Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

Greetings. Really good thread. Thanks for all the good links

A few recommendations for additional information of my own

Christain Aid's recent report on the link between oil exploitation and increased impoverishment makes interesting reading.

Some interesting articles on the oil empire, 911 and peak oil to be found at www.oilempire.us

And perhaps most importantly articles and news on 'new' energy solutions to be found by searching google for zero point energy and the ever excellent articles to be found on www.earthrainbownetwork.com. Again search their newsletters for zero-point energy, Tesla, new energy or peak oil.

If anyone's particularly interested in these 'hidden' technologies or the link between 911 and oil, I'm pleased to dig out my favourite articles.

Ian
 
I don't know if anyone remembers that essay by William Clark - 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth'?

Well, even if you didn't read it before, here's another chance, as he's recently updated it:
For those who are already familiar with my original pre-war essay from January and March 2003, you may want to skip the opening parts of this essay and review the expanded section explaining the importance of Hydrocarbons regarding Peak oil and US Geostrategy, and then review my somewhat lengthy update from January 1, 2004. The main flaw from my original essay a year ago was an excessive focus on the macroeconomic perspectives of the Iraq war. In this essay, and in the forthcoming book, I have attempted to remedy this deficiency by including a detailed analysis of the oil depletion/geostrategic aspects, which appear to be second coalescing factor that lead to the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

(As an aside, the update also contains an interesting 'Claims about Iraqi WMD vs. Actual Facts' table).

---
 
Chilling report prepared by the Pentagon...

Now the Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us
Secret Report Warns of Rioting and Nuclear War; Threat to the World is Greater than Terrorism
by Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York, available here.


Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

A secret report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
Click to expand...
There is some urgency behind the report (indicated in the article), as effects are expected beginning next year. The picture painted, of chaos and war, are due to desperate acts by desperate people in face of dwindling food, water, and energy supplies. Not a pretty picture (see the table of "key findings" on the right of the linked page).

The report was commissioned by Andrew Marshall, who heads up the Office of Net Assessment, a security apparatus that sits atop the CIA and is implicated (along with the OSP) in the Iraq scandal. If the Net Assessment is reporting such dire and near-term consequences, it is either because (1) the science is solid or (2) there is disinformation value (seeding fear) that furthers the neo-con agenda -- or both.

I'd be interested if this "leaked" report is corroborated elsewhere.

(The article is not exactly germane to the rest of this thread except to say that it predicts a grim future as the world descends into resource wars, oil included. I posit as I did on the first pages here that the Bush administration is aware of this future and what we have been seeing is the Straussarian manipulation of public opinion while steps are taken to protect the quality of life for elites -- a "circling of the wagons" before catastrophy strikes.)
 
I think you could say that this takes us back to where this thread started. The Observer piece also mentioned (superficially) oil depletion and food security as well as catastrophic climate change. I guess the press is a bit more familiar with the latter issue, and hence pushes it up into the headline.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I think you could say that this takes us back to where this thread started. The Observer piece also mentioned (superficially) oil depletion and food security as well as catastrophic climate change. I guess the press is a bit more familiar with the latter issue, and hence pushes it up into the headline.
Click to expand...

There's the familiarity. And there's the point that the conflict between Bush and Pentagon has the attributes of a story: basically, a conflict with precisely two sides. (Imagined first draft of headline: "You're barking, Pentagon tells Bush".)

Whereas, in the absence of governments taking positions explicitly based on peak oil production, the protagonists in that story are basically "us" -v- the planet :(
 
Not having had the time to carefully research the scientific evidence that contradicts this dire scenario, I can not really say whether this science stands up to scrutiny, but on the balance of the evidence I have seen, we have every reason to take this scenario very seriously. If you believe in the evidence of rapid climate change in the past being triggered by the gulf stream weakening or switching off, then catastrophic change can occur in years not decades and we may be seeing the first signals.

http://www.earthrainbownetwork.com/Archives2004/GreenHolocaust13.htm

Ian
 
Top US scientists blast Bush administration
In a statement issued February 18, more than 60 highly respected American scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, blasted the Bush administration for suppressing and manipulating scientific evidence in order to promote a predetermined agenda. Entitled “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” the statement charges: “When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions.”


