjust accordingly.

[Dieseler]

Yeah.

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/we-entered-peak-oil-iea-source-reportedly-claims/

No seriously, it was going to happen one day, why is it so hard to believe it has already happened?

Fossil fuels distort our perception of "efficiency". Some think that our current agriculture system is efficient because it uses very little human labor. The truth is: for every one calorie of food you eat, TEN calories of fossil fuel energy went into producing that food. That doesn't sound efficient to me... but maybe I'm retarded.

Makes me want to build an outdoor furnace to burn automobile tires in...What a waste of energy chippin them things up.
We used to build great big ole fires with tires back in the 80's to burn brush, talk about hot, man you can burn anything clean up with a tire fire.
I got me a pile of them saved up out back if I ever need to light a signal fire... You can see that smoke for miles an miles.

[jmdrake]

Nice strawman. At least I'm thinking about the environmental effects of industrialization. Sounds like you could give two shits as long as the pollution isn't in your back yard.


:rolleyes:



I work on a farm where we the only petroleum product we use is gas in the tractor. We only use the tractor for big jobs. All harvesting and planting is done by hand. We avoid pesticide use whenever possible, and only use organic pesticides when we do.


So you use petroleum free tire? Petroleum free plastics? Petroleum free means to get your produce to market? And why do use gas in your tractor? Why aren't you using biodiesal Mr. high and mighty environmentalist?



So, after the energy spent by the tractor, and the energy spent by the workers, we have a net gain in energy produced on the farm.


:rolleyes:



Oil from shale is incredibly expensive to extract. It's not a viable alternative to prop up our current economic system.

That's where the free market comes in. If we were really in a "peak oil" situation then the price of oil would have stayed near $100 per barrel. At that point producing oil from shale and tar sands becomes economical with current technology. That would also lead to investments in making the process cheaper to improve profits. That has already happened to some extent.

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/18133/Commentary_Oil_Sand_Becoming_More_Economical.html

http://heatusa.com/blog/oil-corporations/oil-shale-continues-resistance-govt-environmentalists/

[Dieseler]

Please show me this tractor you burn Gas in...(gasoline?)
Seriously?
A link, model number, whatever.
I have an idea that could save your operation even more money and carbon emmisions if you are really burning Gasoline in a Tractor.

[fatjohn]

BenisforRon, why on earth would you like to discuss things like peak oil or climate change on RPF, don't you know that 90 percent of these folks are black and white? There are no shades of gray here. The environment on a global scale can't be dealt with based on individual freedoms.

You know, even the best ideology doesn't has all the answers.

(Don't stone me for my opinion) ( or call me a retard )

[Mini-Me]

I work on a farm where we the only petroleum product we use is gas in the tractor. We only use the tractor for big jobs. All harvesting and planting is done by hand. We avoid pesticide use whenever possible, and only use organic pesticides when we do.

So, after the energy spent by the tractor, and the energy spent by the workers, we have a net gain in energy produced on the farm.
A net gain in energy would seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics, wherein energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. You must be discounting not only the solar energy used for photosynthesis, and all of the solar energy missing the plants and being wastefully converted into heat and light, but all of the solar energy needlessly lost into space due to our lack of a Dyson Sphere... ;)

[BenIsForRon]

So you use petroleum free tire? Petroleum free plastics? Petroleum free means to get your produce to market? And why do use gas in your tractor? Why aren't you using biodiesal Mr. high and mighty environmentalist?

It's a step by step process. You can't go to zero impact overnight. You have to build the infrastructure and resources to do so over time. I'm hoping that, in twenty years, we can be making all of our plastics from hemp. Pie in the sky, I know, but a man can dream.



That's where the free market comes in. If we were really in a "peak oil" situation then the price of oil would have stayed near $100 per barrel. At that point producing oil from shale and tar sands becomes economical with current technology. That would also lead to investments in making the process cheaper to improve profits. That has already happened to some extent.


I know it can become profitable, but that is beside the point. My point is that all oil will be too expensive to support the transportation and food infrastructure that America is dependent on right now.

There is simply no alternative to maintain our current system. We have to decentralize, or die.

And stop being such a dick, you know I'm right on this shit, you just don't like me because I don't worship Ludwig von Mises.


Please show me this tractor you burn Gas in...(gasoline?)
Seriously?
A link, model number, whatever.
I have an idea that could save your operation even more money and carbon emmisions if you are really burning Gasoline in a Tractor.

