any interest in the future of the world in the next 10-20 years buy this book

[Gh0stFT]

read this book: The End of Oil: The Decline of the Petroleum Economy and the Rise of a New Energy Order  
by Paul Roberts

The world is quickly running out of oil. In the year 2000, global production stood at 76 Million Barrels per Day (MBD). By 2020, demand is forecast to reach 112 MBD, an increase of 47%. But additions to proven reserves have virtually stopped and it is clear that pumping at present rates is unsustainable.

Oil is the sine qua non of “industrial” civilization—the one thing without which such civilization cannot exist. All of the world’s 600 million automobiles depend on oil. So do virtually all other commodities and critical processes: airlines, chemicals, plastics, medicines, agriculture, heating, etc. Almost all of the increase in world food productivity over the past 50 years is attributable to increases in the use of oil-derived additives: pesticides; herbicides; fungicides; fertilizers; and machinery.

When oil is gone, civilization will be stupendously different.

a very good read, even for you "no-global warming" people who care a **** about it.

[moot]

Just my uninformed opinion, but shortage of oil as an energy source doesn't worry me as much as that of the other downstream products, such as plastics or pharmaceuticals.

[DREDIOCK]

No thanks. I think I'll wait for the movie;)

[FUNKED1]

!@#$!@# boosh

[J_A_B]

Is this new book written by the same guys who wrote my grade-school textbooks which explained how the world would be completely out of oil before the year 2000?  


Doom and gloom is big business, but their attempts to predict the future seem about as accurate as Miss Cleo.


I'm still waiting for the world as we know it to end from the Y2K meltdown.
We still have an ozone layer?  That was supposed to be gone even before the oil ran out!
That killer asteroid hasn't hit us yet, either
We never did have that long-anticipated nuclear war with the Russians
Oh, and what's in vogue this week; is the world warming or are we entering the next ice age?  They never seem to make up their minds about that one.
Yellowstone park hasn't blown up
California hasn't been reduced to ruins


Heck, if you throw out enough doom and gloom predictions, sooner or later one of them will come true just through sheer chance.  Big deal.  We humans are a resourceful species.  When and if the oil ever runs out, we'll come up with something else.



J_A_B

[1K3]

ok oil might run out 20-30-40 years from now but would there be enough raw materials to make n00k power?

[Debonair]

Save yourself $10 & just live out the next 20 years instead

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT

a very good read, even for you "no-global warming" people who care a **** about it.

Well if it is correct then there is no need for Kyoto anyhow, we are doooooomed !

Is there anything in this book about shale production?

Canada and the US have a bunch of shale rocks waiting to be popped. I am under the impression that as long as oil stays aver 40 bucks a barrel its almost worth the effort.

[Bodhi]

I wonder why no one considers the massive oil reserves under siberia in these doom predictions.  Rumor has it they are larger than the saudi deposits.  

ANother thought, why are texas oil wells limited in their production per day?  Could it be that the US and others are just allowing the arabs to pump themselves dry before tapping our reserves?

[Yeager]

THE SPICE MUST FLOW!!!!!!!





ARGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Bodhi

ANother thought, why are texas oil wells limited in their production per day?  Could it be that the US and others are just allowing the arabs to pump themselves dry before tapping our reserves?

Give the man a cigar.

Makes perfect sence to me.
Run everyone else dry before you use up your own.
Use up all your own first then you really are at the mercey of others

[Holden McGroin]

USA has five times the oil reserves of oil as does Saudi Arabia in the form of Oil Shale.

USA has about 1600 billion tons of coal. If the US were to produce, from coal alone, the amount of oil equivalent to what the US imports, the US would consume an additional 0.912 billion tons annually. Total coal usage would be less than 2 billion tons, and that would allow us another 800 years at present energy consumption.

Canada has more oil than Saudi Arabia in the form of oil sands.

It looks like North America just needs to change liquid energy production infrastructure in order to keep running.

[mora]

Originally posted by Krusher
Well if it is correct then there is no need for Kyoto anyhow, we are doooooomed !

Is there anything in this book about shale production?

Canada and the US have a bunch of shale rocks waiting to be popped. I am under the impression that as long as oil stays aver 40 bucks a barrel its almost worth the effort.

Yes you're right about the need for treaties. If anything, this will solve the global warming.

About shale rocks I dunno. I'd rather trust in biofuel(which I don't).

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

"What About the Oil Sands in Canada and the Oil Shale in the American West?"

The good news is that we have a massive amount of untapped "non conventional" oil located in the oil sands up in Canada.      The bad news is that, unlike conventional sources of oil, oil derived from these oil sands is extremely financially and energetically intensive to extract. Whereas conventional oil has enjoyed a rate of "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI) of about 30 to 1, the oil sands rate of return hovers around 1.5 to 1.      

This means that we would have to expend 20 times as much energy to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.      

Where to find such a huge amount of capital is largely a moot point because, even with massive improvements in extraction technology, the oil sands in Canada are projected to only produce a paltry 2.2 million barrels per day by 2015. This doesn't even account for any unexpected production decreases or cost overuns, both of which have been endemic to many of the oil sands projects.      

More optimistic reports anticipate 4 million barrels per day of oil coming from the oil sands by 2020. Even if the optimists are correct, 4 million barrels per day much oil when you consider our colossal and ever-growing demand in conjunction with the small amount of time we have left before the global peak:      

1.We currently need 83.5 million barrels per day.      

2.We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day by 2020.      

3.We will be losing over 1 million barrels per day of production per year, every year, once we hit the backside of the global oil production curve.      

4.The general consensus among now disinterested scientists is that oil production will peak by 2010 at the latest.      

The huge reserves of oil shale in the American west suffer from similar problems. While Shell Oil has an experimental oil shale program, even Steve Mut - the CEO of their Unconventional Resources Unit - has sounded less than optimistic when questioned about the ability of oil shale to soften the coming crash. According to journalist Stuart Staniford's coverage of a recent conference on Peak Oil:      

In response to questions, Steve guesstimated that oil shale production would still be pretty negligible by 2015, but might, if things go really well, get to 5mbpd by 2030.      

Disinterested observers are even less optimistic about oil shale. Geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist points out:      

The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United    States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out  of shale have failed economically.Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal  the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure.

This means any attempt to replace conventional oil with oil shale will actually make our situation worse as the project will consume more energy than it will produce, regardless of how high the price goes. Further problems with oil shale have been documented by economist Professor James Hamilton who writes:      

A recent Rand study concluded it will be at least 12 years before oil shale reaches the production growth phase. And that is a technological assessment, not a reference to the environmental review process. If it takes 15 years to get an oil refinery built and approved, despite well known technology and well understood environmental issues, viewing oil shale as something that could make major contributions to world energy supplies in the immediate future seems highly unrealistic.

[mora]

Originally posted by 1K3
ok oil might run out 20-30-40 years from now but would there be enough raw materials to make n00k power?

If you mean nucular power then yes, that's exactly what should be done at this point. It is being done around the world, but not in the scale it should be.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by J_A_B

Doom and gloom is big business, but their attempts to predict the future seem about as accurate as Miss Cleo.

J_A_B

Uh Oh! You trying to tell me that Miss Cleo has been found innacurate? Should I cancel the order for the new yacht then. And here I have been checking the mail everyday for a week awaiting the arrival of the big check.