Accompanying the statement was a 38-page report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) providing a detailed analysis of the Bush administration’s methods. These include appointing people to scientific advisory panels based on their political views rather than on professional qualifications; closing down existing advisory committees; “censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists”; and “simply not seeking independent scientific advice.”
Click to expand...

The report, as well as the accompanying statement, press release and the list of signers, can be found on the UCS web site at www.ucsusa.org.
 
BBC Today - Shell chairman is forced to quit

Royal Dutch/Shell chairman Sir Philip Watts has bowed to shareholder pressure and resigned, after the firm slashed the estimate of its oil reserves.

Sir Philip originally refused to step down over the affair, saying he would focus on fixing problems Shell faced.

Now he is leaving the firm, to be replaced by Jeroen van der Veer, boss of the company's Dutch arm.

Shell shares skidded on 9 January after the company revealed that its oil reserves had been overstated by 20%.
Click to expand...

I guess he wanted to spend more time down the allotment. ;)
 
Backatcha Bandit said:
BBC Today - Shell chairman is forced to quit
Shell shares skidded on 9 January after the company revealed that its oil reserves had been overstated by 20%.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well there's more of this too -- Saudi now seems to have less oil than previously thought. (Note, if you traverse the link, the LA Times requires registration.)

Running Out of Oil -- and Time
Panic will strike if we're not prepared with new technologies.
By Paul Roberts

SEATTLE — The news last month that the vast Saudi oil fields are in decline is a far bigger story than most in the media, or the United States, seem to realize. We may begrudge the Saudis their 30-year stranglehold on the world economy. But even the possibility that the lords of oil have less of the stuff than advertised raises troubling questions. How long will the world's long-term oil supplies last? As important, what will the big importing nations, like the U.S., do the day world oil production hits its inevitable peak?

For more than a century, Western governments have been relentlessly upbeat about the long-term outlook for oil. Whenever pessimists claimed that supplies were running low — as they have many times — oil companies always seemed to discover huge new fields. It's now an article of faith among oil optimists, including those in the U.S. government, that global oil reserves won't run out for at least four decades, which seems like enough time to devise a whole suite of alternative energy technologies to smoothly and seamlessly replace oil.

But such oil optimism, always questionable, is now more suspect than ever. True, we won't "run out" of oil tomorrow, or even 10 years from now. But the long-term picture is grim. In the first place, it's not a matter of running out of oil but of hitting a production peak. Since 1900, world oil production — that is, the number of barrels we can pump from the ground — has risen in near-perfect step with world oil demand. Today, demand stands at about 29 billion barrels of oil a year, and so does production. By 2020, demand may well be 45 billion barrels a year, by which time, we hope, oil companies will have upped production accordingly.

At some point, however, production simply won't be able to match demand. Oil is an exhaustible resource: The more you produce, the less remains in the ground, and the harder it is to bring up that remainder. We won't be "out of oil"; a vast amount will still be flowing — just not quickly enough to satisfy demand. And as any economist can tell you, when supply falls behind demand, bad things happen.

<snip>

(Paul Roberts writes about the energy industry for Harper's Magazine and other national publications. His new book, "The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World," will be published in May.)
Click to expand...

What is GWB's adventurism in the Middle East and Caspian Basin region, as will as in Venuezuela and Columbia, if not an attempt to secure for US elites first rights to remaining oil? And how soon will it be before other nations, equally aware of these coming hard limits, raise their own guns too? 'Wars and rumors of wars...' Could get messy. Heard Chalmers Johnson on CSPAN2 recommend that Americans, if they can, should buy a condo in Vancouver, arrange their "out" now before it is too late.

