Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE G. W. Bush and Energy Thread pt 2 (merged)

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

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby allenwrench » Tue 20 May 2008, 10:46:57

I caught a long pres interview on TV. One reporter spelled It all out as much as could be said only lacking the words Hubbert and Peak. The pres blew it off. Put the problem all on the refusal to drill in Alaska. He hopes he will never have to use the words PO until after leaving office. The gov does not like to admit such things. It would raise hell with our retirement funds and the Dow.

I feel sorry for Obama or who ever gets in. And if the roof doesn't fall on him or her, the next pres wills surely get hit with it.

And what do we do when things go bad? They blame it all on the pres. Like he or she can pull crude and NG out their ass?

Maybe I should not feel bad for politicians. After all they are ego based power hungry individuals. I imagine they all know about peak oil. They probably view it as a game of musical chairs. Give me power for a day and I only hope the roof falls in on the next guy and the music wont stop on my presidency.
User avatar
allenwrench
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby Ayoob » Tue 20 May 2008, 11:17:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ZombieMalthus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', '
')Not true.

Supply greater than demand is a supply/demand imbalance. Peak oil is the maximum daily flow.

Go back to wikipedia and read up on peak oil for a bit and see if you can figure out the distinction. If not, PM me and I'll walk you through it.

Baby steps, son. Baby steps.


Well, lucky for us we're living in the special case scenario where they're both one and the same.


No, they're not one and the same.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two?

Demand greater than supply is not the same thing as permanent, irreversible daily flow.
User avatar
Ayoob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby Ferretlover » Tue 20 May 2008, 11:20:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('allenwrench', 'I') caught a long pres interview on TV. One reporter spelled It all out as much as could be said only lacking the words Hubbert and Peak. The pres blew it off. Put the problem all on the refusal to drill in Alaska. He hopes he will never have to use the words PO until after leaving office. The gov does not like to admit such things. It would raise hell with our retirement funds and the Dow.


It would invite more scrutiny of the affairs of the administration, and they prefer to operate in the dark, hidden from the view of the public.
They mention oil addiction just enough to be able to say in the future, "We tried to tell you..."
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
Ferretlover
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Hundreds of miles further inland

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby kokoda » Tue 20 May 2008, 11:58:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ZombieMalthus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', '
')Not true.

Supply greater than demand is a supply/demand imbalance. Peak oil is the maximum daily flow.

Go back to wikipedia and read up on peak oil for a bit and see if you can figure out the distinction. If not, PM me and I'll walk you through it.

Baby steps, son. Baby steps.


Well, lucky for us we're living in the special case scenario where they're both one and the same.


No, they're not one and the same.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two?

Demand greater than supply is not the same thing as permanent, irreversible daily flow.


In this case it may well be permanent. Demand is growing faster than the ability of supply to keep up.

You are arguing semantics.

World production may have peaked or perhaps it has a little growth left in it. However demand is growing and the gap between what is needed and what can be provided is widening.

At some point production will go into decline ... if it hasn't already done so ... and things will get a lot worse.
User avatar
kokoda
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu 24 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby Ayoob » Tue 20 May 2008, 12:24:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kokoda', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ZombieMalthus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', '
')Not true.

Supply greater than demand is a supply/demand imbalance. Peak oil is the maximum daily flow.

Go back to wikipedia and read up on peak oil for a bit and see if you can figure out the distinction. If not, PM me and I'll walk you through it.

Baby steps, son. Baby steps.


Well, lucky for us we're living in the special case scenario where they're both one and the same.


No, they're not one and the same.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two?

Demand greater than supply is not the same thing as permanent, irreversible daily flow.


In this case it may well be permanent. Demand is growing faster than the ability of supply to keep up.

You are arguing semantics.

World production may have peaked or perhaps it has a little growth left in it. However demand is growing and the gap between what is needed and what can be provided is widening.

At some point production will go into decline ... if it hasn't already done so ... and things will get a lot worse.