Yeah, sorry, I guess it would be diesel.

[Bman]

There is simply no alternative to maintain our current system. We have to decentralize, or die.


But what's your point? Do you want to force this idea on people?

What if?

Your rhetoric will achieve nothing but mass hysteria. Even if peak oil is, was, will be achieved the process will not have the effect of running into a brick wall. It will be more of a slowly sinking ship. There will be time to get to the life boats, and most if not all will be saved.

It's great to care about mother earth, but you really are in left field wearing scuba gear on this topic.

[BenIsForRon]

My point is that people won't be able to afford to drive 30 minutes or an hour to get to work in the future. We won't be able to afford to have all of our food grown in Iowa and California and shipped around the world. Schools won't be able to afford to bus kids in from all over the county. To get out of these situations, we're going to need radical change. Most of the time, radical change doesn't happen until a crisis occurs. Hopefully, this time will be different, but we have to become aware of the brick wall we're heading towards, so we can make a turn down a road without a brick wall.

[AdamT]

Ever hear of abiotic oil theory? Russians proved long ago the Earth creates oil on it's own (nothing to do w/rotting plants, animals), drained wells have been observed to re-fill themselves. "Fossil" fuel is another misnomer?

[Bman]

It won't be a brick wall. If peak oil was met demand would outweigh supply. This would cause an increase in price. When the price got high enough that it would become beneficial for people to switch to alternative forms of energy they will. Yes there may be pain and suffering, and one would do well not to put all of their eggs in one basket, but what makes you think that forcing people to switch is not going to cause the same amount of pain and suffering? The cost of switching will be the cost. That cost will best be made when people do it voluntarily.

[Bman]

Ever hear of abiotic oil theory? Russians proved long ago the Earth creates oil on it's own (nothing to do w/rotting plants, animals), drained wells have been observed to re-fill themselves. "Fossil" fuel is another misnomer?

It's a theory. Even the russians have currently accepted the peak oil idea, but who wouldn't when you scare up prices. We know the chemical composition of oil. Plankton(sp?) seems to be at the root.

[Danke]

Ever hear of abiotic oil theory? Russians proved long ago the Earth creates oil on it's own (nothing to do w/rotting plants, animals), drained wells have been observed to re-fill themselves. "Fossil" fuel is another misnomer?

I have seen on another discussion group, this theory pretty well debunked by people in the industry.

However...

[awake]

It won't be a brick wall. If peak oil was met demand would outweigh supply. This would cause an increase in price. When the price got high enough that it would become beneficial for people to switch to alternative forms of energy they will. Yes there may be pain and suffering, and one would do well not to put all of their eggs in one basket, but what makes you think that forcing people to switch is not going to cause the same amount of pain and suffering? The cost of switching will be the cost. That cost will best be made when people do it voluntarily.

The pricing mechanism in the market is the most efficient allocation system of resources that can ever exist. This mechanism also drives innovation and alternatives as you have stated by profits and investment. What is missing however is the accumulated capital required to invest in sustainable alternatives thanks to government looting and misdirection.

The capital investment must be made by free players in the market, not government confiscation and redistribution.

We need unfettered capitalism more now then ever, as it is the only means to provide for the most people a higher standard of living and means to deal with unexpected disaster. Everything the government does in this day and age regarding free markets amounts to successively tying bricks to an Olympic swimmer and telling him they will make him faster - eventually he can not stay above water.

[LibForestPaul]

We have the solution to all of our energy needs and have had it for a long time....NUCLEAR POWER. France uses mostly Nuclear power and they have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. Eco zealots and Enviro-Marxists hate Nuclear power though, because it doesn't take us back 400 years.



or, see cap n trade and above on agriculture. All that coal and oil that wouldn't need to be burned. What is energy density ratio 1,000,000 : 1 or such.

[BenIsForRon]

It won't be a brick wall. If peak oil was met demand would outweigh supply. This would cause an increase in price. When the price got high enough that it would become beneficial for people to switch to alternative forms of energy they will. Yes there may be pain and suffering, and one would do well not to put all of their eggs in one basket, but what makes you think that forcing people to switch is not going to cause the same amount of pain and suffering? The cost of switching will be the cost. That cost will best be made when people do it voluntarily.

You seem to see this as more of a technology issue. I think the main problems will be caused by temporal and spatial relations of people to their sources of food and income.