(On edit: An alternate source to the Robert's article, here.)
 
BBC2 Tonight (Weds, 10th March 04)

9:00 pm
If... The Lights Go Out
A combination of drama and documentary, If... takes a current topic of debate and projects it into the near future. Tonight it examines what would happen if we had a major power cut. Interactive.


10:00 pm
The If Debate: A Newsnight Special
Jeremy Paxman chairs a debate on the issues raised in tonight's drama documentary about Britain's electricity supply. Does the government need to act now to protect it?
Click to expand...

I think they are using the example of a 'trrrrist attack' on a 'Russian pipeline' as an 'interuption of supply', rather than the Hubbert Peak.

Fictional Minister for Energy said:
"For God's sake, Sophie! People are going to DIE!"
Click to expand...

I'll set the recorder and go to the pub. ;)
 
Thanks for spotting this. I only caught the debate part, which was a bit simplistic and limited. It's interesting that the media are paying attention though, even if it is probably just a PR campaign for the nuclear industry.
 
Thought Id bump this with the news that US crude oil prices have reached a 13 year high on the back of the Madrid bombings.

US crude oil prices have reached their highest level since 1990 as ongoing global terrorism fears continue to put an upward pressure on the market.
With last week's events in Spain still fresh in the mind of traders, the price of New York's benchmark light sweet crude surged 70 cents to $38.18.

This is the highest figure since 16 October 1990 - more than 13 years ago in the run up to the first Gulf War. The upward pressure is also being driven by concern of low US stocks.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3521952.stm
 
Deary, deary me, What on earth are Shell playing at? Comments Bernie?!

Shell slashes oil reserves again

Shares in Energy giant Shell have fallen almost 4% after it announced a further downgrade of its oil reserves. The Anglo-Dutch oil giant also said it would delay publication of its annual report, due on Friday, until June.

Shell said its reserves in Norway were 250 million barrels lower than previously thought. The company shocked analysts and investors in January by announcing it had overbooked its stocks by 3.9 billion barrels, or 20%.

BBC Business Editor Jeff Randall described Shell's announcement as a "public relations disaster". He said: "To be 20% wrong is very embarrassing. To be more than 20% wrong, wrong a second time, I think is looking pretty careless."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3523646.stm
Click to expand...
 
Barking_Mad said:
Deary, deary me, What on earth are Shell playing at? Comments Bernie?!
Click to expand...
I can't tell what this recategorisation actually means, just by looking at the BBC story. The 20% one the other week was primarily a financial planning recategorisation, rather than a change in their actual amount of proven reserves. This may be the same, but maybe it isn't.

I'll have a dig around for more data when I get a chance. Adzp, any ideas?
 
A good graph plotting the history of oil prices can be found here.

Other news...

Dick Olver, currently the deputy chief executive of BP (UK's biggest oilco) is apparently leaving BP to become the Chairman of BAe (one of UK's biggest Arms manufacturers - maybe he doesn't have an allotment ;)).

He was previously Cheif Exec of BP's exploration and production operations, so probably would have been responsible for any reserve over reporting 'discrepencies' that might come to light in the near future (see the Shell articles previously posted which hinted at this).

BAe, incidentally, are planning a merger with US giant Boeing.
 
Re: Shell... This from Bloomberg:
``A number of issues have been identified to date, leading to the recategorization of a further 250 million barrels of oil equivalent as at the end of 2002,'' Shell said in a statement on PR Newswire.

Shell, based in London and The Hague, said it will delay its 2003 annual report until late May. Investors earlier said they hadn't expected a further reduction in reserves.

The company said its estimates of the 2003 reserves, given on Feb. 5, were also incorrect because of bad data used to assess the Ormen Lange field in Norway. The 2003 numbers will be 220 million barrels lower than previously estimated, Shell said.
Click to expand...
 
