Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 05:21:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 't')he scale of energy we need to substitute for the energy dense sources of oil, then gas, then coal is almost mind boggling [...] Even if the decline is slow (perhaps an undulating downslope with occasional, but lower, upturns), it is this scale of energy substitution that you never seem to address.


I address it often: If the decline is slow, substitution will start from a small base, but will grow exponentially, and the substitution will be completed over a long period of time. As you know, exponential growth is an amazing thing, and can grow very large, given *time*.
Only if the resources are there to continue such growth. In case you hadn't noticed, this is precisely the problem with oil. The accessible resources are not there to allow growth to continue much longer.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')ou're falsely exaggerating the seriousness of the immediate problem when you lump oil, gas and coal together. We don't need to substitute the entire amount of all of them all at the same time. In fact, for quite a long time, gas+coal (among nuclear and other things) will be used to substitute for oil. The immediate task (assuming a slow decline) is to substitute a 1-2% per annum decline in oil production. And we've been accomplishing that task just fine for the last 2.5 years, as the stats show.
I'm not sure where you get your stats from but if we've been substituting "fine", then why are a lot of very intelligent people and collections of people not seeing that? Why are some countries having energy problems? Why is economic growth slowing? Why is oil demand not moderating enough to avoid escalating oil prices?

But you are falsely associating my position with a fast decline. In case you didn't read my previous post, scale is not about the speed of decline, it's about replacing a declining energy dense source (and, in particular, a liquid one) with other energy sources. Eventually, we'd need to substitute for almost all the energy we get from oil and gas and coal and, based on economic forecasts, which assume no limits on energy for decades, the world will need the energy contained in something like 120 mbpd by 2030, at a time when oil production is in a plateau and nearing decline. Within this time frame, gas and coal could also peak (an event which would be accelerated by attempts to substitute for oil declines), which is why I mention them. What you are wishing for is that somehow the growth in alternatives can continue indefinitely, that they can substitute for all uses of oil, gas and coal smoothly, and that there will be no adverse consequences of doing so. This is all wishful thinking. Since you haven't addressed scale in any depth here (except to say that exponential growth will take care of it), I assume that you are unable to do so.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')our talk about the scale of oil, gas and coal is just a red herring. Essentially, you are arguing like this:

1) We use mindboggling amounts of oil, gas and coal
2) Therefore we can't divert 1-2% per annum of oil use over to other power sources like electricity (generated by nuclear, wind, solar, coal, NG, tar sands, oilshale etc.)

There's no connection between 1) and 2). Can you please explain to me more clearly why 1) implies 2)?
I'm sure that you've read many articles about the quantities of energy we use and how much of that is from fossil fuels (and other finite resources). I'm sure that you must also have read articles about possible alternatives and why, individually or combined, they will have a difficult or impossible time both substituting for that scale of energy and increasing the amount of available energy, for all uses, to enable continued growth in developed and developing economies.

Address the scale issue, without wishful thinking, if you can. That would be most helpful.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 05:31:59

Deleted - duplicate post.
Last edited by TonyPrep on Mon 17 Dec 2007, 05:47:24, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 05:32:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '[')url=http://peakoil.com/post567713.html#567713]Just a few statistics to remember.[/url]
Those charts look unlikely. Do they refer to just electricity, or to total energy use (which includes that biggy, transport energy, as well as non-electrical heating, cooking, etc)?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 06:37:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'W')ell let's see: about 1/2 of a barrel of oil is gasoline. The rest is diesel, kerosene, LPG, bunker oil, asphalt, etc. Basically all things that are necessary to producing stuff.


Well then, it should be a no-brainer to list some of that stuff up, doncha think?

Here's Heineken's original claim if you're still confused:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hus, China, India, etc., are burning the oil to produce goods that Europe would otherwise burn to produce them on its own.


Please list the *specific* goods that China and India etc. are producing for Europe by burning oil.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby wisconsin_cur » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 07:19:24

This is not my area of expertise but I do believe that steel is produced using at least some oil as part of the feed stock for the blast furnace. (I belive that you can also use nat. gas or coal and I do not know how the furnaces in China work, I would guess there is a great variety)

There is a lot of Chinese steel going to Europe and being used world-wide by european companies.