People will have to abandon their homes in the suburbs or start farming closer to them. The retail sector will continue to falter because people will be spending more money on fuel and food. This is all good in the long run, but people need to start making changes now to avoid pain. If we start constructing bike lanes at the local level, stop subsidizing corn farmers at the national level, we will already be well on our way to fixing these systemic problems.

[Chieftain1776]

Don't buy it and history shows that the market will adjust to new sources. Gave me a good excuse to rewatch this though (for educational reasons of course):

YouTube - Talk Talk Talk STRIP - Peak Oily Cassandra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91TPrsZrwc)

[Bman]

Everything the government does in this day and age regarding free markets amounts to successively tying bricks to an Olympic swimmer and telling him they will make him faster - eventually he can not stay above water.

I agree whole-heartledly. If we are to hit a wall it will be because of government interference, not because of the idea of peak oil.

[Danke]

Benis,

I don't think anyone has a problem with getting government out of subsidizing farming.

The problems you allude to would have been taken care of in a true free market.


But we haven't had a free market, so your solutions seem to support more central management, even as you speak against it.

[Danke]

Don't buy it and history shows that the market will adjust to new sources. Gave me a good excuse to rewatch this though (for educational reasons of course):

YouTube - Talk Talk Talk STRIP - Peak Oily Cassandra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91TPrsZrwc)

Good video if you turn your speakers down and cover your left eye.

[Bman]

I think the main problems will be caused by temporal and spatial relations of people to their sources of food and income.

I don't buy into your logic. The reason is that if something is going to fail it needs to fail. If we can't live like we want to than we can't try to make the fairy tale exist. When you talk of your plans, you talk as if you know they are the best option. But when you pick options in this manner you are almost always doomed to fail because you have ruined the process from being a productive process.

You can build one million bike paths. Who is to say that the bike paths were the best issue? We won't know the best issue until people start spending their money in a certain direction. What direction will that be? That will be achieved through progress, production, and competition.

If you try to do this at a government level, your just adding to the possible great amount of pain we may feel.

How do you know someone won't invent a cheap form of energy in the meantime? How do we know solar, wind, geo is the best investment. That investment must come as a free market idea or on top the current finicial crisis we have you will be doing nothing more than adding fuel to the fire.

You can't force people into the concept of my idea is right.

WHAT IF?

Even if you are right

YouTube - "Annie" (1982) - Tomorrow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yop62wQH498&feature=related)

[AdamT]

Don't buy it and history shows that the market will adjust to new sources. Gave me a good excuse to rewatch this though (for educational reasons of course):

YouTube - Talk Talk Talk STRIP - Peak Oily Cassandra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91TPrsZrwc)

This is brilliant marketing.

[WClint]

The kind of lunatic who wants to rule the world and increase their power over the huddled masses. :):D

They are convinced we are sufficiently dumbed down enough to quake with fear at their behest. :D

Did I hear the verb "Gored" - as in we are being Gored?
Its really amazing that there are so many of these people (I am not talking about the Elite but rather the middle class morons), the low level doups who would gladly take a lower standard of living for the sake of "egalitarian equality", to be part of the "greater good", a "brighter future" and all that there Marxist religion has been preaching on towards them for the better part of at last 60 years (well of course the jokes on them). The mindset of the middle class liberals is astounding it is hilarious, rather than working for the betterment of there children (hell I bet half of them dont even have any) these zombie fucks will gladly relinquish there minuscule amount of wealth and power for the promise of a "better world". This is where it gets hilarious, the only thing that would change is the absence of a middle class, there will be a "party members" and subhuman cattle, who live to serve there "betters".

[BenIsForRon]

The bike lanes are one part of the solution on the local government's end.

Most of the work needs to be done outside of government, of course. We need to educate people on the downfall of the consumption-based economy. We need to educate people about the massive amount of oil their daily lives require. So this is an education thing more than anything.

My problem is that many of you either 1) think peak is a hoax, or 2) think its not a big deal because the free market provide alternatives.

The free market will not provide alternatives when none exist. There is no source of energy as cheap as oil. We have build our food and transportation infrastructure in a way that requires a constant supply of very cheap oil. If you guys don't see an urgent problem here, I don't know what else I can say.

[Bman]

The free market will not provide alternatives when none exist.