Oil giant Shell faces bigger lawsuit
James Rossiter and Steve Hawkes, Evening Standard
19 March 2004

AMERICAN lawyers stalking Shell with massive fraud claims are ready to extend their attack on the embattled oil major following its second reserves shock in just three months.

http://www.thisismoney.com/20040319/nm75954.html
Click to expand...
----------
BP hits back as oil probe goes global
Steve Hawkes, Evening Standard
19 March 2004

OIL giant BP today hit back at speculation that it could be dragged into the crisis dogging its fierce rival Shell as US regulators prepare to investigate the global oil and gas industry.

http://www.thisismoney.com/20040319/nm75990.html
Click to expand...
 
I would imagine they are doing this so when they get investigated, as it seems they will, (being listed in the USA) they wont have more to worry about...250mb is about 1.4% of their reserves (ish) so instead of 20% off they are 21.4% off...its more `worrying` for Shell that they are delaying their annual report, that is really really unusual for listed companies, it means the accountants wont sign it off...

Now...basically...and im going to generalise...all oil figures are bollocks, all of them. Except the price per barrell...thats the only one you can reply on. Every different area of the industry, producer countries, geologists, refiners, corporations and consumer countries have lied consistently for years for a whole variety of reasons, to increase price, to depress price, to get more contracts (for example the exploration industry)...the best figures to look at are production figures, they indicate how much is left...and it appears that saudi has peaked* (end of last year)...so...let's see what happens (meanwhile buy solar!)...

* http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/b...3600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position
 
Bernie Gunther said:
--- re-thinking this comment ---
Click to expand...
I'd be careful, too if it were my 666th post! :eek:

A graph for Adz...

1obrentt.gif


Anyone care to speculate on the US strategic reserves situation? Didn't they stop 'filling up' last week (having hit a record high in SPR capacity and pump price)?
 
All these 'scandals' over reserve reporting set me looking for a decent graph on reserves. I found this:

oil__g4.gif


Which is accompanied by the note:

"It is common practice to report security of supply in terms of remaining reserves to annual production ratio (R/P) quoted in years, claiming that current reserves of 1000 Gb could support current production at 25 Gb/a for 40 years.
R/P is a poor indicator and should be ignored, as the real value when extrapolated gives different value, as less than 30 years for oil."

(Graph heaven courtesy of Jean Laherrere)

Another Laherrere article regarding evaluating oil and gas reserves (unfortunately minus it's accompanying graphs :( )can be found here:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m3159/n2_v219/20464835/p1/article.jhtml?term=
 
Laherrere is cool. I must admit i got lost watching him speak tho...talk about a Maths-up.

You do all know that ASPO, the all star oil peakists are meeting in Berlin May 24th-25th dont you?

Ryanair fly there cheap innit.

Mmm...graphs...
 
This is a huge story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3564257.stm

China's main oilfield is running dry...it produces 50% of China's current demand and its going to deplete at around 7% a year, so China is going to be looking outside for an extra 3.5% of its capacity EACH YEAR...now that is going to drive up prices like nobodys business. And with China's demand for energy increasing each year...and with the oil industry's propensity for making up their figures...

I like the way its tucked away in the middle of nowhere...
 
Thats very interesting, Adz...

I read somewhere recently that China had been effectively holding the dollar up as they had been buying US$ in order to develop and maintain their own strategic reserves... Have you come across this? Freke?
 
adzp said:
This is a huge story:<snip>.
Click to expand...
China has something crazy like 0.08 ha per capita to grow food on. The balance seems to be made up using petrochemicals and imports. This is a rather worrying piece of news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kebabking
  • Poll
US 2028 election?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
tim
tim
hash tag
War is a crime?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
A380
A380
Flavour
  • Poll
Who will win the 2024 US election?
50 51 52 53 54
Replies
2K
Views
47K
bcuster
bcuster
N
Can US Supreme Court be reformed next time Democrats are in power?
Replies
12
Views
469
Nylock
Nylock
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
Back
Top Bottom