Also textiles. As I recall there was a big argument about Chinese textiles sitting in European ports while there was an argument about quotas. A lot of clothing is now made from synthetics and at least the news emphasized the number of women's underwear and brazers that were tied up because of the argument.

just .02blast furnace$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he hot blast temperature can be from 900°C to 1300 °C (1600°F to 2300°F) depending on the stove design and condition.[22] The hot blast is directed into the furnace through water-cooled copper nozzles called "tuyeres" near the base. The temperatures they deal with may be 2000 °C to 2300 °C (3600°F to 4200°F).[22] Oil, tar, natural gas, powdered coal and oxygen can also be injected into the furnace at tuyere level to combine with the coke to release additional energy which is necessary to increase productivity.[22]


the bra wars

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')eijing is now Europe's largest source of manufactured imports, but the 27-nation bloc, with a population of about 470 million people, exports less to China than it does to Switzerland.
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
User avatar
wisconsin_cur
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 09:31:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'J')D will use the example of the United States as evidence that moderate decline can be managed and will not have consequence outside its own industry. But this is wrong. He will compare the U.S. (with its onetime super giant fields, record production rates and unimaginable power and wealth) to that other petroleum giant Saudia Arabia, and argue that modern oil fields will decline moderately in a similar fashion. But he will be wrong.

JD will argue that the world's infrastructure and economy can withstand such moderate decline rates (of several percent) experienced in the United States since it oil peak in 1973. JD will be wrong again

Furthermore he will minimize the devastation that serious decline rates of 5% or more, (similar to those artificially induced by the oil embargos and wars of the 1970's) can have on an economy and the social fabric. He can not even fathom what world-wide 8%, 9%, or 12% decline year in and year out forever will do to our civilization.

It is clear to those who bother to study history that the moderate curve of oil production and decline in the United State is an aberration and must be discarded when modeling other oil regimes, including that meta-region planet earth. U.S. petroleum declines rates are the exception and prove nothing about world rates


Pete, the above is just unsubstantiated opinion and posturing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is because U.S. petroleum reserves were explored, developed, produced, and are declining under a completely different regime than the rest of the world. Here in the United States a specific oil field culture framed in a specific historical period (and a consequence of primitive technologies, unique geography, weather, and specific archaic accounting laws) insured that petroleum would be extracted slowly and would conversely decline in a similar fashion.

The slow decline of oil production in the United States (specifically the continental US) is aberrant and not be generalized. Rather look to Mexico and it's supergiant field Cantarell for guidance (declines of 12%), the North Slope and North Sea (8-12%) Yibel, and a host of other regions depleted with great expertise, at great expense, using the most modern technologies available. This is our future.


You're just cherry picking the worst figures you can find, and then waving your hand and saying "That's what the whole world is going to be like." Even the areas you cite aren't as bad as you claim. The EIA C&C stats for Mexico after its peak in 2004 look like this:

2004: 3383kbd
2005: 3334
2006: 3256
2007: 3126

That's an annual decline rate of 2%, not 12% as you are suggesting.

For the North Slope, stats from the Alaska Tax Division show that liquids production dropped from a peak of 2.006mbd in 1988 to 0.74mbd in 2007. That's an annual decline rate of 5.2%. But, as we know, that was absorbed into U.S. liquids production, which has been declining at a mild rate of 1.3% per annum since 1970.

Yibal (not "Yibel") was one oil field, and it didn't cause oil production in Oman to collapse. Oman dropped from its EIA C&C peak of 970kbd in 2000 to 707kbd today. That's an annual decline rate of 4.4%. Well short of your 8-12%.

UK C&C peaked in 1999 at 2684kbd and today is at 1486kbd, for an annual decline rate of 7.2%.

Furthermore, all of the rapid collapsers you cited were uneventfully absorbed into world C&C production, which has declined from a peak of 74.3mbd in May 2005 to its most recent value of 73.5mbd in Sept. 2007.

Image

That's a mild net decline rate for the world of 0.5% per annum.

Furthermore, we have a mathematical theory by Stuart Staniford and J. Brown over at the Oil Drum which gives a rationale for a low worldwide post-peak decline rate. This analysis predicts that world decline rates will be less than 2% for more than 20 years after the peak, as shown in this graph:
Image
Note the decline rate predicted for the UK. According to the theory, it should begin at 0 in 1999 (the year of UK's C&C peak) and increase to about 6% in 2007 (8 years later).

The actual decline figures for the UK:
2001: -6%
2002: -1.7%
2003: -8.7%
2004: -8.3%
2005: +3.0%
2006: -4.7%
2007: -4.3%

Certainly a lot of noise in there, but it generally agrees with the theory.

For the U.S., the theory predicts a decline rate less than 3% for 30 years, and that has been the case. The average decline rate for the U.S. has been 1.3% per year.

Simply stating -- without any evidence -- that "The world is going to collapse like Cantarell" doesn't prove anything. Even Mexico (during the collapse of Cantarell!) doesn't collapse like Cantarell, as I've shown.

Small areas collapsing at high rates have very little effect on the world. If Yibal (at 250kbd) collapses in one year, for a decline rate of 100%, the world only drops by 0.3%. Even if Ghawar collapses at 12% a year, that will only shave 0.7% per year off the world total.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 09:57:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'T')his is not my area of expertise but I do believe that steel is produced using at least some oil as part of the feed stock for the blast furnace. (I belive that you can also use nat. gas or coal and I do not know how the furnaces in China work, I would guess there is a great variety)

There is a lot of Chinese steel going to Europe and being used world-wide by european companies.


