[Falconoffury]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')r maybe they'll just decide that 50% of you need to die for the "good of the nation".

[Aaron]

There is so much bad information & so many false assumptions in this thread it should be labeled as hazardous.

More than anything... this is why I think we are doomed.

The pastel colored expectations from a few are the product of decades of "feel good" schooling which has reduced modern education to an intellectual caste system where only the infocratic elite have a meaningful understanding of important topics, while the vast majority are relegated to a cursory understanding of even basic principals.

The mediocre understanding of simple, accepted founding principals of physics displayed in this thread is a prime example.

Lynch does indeed make some good points; one in particular that I find compelling, (sorry you'll have to read the thread), and is indeed recommended reading.

But is quite beside the point.

Simmons has said so many times... so has Savinar & Heinberg & Campbell, among many others including myself.

It's the most important topic in peak oil.

I wonder if our weary members can guess what that is?

I actually have a suggestion to pass on from Richard Smalley for those of you who think resource depletion is a serious problem and want to help.

Become an engineer... or a scientist... or technician... or anything that supports the advancement of our understanding of this most basic requirement of civilization.

energy

Reminds me of a favorite movie quote. (As is my custom)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')an Leuwin: Thank you, Officer Ripley, that will be all.
Ripley: God damn it, that's not all! 'Cause if one of those things gets down here then that will be all! And all this, this bullshit that you think is so important, you can just kiss all that goodbye!

[pedalling_faster]

before I "dis" America, let me propose that there are 2 americas.

in one america, america1, a lot of good people, working people trying to raise a family, to live non-violently. a social security administration that still sometimes helps people the ways it's supposed to.

the other america, america2 - "its bad side will easily be revealed in a time of crisis". well, i'd say it's bad side has been revealed. over and over again.

in vietnam and neighboring countries. in iraq, in iran (america talks about the importance of democracy in iran. Iran had a democracy until it was deposed by - america), in indonesia. and those are just the "i" countries.

the cold war was not cold - for all the people who died, it was quite hot.

america has a policy of genocide in iraq. why else is america spreading Depleted Uranium - the perfect weapon for killing lots of people - all over iraq ?

kill the locals, or sabotage their democracy, to get the oil. That IS america's foreign policy, regardless of the polite assurances of cond. rice.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'S')immons has said so many times... so has Savinar & Heinberg & Campbell, among many others including myself.

It's the most important topic in peak oil.

I wonder if our weary members can guess what that is?

[AirlinePilot]

Aaron,

I'll take a stab here, although I haven't been here that long really. Most of those you mentioned talk at length about what do we do next? What plan do we have to deal with depletion of resources and the end of cheap energy? Whenever peak is, next year, 3 years, 15 years, doesn't really matter. The crux of the problem becomes the lack of direction for where we go as a species as the short history of oil production plays out.

It's going to happen in our lifetimes and as of the moment we don't have an idea how to truly deal with it.

how'd I do?

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

I would say he's talking about the rate of depletion.

[dunewalker]

Rather than the rate of depletion, the crux is the growth of demand vs. ability to supply, regardless of whether production continues to increase, or has peaked...

[Aaron]

All good guesses... & important topics.

But nope...

And Simmons is the the leading guy who talks about this all important topic just about every time he speaks.

It's his central theme in fact.

I don't consider Simmons an optimist myself.

He's a doomer's doomer.

Just says it in PC speak for the sheeple so it sounds nicer.

Simmon's being optimistic

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'I')t's the most important topic in peak oil.

I wonder if our weary members can guess what that is?

[dunewalker]

Whoa... somthings wrong... (Aaron here)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')pparently Aaron is saying that lack of data regarding reserves is THE most important, per his link to Simmons...

I disagree, since that assumes that if we only had sufficient data, we would react and plan appropriately, in a timely manner...

[creg]

So accurate data would at least allow for possibility of planning/ leadership - at the international level..

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('woodcutter', 'A')pparently Aaron is saying that lack of data regarding reserves is THE most important, per his link to Simmons...

I disagree, since that assumes that if we only had sufficient data, we would react and plan appropriately, in a timely manner...

[creg]

in April 05
It's not often that US President George W. Bush is seen walking hand-in-hand with anyone but his wife Laura. But [Monday], he readily took Crown Prince Abdullah by the hand as the Saudi leader arrived at the President's Texas ranch.


(Photo)

AP
George Bush and Prince Abdullah stroll through spring flowers at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The hand clasp with the oil kingdom's 81-year-old de facto ruler had two objectives: a break from recent record-high world oil prices, and a message of U.S. support for the Saudi royal family as it faces a growing internal terrorist threat.

A Chicago Sun-Times article also analyzes the hand-clasp:

When Bush and Abdullah held hands walking into their meeting, the gesture prompted questions about two men showing that kind of physical intimacy.

One of them is White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who praised the Saudis for their "very ambitious" $50-billion plan to expand output from the current 10.8 to 12.5 million barrels a day by the end of this decade and eventually to 15 million barrels a day. Mr. Hadley also announced that the US and Saudi Arabia have "established a joint committee, to be chaired by Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal to discuss a range of strategic issues important to both sides," according to the "Washington File" published on the State Department's website.



I bet the exchange won't be so friendly when this can't happen even with the 50 billion.; at least according to Mr. Simmons. I feel Pres. Bush is way ,way out of his comfort zone walking thru the garden holding hands, like PLEASE more oil. Maybe they will not be together before long. Tight relationships often go thru major switches.
This commitee with Ms. Rice looks like our way of keeping close tabs on them.

[Falconoffury]

Is zombie time when people start cannibalizing each other?

[pedalling_faster]

"Would data reform, so we know how much URR's there are, really change things, or do we find ourselves facing Resource War(s) anyway?"

Montequest, I'm curious what you're saying.

I am not privy to internal White House documents. So my suspicion about why the American military is occupying Iraq is, admittedly, a hypothesis.

We are already in the middle of a resource war. It's not a future tense thing, it's a present tense thing.

One logical proposal for the start date of the war is 9-11. If the US government version of events is true, we were attacked by al Qaeda & bin Laden. Speaking to their motivation also involves stating a hypothesis. They have stated a clear objection to American military presence in Saudi Arabia.

Well the American military is not in Saudi Arabia for sand, sunshine, & camels.

So, by the US government version of events, resource wars could very well be said to have started on 9-11.

Segway-ing to the Michael Ruppert version of events, 9-11 was not a passive "LIHOP" (let it happen on purpose) incident, it was an "MIHOP" (make it happen on purpose) incident. And, it was the beginning of a resource war.

Now, some will deploy the linguistic term "conspiracy theory" to deride Ruppert & his MIHOP hypothesis. Well, we know people do plan nasty things behind closed doors - conspiracy is not a theory.

What is the next step in the resource wars ?

We, the folks in Western culture who read the news and participate in forums like this, are currently being prepared for an attack on Iran. The drumbeat is fairly persistent, in terms of news articles that basically say that "we're thinking about it", whether it's the US attacking Iran directly, or by proxy, using Israel.

Question - when you use the term "resource wars", can you be more specific - which countries attacking which countries ?

Some say that Iran will not be attacked because "Europe won't stand for it". I am not so optimistic.

P.S. What does the term URR mean ?

[lowem]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pedalling_faster', 'P').S. What does the term URR mean ?

[VinceG]

[quote="pedalling_fasterSome say that Iran will not be attacked because "Europe won't stand for it". [/quote]

I say that Iran won't be attacked because the U.S. does not have the enormous logistic, financial and military resources necessary for such a massive operation. Since Bush has stressed on multiple occassions that the U.S. will not leave Iraq before 'victory' is achieved (which could take forever) the U.S. cannot and will not attack Iran.

[PeakyKeen]

Colin Campbell showed how BP reports reserves, failing to backdate the revisions which may have misled many analysts and possibly economists. Cambell notes that large increases in the late 1980s were simply due to the OPEC quota wars not additional discovery or justifiable revisions to reserves.



I think it's important to notice how the reserves of the "Rest of the World" denoted in green don't change but the reserves of Middle east countries denoted in red change all of sudden.

Campbell also showed in detail the figures and how the were adjusted upwards all with 5 years of one another. He noted that · Kuwait added 50% to their reported reserves in 1985 to increase its OPEC quota, which was based partly on reserves while no corresponding new discoveries had been made and nothing in particular changed in the reservoir. Venezuela doubled its reserves in 1987 by the inclusion of large deposits of heavy oil that had been known for years. Both events forced the other OPEC countries to retaliate with huge increases.



I think it's important to note that it all happened at the same time and the numbers remained relatively the same for the remaining periods and when they did change, it was only a slight change, not 3X or 4X the original reported reserves.

The optimistic data that's being widely publicized to curb peak oil fears is more than likely based on faulty reserve data. The Saudi URR data (in addition to data from other countries that haven't been reviewed in a long time) shouldn't be relied on as factual, and at the least, when throwing out peak oil dates and calculations people should discount the OPEC quota "spurious" reserve increases. I don't consider myself a doomsdayer but I'm definitely not holding out for the best case scenario here.

[aldente]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', ' ')The crux of the problem becomes the lack of direction for where we go as a species as the short history of oil production plays out.
It's going to happen in our lifetimes and as of the moment we don't have an idea how to truly deal with it.