Are you suggesting that there is no difference between peak oil and a supply/demand imbalance, or are you arguing in favor of being ignorant?

Maybe I'm just cursed with being able to read and write properly.

It doesn't help that the news media reiterates that peak oil is the time at which half of global supply is used up. That's not the case either. The tar sands will peak in production LONG before half of them are used up, and it's possible that shale will peak even earlier due to the difficulty of extracting useful petroleum.

THAT'S why it's important.

Why not learn to speak properly? It's not like it HURTS or anything.
User avatar
Ayoob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby kokoda » Tue 20 May 2008, 17:50:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', '
')
Maybe I'm just cursed with being able to read and write properly.


You maybe able to read properly but you seem to have some problem with comprehension.

This is what you said.

"Demand being higher than supply is not the same thing as peak oil."

and this is what I replied

"True ... but the end result is the same. A growing gap between what is required and what can be provided."

Now would you like to educate us all and tell how my statement is factually incorrect.
User avatar
kokoda
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu 24 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby AgentR » Tue 20 May 2008, 19:54:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kokoda', 'A') growing gap between what is required and what can be provided."
Now would you like to educate us all and tell how my statement is factually incorrect.

Because there is no gap between what can be provided and what is required. There is, of course, a gap between what people would like to consume at $20 / bbl and what can be provided.

Demand is a function of price. Price rises or falls such that demand will always be approaching available supply. This is one of the factors that will flatten out the PO curve, higher prices produce lower consumption, which extends the period in which oil is readily available but expensive.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby kokoda » Tue 20 May 2008, 21:22:51

Once again I will refer to what I actually said.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')rue ... but the end result is the same. A growing gap between what is required and what can be provided.

I acknowledged that there is a difference between supply and demand and Peak Oil production shortfalls ... but at the end the result will be the same.

If I want oil at $20.00 a barrel then that is my requirement. If I cant get my oil at that price then that reflects the inability of the market to provide it.
The end result is the same in that I don't have my barrel of cheap oil ... everything else is semantics.
User avatar
kokoda
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu 24 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby AgentR » Tue 20 May 2008, 21:42:16

Pretty loose concept of "required", but given that description, your comment is true enough.

I was thinking more along the lines of "required" as in essential for continuation of industrial life.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby ccricers » Wed 21 May 2008, 10:36:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', 'I') will know that we are truly in the oil crisis when the president-- whomever he or she may be-- tells the public that we have to drive less, fly less, consume less and just simply do less. That notion seems to be too bitter of a pill for the public to swallow.

Put the damn pill into their favorite food, and then they'll take it ;)
User avatar
ccricers
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby SoylentGreen » Mon 26 May 2008, 12:09:44

Peak Oil has happened. The re-invasion of Iraq was the beginning of the resource war. It's a slow ride at 1st, but wait it will accelerate.
User avatar
SoylentGreen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun 25 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby FreddyH » Mon 26 May 2008, 17:47:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoylentGreen', 'P')eak Oil has happened. The re-invasion of Iraq was the beginning of the resource war. It's a slow ride at 1st, but wait it will accelerate.

How much Iraqi crude has the Coalition taken away so far? We didn't hear about this in Canada.
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
User avatar
FreddyH
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon 14 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Location: The Yukon
Top

Re: Bush admits we reached "peakoil"

Postby AgentR » Mon 26 May 2008, 18:13:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreddyH', 'H')ow much Iraqi crude has the Coalition taken away so far? We didn't hear about this in Canada.

Not the right question...

Correct Question:

What percentage of exported Iraqi oil is being traded in US Dollars?

90%+ = Victory.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

THE G. W. Bush and Energy Thread pt 2 (merged)

Postby Plantagenet » Sun 29 Jun 2008, 01:19:21

Look who's in favor of the moratorium and the EIS studies:

"Alex Daue, an outreach coordinator for the Wilderness Society, an environmental conservation group, praised the government for assessing the implications of large-scale solar development."