Thanks for trying w_c, but this is the breakdown on fuel inputs to the steel industry in the U.S.:
Image
Not a whole lot of oil being consumed there. The data comes from here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/iab98/steel/fuel.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'A')lso textiles. As I recall there was a big argument about Chinese textiles sitting in European ports while there was an argument about quotas. A lot of clothing is now made from synthetics and at least the news emphasized the number of women's underwear and brazers that were tied up because of the argument.


I'm kind of confused. Where exactly in the lingerie manufacturing process is the oil actually burnt?

You see Heineken says: "China, India, etc., are burning the oil to produce goods that Europe would otherwise burn to produce them on its own." So were the Europeans burning oil at their bra factories too? Where did they burn the oil? Out back?
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby Heineken » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 10:34:27

Schroedinger's Cat has already answered your objection, JD:

Well let's see: about 1/2 of a barrel of oil is gasoline. The rest is diesel, kerosene, LPG, bunker oil, asphalt, etc. Basically all things that are necessary to producing stuff. Especially in producer nations. You need an amazing infrastructure to produce and deliver all the products that modern western society has become dependent on.

In the past decade the price of oil has gone up four fold. That means that the price of shipping things has gone up at least as much. Plus the various inputs which have been made more expensive.

Oil is an input to almost every aspect of modern society. Perhaps more modern countries don't rely upon oil for the direct production of electricity, but electricity is only one input to the industrial chain.

What else don't you get?
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 10:38:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'A')re we past a million AFVs in the US yet? And the only truly long solutions for me are EVs, the smallest contributor here.

I agree that EVs are the best solution, but oil was $30 a barrel as late as 2003. Before that it was averaging in the teens and 20s for ten years. There was no need for EVs until very recently. Give it a little time. Of course you can switch to a small EV any time the mood strikes you:
Image
http://www.egovehicles.com/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')ll the empirical evidence seems to support Stuart's theory. Do you have a good argument for not believing it? Any empirical evidence which refutes it? I'd love to hear it if you do.


Dunno about that but in 282. LAHERRERE: LIQUIDS WILL PEAK AROUND 2020 you stated:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd, for all you Hubbert-Linearization true-believers, here's Laherrere's new liquids linearization. Note how the linearization goes haywire after 2003. We were all set to hit 2250, and then Bing! the unexpected happens, and now we're heading for 3000 -- maybe even 4000. Which just goes to show how completely worthless HL is as a predictive technique.


H-L is a bad technique because there are no objective criteria for drawing the line, or deciding when the plot has "settled down". This causes H-L to frequently underestimate the URR, and thus overestimate the Y-intercept which indicates the decline rate. In the case of Stuart's decline rate theory, this is not a problem because a decline rate less than 2% for 20 years is good enough already. If 2% turns out to be an overestimate due to a faulty H-L, then so much the better. HTH.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e's on board with us Peakers now, too.
You strike me as more of a fence-sitter. What makes you a "Peaker"?
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 10:52:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'S')chroedinger's Cat has already answered your objection, JD:

Well let's see: about 1/2 of a barrel of oil is gasoline. The rest is diesel, kerosene, LPG, bunker oil, asphalt, etc. Basically all things that are necessary to producing stuff. Especially in producer nations. You need an amazing infrastructure to produce and deliver all the products that modern western society has become dependent on.

In the past decade the price of oil has gone up four fold. That means that the price of shipping things has gone up at least as much. Plus the various inputs which have been made more expensive.

Oil is an input to almost every aspect of modern society. Perhaps more modern countries don't rely upon oil for the direct production of electricity, but electricity is only one input to the industrial chain.

What else don't you get?


You said: "Thus, China, India, etc., are burning the oil to produce goods that Europe would otherwise burn to produce them on its own."

I asked you to name the SPECIFIC goods which are produced by burning oil.

SC helpfully chimed in with the highly specific "stuff". LOL. You're both hopeless. :roll:
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby SchroedingersCat » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 13:53:46

Let's put this in a proper perspective. Name one thing the east produces for the west to buy that does not consume or burn oil in the course of its production and delivery.
Civilization is a personal choice.
SchroedingersCat
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu 26 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The ragged edge
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby jbeckton » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 14:32:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'L')et's put this in a proper perspective. Name one thing the east produces for the west to buy that does not consume or burn oil in the course of its production and delivery.


Commie Propaganda?
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby yesplease » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 15:01:31

Cheap commie labor. :razz:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby TheDude » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 16:34:56

India used 2.44 mbpd in 2004, for whatever purposes. More commuting and shipping, one supposes. Non-OECD Asia (excluding China) is about 14 mbpd and projected to double by 2030.