Free markets? How about nature.

http://lxsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/outreach/wyp/exercises/keyhole/en/theory/hydrogen.jpg

The most abundant element in the entire universe, and can be used as fuel. Once an infastructure is set up not only will it be cheaper than oil for energy, it will be nearly limitless. Problem is gas prices need to get high enough for this to be an option that people want to invest in the infastructure, but what I would persoanlly think would be the best direction to turn, however the FREE MARKET could prove me wrong. Something could be better I have not considered. Will have to see how it plays out in a competitive role.


There is no source of energy as cheap as oil.

http://z.about.com/d/space/1/5/Y/Q/sun_tour.jpg

This object makes the energy from oil seem like childs play. Plus if you have the proper equipment or idea it is 100% free.


We have build our food and transportation infrastructure in a way that requires a constant supply of very cheap oil.

We? Partly, but you may want to look at your friend the government with a bit more of a stern glance. Maybe research people like Howard Rory Johnson.



If you guys don't see an urgent problem here, I don't know what else I can say.

It's not an urgent problem, because if it can't stand on it's own two feet, it must be allowed to fail.


Do you actually watch, listen, or read anything Dr. Paul says? Do you not understand how proping up something that cannot stand on its own is just a bad idea?

Rather than running around yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling, why not actually try to turn people here unto alternatives that actually make sense. Maybe post deals on solar panels, or technology that can be used to be more effecient. Just makes more sense to me.

[BenIsForRon]

What are you talking about? I'm saying that the government SHOULD NOT be propping up the current system!

I'm talking about reducing oil consumption, that is the only option that makes sense. We can't power freight trucks with solar power. We can't ship Iowa's corn all over the country on solar power. Hydrogen must be created from a source like water, WHICH REQUIRES MASSIVE ENERGY INPUT!

You're waiting for a magic bullet to save our automobile-dependent lives. I'm saying that's not going to happen, we've got get back to bikes and small farms.

[hugolp]

What are you talking about? I'm saying that the government SHOULD NOT be propping up the current system!

I'm talking about reducing oil consumption, that is the only option that makes sense. We can't power freight trucks with solar power. We can't ship Iowa's corn all over the country on solar power. Hydrogen must be created from a source like water, WHICH REQUIRES MASSIVE ENERGY INPUT!

You're waiting for a magic bullet to save our automobile-dependent lives. I'm saying that's not going to happen, we've got get back to bikes and small farms.

But if you are right, meaning:

- There is peak-oil.

- There is not any real alternative.

Then what you are saying will happens anyway, because people will have no options, the price of transport will go very high and everything will become more local. It will happen on its own. If you really believe that is what will happen put yourself in a good position. And then, will see what really happens.

[aravoth]

You're waiting for a magic bullet to save our automobile-dependent lives. I'm saying that's not going to happen, we've got get back to bikes and small farms.

There are other options apart from solar, hydro, and bio fuels.

I'm not gonna ride a bike man. I live 15 miles away from work, and I live in Oregon. It's cold, it's raining, and it's full of assholes. Would you ride a bike through that kind of shit? I think not.

[Mini-Me]

What are you talking about? I'm saying that the government SHOULD NOT be propping up the current system!

I'm talking about reducing oil consumption, that is the only option that makes sense. We can't power freight trucks with solar power. We can't ship Iowa's corn all over the country on solar power. Hydrogen must be created from a source like water, WHICH REQUIRES MASSIVE ENERGY INPUT!

You're waiting for a magic bullet to save our automobile-dependent lives. I'm saying that's not going to happen, we've got get back to bikes and small farms.

Granted, perhaps today's semi trucks cannot run on entirely on direct solar power...though strapping solar cells all along the sides and top of the trailer would certainly capture a good deal of energy and reduce fuel requirements, especially as the efficiency of the technology continues to improve. Even after combining that with biodiesels and other ways of storing energy (even if the source is different, e.g. solar or nuclear), do you really think there's no alternative to petroleum for widespread transport of goods and personal transportation across bike-unfriendly distances?

I'm genuinely curious about your mindset here. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but ask yourself honestly: Is it really that you honestly believe there's no alternative to petroleum for maintaining an economy that relies on motor vehicles? Or, does the energy-intensive American lifestyle simply bother you so much on a personal level that you want to hear that it's unsustainable no matter what, and you're biased towards believing anything that assures you of that?

[Bman]

You're waiting for a magic bullet to save our automobile-dependent lives. I'm saying that's not going to happen, we've got get back to bikes and small farms.

And what I'm saying is when it is finacially the best option for people to go back to bikes and small farms they will. I mean seriously what is going on? Are you then trying to lay the foundation to hopefully be called the reincarnation of Nostradamus.

In my honest opinion you're making entirly to big a deal out of the concept of peak oil. Oil is far from having a monopoly on energy or how it is created. We have resources beyond our wildest imagination. If oil hits a peak eventually people will turn to these other forms of energy. It really is that simple. We did cross the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for hundreds of years before gas became our primary source of fuel. Energy is all around us. It's not hard to find. As markets change the infastructure to tap into these sources will also be developed. Sure some things may have to go at a slower pace. We may indeed return to small farms and not combustable engines for transportation, but we also may not.

This has been one of my favorite technological developments to check in on from time to time.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx

[BenIsForRon]

There are other options apart from solar, hydro, and bio fuels.

I'm not gonna ride a bike man. I live 15 miles away from work, and I live in Oregon. It's cold, it's raining, and it's full of assholes. Would you ride a bike through that kind of shit? I think not.

I'm not saying you should start riding a bike to work tomorrow. I'm just saying it will become prohibitively expensive to drive to work at some point in the future. It may be two years from now, it may be two decades.


Granted, perhaps today's semi trucks cannot run on entirely on direct solar power...though strapping solar cells all along the sides and top of the trailer would certainly capture a good deal of energy and reduce fuel requirements, especially as the efficiency of the technology continues to improve. Even after combining that with biodiesels and other ways of storing energy (even if the source is different, e.g. solar or nuclear), do you really think there's no alternative to petroleum for widespread transport of goods and personal transportation across bike-unfriendly distances?

I'm genuinely curious about your mindset here. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but ask yourself honestly: Is it really that you honestly believe there's no alternative to petroleum for maintaining an economy that relies on motor vehicles? Or, does the energy-intensive American lifestyle simply bother you so much on a personal level that you want to hear that it's unsustainable no matter what, and you're biased towards believing anything that assures you of that?

This website has debunked just about all the suggested alternatives:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

There is simply no substance as easy to obtain as oil that produces an equivalent amount of energy. Solar will be important, but it won't support what we have now. Maybe we could run our cars on electricity, but that would require an incredibly complex reworking of our electricity grids, as well as a massive increase in coal mining across the country. Not something that happens overnight, and how long should we wait before we start the transition? When gas is $5 a gallon? $10?

I'm simply looking at the facts. What I'm doing about it is telling my friends and family about it, voting for sustainability-oriented candidates at the local level, and learning about sustainable agriculture.


And what I'm saying is when it is finacially the best option for people to go back to bikes and small farms they will. I mean seriously what is going on? Are you then trying to lay the foundation to hopefully be called the reincarnation of Nostradamus.

In my honest opinion you're making entirly to big a deal out of the concept of peak oil. Oil is far from having a monopoly on energy or how it is created. We have resources beyond our wildest imagination. If oil hits a peak eventually people will turn to these other forms of energy. It really is that simple. We did cross the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for hundreds of years before gas became our primary source of fuel. Energy is all around us. It's not hard to find. As markets change the infastructure to tap into these sources will also be developed. Sure some things may have to go at a slower pace. We may indeed return to small farms and not combustable engines for transportation, but we also may not.

This has been one of my favorite technological developments to check in on from time to time.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx

Yes, energy is all around us. How do we get it into our tanks? How do we fill our grocery stores daily? I don't think you should have much faith in an idea on Honda's website. For christssake, there's a robot in the house! You should really read the full webpage in the link I posted. This is no small issue.

I'm not being Nostradamus here. If anyone is that, its Michael Ruppert. I'm just doing my part to end the ignorance of peak oil on this board. I see this issue much like the issue of the Fed. We're being sold the image of a healthy economy as opposed to an actual healthy economy. Any economy depedent upon oil, especially at this stage, can not be healthy.

[Bman]

For christssake, there's a robot in the house!

LOL. Yeah that is pretty funny, but heck, it's also what I'm trying to say to you. It's never quite how we envision it. I just really don't share your fear.

[Andrew-Austin]

YouTube - Talk Talk Talk STRIP - Peak Oily Cassandra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91TPrsZrwc)

Wow thanks I am totally convinced of peak oil doomsday theory now, thanks Ben oh I mean Chieftain.

[literatim]

If oil runs out (which it won't), the coal industry will boom.

[Pants]

I totally disagree with Cap and Trade. I think Taxing the hell out of a commodity to force you to change your habits is the wrong idea..

I'd love to go solar, or use wind for power.. I would love more than anything to get off the grid and be self sufficient. I don't have the resources to do it..

You can't just go into a bank these days and ask for a $30,000 to $60,000 loan and tell them you want to go green. They recognize products for solar, a wind, or any other source of heating or energy as a risk..

If the dumbocrates want us to go green.. Why not offer more no interest loan programs for us to afford it?? Or if our excess energy gets sold back to the power company, that can be used to pay off the loan..

The problem is you can't tax solar and wind energy consumption.. The Dumbocrates would rather see the income from Cap and Trade and hurt Americans rather than come up with simple solutions to help get everyone off fossil fuels..

Its like the Cigarette tax.. Tax the hell out of it.. But if everyone quit smoking tomorrow.. Certain health programs, schools, and hospitals would be in a world of hurt. They want you to quit smoking, but then again they don't.. And the truth of it.. the government doesn't want to see you live much past 80. You might cash out 10% of the social security you put into the program.

[pcosmar]

I had looked into wind power on my farm, but there are too many restrictions here.
I will wait for the system to collapse and set up my own alternatives.

I am not opposed to alternative energy, I just don't believe it should be mandated of enforced.
It should be encouraged and not discouraged.

[Zippyjuan]

When closely examined, abiotic oil is not supported. As for oil shales in the Western US, yes, it is there but is incredibly difficult to get out. It does not work the same as a traditional oil field where you drill a hole and pump it out. You have to dig up milllions of tons of rocks and crush and heat them to extract the oil. It requires a lot of energy to produce- an estimated two barrels worth of energy from one barrel worth of energy to extract it. It also requires a lot of water- which is already a scarce resource in the region the shale is found. To provide the energy for the extraction and production you need to build dozens if not more new power plants- probably coal fired. Then you have to dig and extract the coal to fire them and transport that to the site. The millions of tons of waste needs to be dealt with too. Thousands of acres will be destroyed.

Are we at peak oil? We won't know until after the fact- as someone earlier pointed out. What we can easily see is that new oil is not being found as quickly as it is being used up - 80 million barrels a day were used in 2005 or 29 billion barrels a year. One by one, oil producing and exporting countries are becoming net importers. The US used to be one of the biggest exporters in the world and we are now the largest importer. Indonesia and Britain have made the transition from exporters. Mexico and Venezuela and even Iran are getting close to becoming net importers. Iran wants nuclear energy to free up oil from domestic use so it can be exported for revenue.

Peak oil is not running out of oil but occurs when global production begins to decline. Russia, along with Saudi Arabia the current largest exporter in the world, started facing declines in output about two years ago. Their current rates of extraction are not sustainable in the long run. What it does mean is that oil will become more scarce and more expensive (due to the dual factors of lower supply and the higher costs of getting that extra barrel out of the ground).

[jmdrake]

It's a step by step process. You can't go to zero impact overnight. You have to build the infrastructure and resources to do so over time. I'm hoping that, in twenty years, we can be making all of our plastics from hemp. Pie in the sky, I know, but a man can dream.



I know it can become profitable, but that is beside the point. My point is that all oil will be too expensive to support the transportation and food infrastructure that America is dependent on right now.

There is simply no alternative to maintain our current system. We have to decentralize, or die.

And stop being such a dick, you know I'm right on this shit, you just don't like me because I don't worship Ludwig von Mises.


Oh go stuff yourself! Really I'm getting sick and tired of jerks who wish to lash out and others simply because they aren't smart enough to intelligently refute their argument! You are not right! You are as wrong as two left shoes. And I could care less about what Ludwig von Mises has to say about the issue! Peak oil IS A SCAM just like global warming IS A SCAM just like the war on terror IS A SCAM!

You have been hoodwinked by the big money interests that want to force up oil prices for the sake of their own profits and control the natural switch to alternatives! Yes that's right. A switch to alternatives can happen if people do it on their own instead of being coerced

Look at your own self. Like a hypocrite you are still a burning petroleum product in your tractor when you could switch to biodiesel or ethanol TODAY! Now YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT! But no. Like collectivist you'd rather push for the government to force other people to do what you claim needs to be done rather than stand up to the plate and lead by example. Biodiesal is not "pie in the sky". You could make it in your kitchen right now if you wanted to. So why haven't you? Why are you waiting on the government?

There's plenty of oil, much of it has been taken off the table by the government and the price of extracting the rest is dropping everyday! There is no excuse for adopting your socialist position. None whatsoever.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[stilltrying]

I'm not saying you should start riding a bike to work tomorrow. I'm just saying it will become prohibitively expensive to drive to work at some point in the future. It may be two years from now, it may be two decades.



This website has debunked just about all the suggested alternatives:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

There is simply no substance as easy to obtain as oil that produces an equivalent amount of energy. Solar will be important, but it won't support what we have now. Maybe we could run our cars on electricity, but that would require an incredibly complex reworking of our electricity grids, as well as a massive increase in coal mining across the country. Not something that happens overnight, and how long should we wait before we start the transition? When gas is $5 a gallon? $10?

I'm simply looking at the facts. What I'm doing about it is telling my friends and family about it, voting for sustainability-oriented candidates at the local level, and learning about sustainable agriculture.



Yes, energy is all around us. How do we get it into our tanks? How do we fill our grocery stores daily? I don't think you should have much faith in an idea on Honda's website. For christssake, there's a robot in the house! You should really read the full webpage in the link I posted. This is no small issue.

I'm not being Nostradamus here. If anyone is that, its Michael Ruppert. I'm just doing my part to end the ignorance of peak oil on this board. I see this issue much like the issue of the Fed. We're being sold the image of a healthy economy as opposed to an actual healthy economy. Any economy depedent upon oil, especially at this stage, can not be healthy.

Maybe then the government will release all of Teslas energy notes. What you see today as far as energy use is put their inplace to keep the fat cats happy and the oligarch going. Why produce Tesla free energy for everyone to use? Who does that hurt the rich or the poor. Just like the military has stuff now that is way beyond what you or I currently see or know about. I will bet that the same thing is happening with the energy sector.

Tesla was a one of a kind. Do you doubt that Tesla was right when he stated that there is all kinds of free energy out there? He is the godfather of all modern electronics. His ideas were stolen along time ago and they are bottled up somewhere. They will be released when the oligarchy feels it has no choice for its own survival.

[BenIsForRon]

JM, I am not advocating socialist positions. I'm tired of your strawmen.

[EndDaFed]

If you want to learn more about this type in crash course in youtube search. It's 3 hours long, but provides a great overview of the entire situation. Or you can watch it for free on this website. http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

[LibForestPaul]

But if we don't scare the sheeple with peak oil, how will cap n trade theft, I mean markets, be forced, um, created for the betterment of the elites, no earth, yeah.

[jmdrake]

JM, I am not advocating socialist positions. I'm tired of your strawmen.

:rolleyes: I'm tired of your "you know I'm right" crap. You're not right. And peak oil is being pushed by socialists regardless of whether that's your reasoning. You still haven't answered the question. If you are so convinced of peak oil or global warming why are you still burning gas in your tractor? If you live on a farm you can make all the biofuel you need and then some.

[brandon]

Fossil fuels distort our perception of "efficiency". Some think that our current agriculture system is efficient because it uses very little human labor. The truth is: for every one calorie of food you eat, TEN calories of fossil fuel energy went into producing that food. That doesn't sound efficient to me... but maybe I'm retarded.

You know what's even worse? Photosynthesis requires 20 joules of light energy to produce 1 joule of chemical energy! Talk about inefficient! :rolleyes:

[Carole]

WClint:

I find it amazing that people cannot see what is staring them in the face.

Here we have the US government acting as the world's largest laundering operation and all these "smart" guys in DC and in Wall St. banks who have nothing better to do with their time than sit around and comeup with new clever schemes to steal the money out of our pockets and deposit it into theirs. Oh, and Al Gore, too; he loves to think of ways to steal our dollars.

It makes me physically ill to look at these creeps/thieves.

[Carole]

I would take Jerome Corsi over our government any day. :)

[Carole]

BenIsfor Ron said:

"I know it can become profitable, but that is beside the point. My point is that all oil will be too expensive to support the transportation and food infrastructure that America is dependent on right now.

There is simply no alternative to maintain our current system. We have to decentralize, or die."

The need to decentralize is valid. However, the reason is that we are watching the integration of military and economic warfare. The price of oil will be expensive; that is true, but the reason is political and economic warfare.

There will be food shortages and water shortages. You name it; THEY will create it. So yes, we will need to decentralize as people to survive because TPTB are purposefully destroying our way of life. In order to make way for the new government, they first must destroy the old one and all that goes with it. Sort of like boot camp in the Army. Break them down, then rebuild them in the Army image for example.

So yes, we will need to decentralize and learn to barter and create local currencies, and find ways to cooperate at the local levels in order to survive. Because our government is betraying the Constitution and the oaths they took. Treason alone is the reason for all that is going on around us.

Centralization using the Mortgage fraud in US is how the mortgage markets are being used to flood the communities with credit in a way to centralize political and economic control.

Same group of investors and same corporations have been moving around the world centralizing economic and political power in such a way that shifts assets out of communities and out of sovereign governments into corporations.

There is tremendous suppressed technology in areas of energy and healthcare.

The PTB have been subjecting people to the slow burn for decades. Now it has speeded up. The "peak oil" is just one of the ruses being using to keep people scared. Fear is the biggest tool used against innocent citizens to gain power and control.

The government has been perpetrating the world's largest fraud upon the people now for decades. Now they wish to instigate their end game.

I completely reject "peak oil". Russia just in the past year discovered a gigantic oil supply, one of the biggest as I recall reading.

We are living under a completely fraudulent government doing completely fraudulent things in every aspect of its existence and that lies and lies and lies!!!

The rule of law no longer exists and therefore there is no way to measure risk. Our investment system is now a joke because of that.

Complete dictatorial powers. Section 8 reads as follows: Decision by Sec of Treasury pursuant to Authority of this act are non-reviewable and committed to Agency discretion and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any Administrative agency.

What that means is if I am Sec of Treasury, and I need to buy significant derivatives and mortgage pools that were fraudulently issued and that are, of course, worthless, and I need everyone on the planet to NOT know that because the last thing I want to do is destroy the legitimacy of the system, this is how you do it!!

And you expect people to believe them when they say we are near or at "peak oil".

I lost my political innocence decades ago. When I applied for my first mortgage in early 90's, I knew something was VERY wrong with the system and I knew the systemic breakdown would have to come one day. And before that the dotcom bubble and Enron, BCCI, etc.

There is NO way I believe anything liars tell me. But good luck to anyone who buys that line about peak oil. It is all about control friend.

[BenIsForRon]

What's hilarious about all these denier posts, is that you never hear the government talking about peak oil and its consequences. The government doesn't want you to know about peak oil, because they are afraid you'll stop buying useless crap!

[Bman]

What's hilarious about all these denier posts, is that you never hear the government talking about peak oil and its consequences. The government doesn't want you to know about peak oil, because they are afraid you'll stop buying useless crap!

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Plus how does peak oil = oh noes better not buy a TV?

[Zippyjuan]

I completely reject "peak oil". Russia just in the past year discovered a gigantic oil supply, one of the biggest as I recall reading.

The "gigantic" oil find was in the Caspian sea. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/oil-discovered-in-russia-drilling-to.html The total estimated extractable yield of the discovery is about 800 million barrels- and since just the United States burns through 20 million EVERY DAY, that would be used up by just us in bit over a month (40 days). Unless you have a link to a bigger find. Russian oil output peaked about two years ago and has been declining since then. Countries which used to be oil exporters are one by one becoming importers. The US used to be the largest exporter- now we are the largest importer. Britain lost net exporter status as did Indonesia. Do you think that if they still had oil they would like to keep pumping it and getting the tax revenues? Mexico and Venezuela are said to be nearing their tipping point in the next few years and becoming net importers. Iran is getting close too which is one reason they want nuclear power- to free up petroleum from domestic use and instead sell it abroad for revenues. Oil is the major sector of their economy.

Brazil has had the biggest recent find- about 33 billion barrels some seven miles down under five miles of water and two miles of rock. Drilling that deep is very costly and risky if you do not find anything there (or just not enough to cover your costs of developing and extracting what is there) http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/15/huge-brazil-oil-discovery-brings-no-relief-from-surging-oil-pric/

The question now is whether one huge deposit can offset a decline in Russia and a fall-off in oil from other large producers like Mexico. For now, the answer is "no." That's because the Brazil discovery is in deep water. It could take several years to get it completely online. The decline in production in other countries is happening now.
The world consumes some 31.5 billion barrels a year so by the time this comes on line we (the world) will have consumed several times the amount of oil it contains. You need a new field of that size every year to keep pace with demand.

New discoveries are not keeping pace with growing consumption.