The environmentalists don't want those nasty solar energy systems killing any deer or birds or gophers or hurting their habitats or anything of that sort. Who knows what kinds of rare and endangered species of butterflies and squirrels might be found with enough multi-year EIS studies in the proposed solar development sites, and more EIS studies of the proposed roads to the solar sites, and more EIS studies of the proposed electrical transmission routes!!!! :-D
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q

Postby f2tornado » Sun 29 Jun 2008, 01:19:53

If an empire penquin farts in Antarctica, Bush will be blamed for it. Right snow solar power costs about three times as much as coal and twice as much as wind. If the price of coal power production quadruples then Americans will be begging for "cheap" solar power but there won't be enough to go around. A coworker originally from Colorado informed me Excel Energy has a limited clean energy program where its Colorado customers can elect to pay higher rates in order to pay for the increased price of renewable power generation. Turned out after Hurricane Katrina hit, the bills people were getting in the renewable program were lower than the conventional bills. Of course the remaining customers wanted in on this action but were shut out because there was a limit to the amount of renewable energy Excel was producing.
User avatar
f2tornado
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat 21 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a

Postby MyOldTDiIsStillGoing » Sun 29 Jun 2008, 01:34:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'L')ook who's in favor of the moratorium and the EIS studies:

"Alex Daue, an outreach coordinator for the Wilderness Society, an environmental conservation group, praised the government for assessing the implications of large-scale solar development."

The environmentalists don't want those nasty solar energy systems killing any deer or birds or gophers or hurting their habitats or anything of that sort. Who knows what kinds of rare and endangered species of butterflies and squirrels might be found with enough multi-year EIS studies in the proposed solar development sites, and more EIS studies of the proposed roads to the solar sites, and more EIS studies of the proposed electrical transmission routes!!!! :-D


Hey you caught my cut and paste quote from the NYT that I deliberately finished with Mr. Environmentalist saying the last word: we will fight anything and everything. When people understand the Washington DC system, then they will see where the roadblock are.

BTW, how are the caribou enjoying the pipeline up there? Yes, the pipeline destroyed their population. :roll:
THE SIMPLE LIFE: One frozen pond, a few sticks, a little round puck, and a bunch of rowdy kids.
User avatar
MyOldTDiIsStillGoing
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed 11 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: CMH, I-71 Exit 112
Top

Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q

Postby TWilliam » Sun 29 Jun 2008, 02:08:45

You know, I'm not especially fond of the enviro-nazis myself, but at least they have the sense to know that it's NOT ok to pave and panel and drill and 'develop' the whole goddamned planet just because selfish @ssholes want the 'convenience' of their wireless, push-button, remote-controlled drive-in 'utopia'... :-x
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a

Postby Plantagenet » Sun 29 Jun 2008, 02:28:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOldTDiIsStillGoing', 'h')ow are the caribou enjoying the pipeline up there? Yes, the pipeline destroyed their population.


Are you ill-informed or just lying?

Back here in the real world the caribou herd at Prudhoe Bay has tripled in size since the pipeline was constructed.

Cheers! :)

PS: Your address says you live at exit 112 on I-17 in Cincinnati. How are the buffalo enjoying the freeway there?
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a

Postby SILENTTODD » Sun 29 Jun 2008, 03:43:48

What would you expect from the worst administration in U.S. history? I mean even the only other contender, Warren Harding, pardoned Eugene Debs and kept us us out of war. "He was a good guy"(Harding)-Howard Zinn
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
User avatar
SILENTTODD
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat 06 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Corona, CA

Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q

Postby abelardlindsay » Sun 29 Jun 2008, 03:53:33

Remember the whole wind turbines kill birds scare? That was a complete manufactured farce. The amount of birds wind turbines kill turned out to be totally negligible compared to the amount that cars or high rise buildings killed yet it stalled wind power development for years.
User avatar
abelardlindsay
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Northern California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 242 guests