Regarding Mexico, found this bit at:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')eassessing the Potential for Oil Production in Mexico
Projections for Mexico's crude oil production in
IEO2007 are much lower than those in IEO2006. In last
year's outlook, oil production in Mexico was projected
to increase steadily, to 5.0 million barrels per day in
2030, despite an anticipated decline in production from
the country's largest oil field, Cantarell (see map on
page 34).
a
IEO2007, instead, projects a decline to 3.0
million barrels per day in 2012, followed by a gradual
recovery to 3.5 million barrels per day in 2030. The new
assessment reflects the anticipated decline in Cantarell
production, assumptions about announced projects
and recent discoveries, and long-term assumptions
about economic motivations and national oil industry
policy that better reflect the country's production
potential.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')ou strike me as more of a fence-sitter. What makes you a "Peaker"?


I still think OPEC have surprises in store for us - and not pleasant ones. I have my doubts about being able to pull more and more megaprojects out of the hat year after year; the dud MegaMegaprojects of Jack 2 and Kashagan in particular should give you pause, since last I heard 60% of production is coming from that small number of giant fields - 1%, 3%, whatever it is. We really need a Peak Oil factbook!

We are capable of transitioning to using other forms of transport, particularly EVs - and I disagree with Tyler that uranium is "non-renewable." Only one of those 200 year old Turtles would notice. It's just that we won't make enough of an effort until things become truly dire, and in real life the compromises are not what's best for us in a truly long haul. Forget SUVs - why are we still building piston engines? Will we try and keep up this charade for hundreds of years?

There's also all those other issues. Tangential to energy issues of course but we live on just the one planet.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby yesplease » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 17:31:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I')t's just that we won't make enough of an effort until things become truly dire, and in real life the compromises are not what's best for us in a truly long haul. Forget SUVs - why are we still building piston engines? Will we try and keep up this charade for hundreds of years?
We will waste oil for as long as possible because that's how the situation is designed. Anything less and those who own oil and have enough clout to make the rules make less...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby TheDude » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 19:51:50

Was reading POLL: Credit crunch, new IEA production high (but what about the net?), lower world exports? Whither Oil Prices? and Stoneleigh made this interesting comment (boldface mine):

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')MO China is on the verge of their version of the 1930s (a deflationary depression early in their ascendancy), while we are facing something worse. In the 1930s we had a depression despite plentiful resources and a skilled populace used to providing for themselves, as a liquidity crunch caused the economy to seize up. Now we face a worse liquidity crunch (since the excesses of this speculative mania have been worse by every measure than they were in the late 1920s) with depleted resources and a deskilled populace structurally dependent on complex life support systems, which are themselves dependent on cheap and reliable energy supply.


Never thought of advanced civilization as being on life support before, but that's a more than apt analogy. Cut off all oil at once and people in the OECD would be roasting their cats on a spit within a month. Certainly that's as good as death for society.

Of course energy supplies don't suddenly vanish, The patient's condition worsens; we hope for recovery.

You'd liken far less people in the 1930s to patients in an ICU.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 20:55:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ut for those who want the truth just check the latest, this from pup55's research and links today. See Norway Oil declining much faster than thought


The steep decline of Norway was also predictable from the H-L using Staniford's theory. Here's the H-L from khebab:
Image
The y-intercept (=k) indicates the long-term asymptote of the decline rate. That is, over time, the annual decline rate of Norway will steadily increase and approach 16.47%.

Norway peaked in 2001 at 3226, and currently (2007) is at 2272. That's an average decline rate of 5.7% a year.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 21:14:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'L')et's put this in a proper perspective. Name one thing the east produces for the west to buy that does not consume or burn oil in the course of its production and delivery.


They all burn oil in the course of delivery. Some consume oil in the process of production (i.e. plastics). Very very few burn oil in their production, as Heineken originally claimed:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'T')hus, China, India, etc., are burning the oil to produce goods that Europe would otherwise burn to produce them on its own.


Here's energy consumed as fuel in U.S. manufacturing from the DOE:
Image
Source

As you can see, virtually no oil is burned by the U.S. manufacturing sector.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle

Unread postby yesplease » Mon 17 Dec 2007, 21:41:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'C')heap commie labor. :razz:
Oh shut up you twit.


Obvious violation of COC:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('COC', 'A')void flaming and ad hominem attacks within the regular forums. If you have some complaint about a particular thread and wish to flame the object of your derision, please do so in the Hall of Flames. One intent defined by our conduct policies tries to limit "off-topic" posts as much as possible so that the threads stay informative and clear. Flaming and ad hominem attacks are most definitely off-topic. While a certain amount of “off-topic” posting is tolerated, we try hard to manage the most excessive cases for the benefit of the whole forum.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron