does everybody know that according to some Oil Geologists (e.g. Colin
Campbell) in 2013 the world oil output is going to peak ? Are you
aware what this does mean for all of us ? We have 4 years from now,
until there will not be enough energy for travelling, heating and the
most important for food for everybody of us. Oil prices will begin to
peak, not 150 USD/barrel, much much higger prices are expected. Many
people will loose their jobs and many of us will begin to starve.
Alternatives will also be more expensive since the demand will
increase astronomically. Alternative energy will also be much much
more expensive, due to the demand and due to much higher costs. Making
a wind turbine cost a lot of energy. Making ethanol cost a lot of oil
(pesticides, insecticides, transportation, production, harvesting,
fertilizers etc.). Making insulations cost also a lot of oil.
What is the solution ? The only way is to act now, individually. Now,
where the oil prices are still cheap, although there is an increase,
each individual can begin to prepare himself for these hard times in
near future. Insulation of houses, solar cells, which are now more
affordable (in ebay 1 W solar cells cost 1 USD or even less), solar
water heating, solar heating with mirrors reflecting the sunlight to
your home in winter, making your own wind turbine (a lot of
instruction of cheap design can be found in the internet), buying a
plug-in car or a hybrid vehicle, using energy efficient lightning,
heating with heat pumps, making a winter garden etc. are some of the
things each of us can do to prepare himself/herself for hard times and
to save money and energy. There are also ways to save energy and try
to extend the date a little bit by using the car only when necessary,
using the bike instead of your car, using public transportation,
converting the car to methane fueling, saving energy where ever it is
possible, not only in your home also in your work, etc. will help to
extend the date.
The other alternative is to wait until this date, actually the
economical crisis is in its ending phase and the oil prices will again
rise to record highs. But this is nothing compared to the prices when
world oil supplies will deminish 4% yearly. And after this date (2013)
very very hard times may come. Starvation and even worse things like
war are the alternative.
If you act now, you will also help to produce new jobs in your
You can find much more on: http://www.peakoil.net /
You're thinking of CLARENCE Campbell, and he was NHL President, not
But when he was President, many players oiled their hair, sometimes into
peaks, so maybe there's a connection there...somewhere...
Here's a photo of the famous "Rocket" Richard, a player from Campbell's
Try and tell me there's no oil in that hair...
"Director of Hockey Operations"? As opposed to, say, baseball
operations? Or cocaine trafficing operations?
Title inflation? Nah, ego inflation.
"Hey mister, that's a pretty big title. Can you use it?"
- dillon I am not invalid
"Gee, Jimmy,I'm sorry to hear that your girlfriend
Don't believe a word of it.
There is more oil underground that they know what to do with.
Tens of thousands of years worth of oil.
There's more oil in the shale in Colorado and Montana than all the oil that
has been pumped since the beginning of the oil age. And it can be
economically extracted even if oil were selling for only $30.00/barrel.
They are hiding oil fields in Prudho Bay. They are pumping natural gas back
underground just to keep the price where they want it.
We have been programmed to think of oil as a "fossil fuel". And we have
been told that we're using it up faster than it is being made. Also not
true. A recent discovery of oil was carbon dated and found to be only 200
years old. Oil is being made constantly underground. We will never run out.
That.s not to say we shouldn't find alternate energy sources. We must.
It's the only way we will ever be free of the oil and money barons
controlling our lives.
I agree with you here. I have read many papers on this subject with
basically the same finding. The ecoterrorist are the ones putting no to this
these same ecoterrorists haven't stopped development.
underground in the Prudhoe Bay field, in the Kuparik field, in the Seal
Island field (to name just a few) but the reason is not to control the
price. Rather, there is no way, at present, to move the gas from the North
Slope to markets in Alaska, Canada, and the "smaller states". However, Gov.
Palin has negotiated contracts with companies to move said gas to the
markets. There is some lead time involved, say ten years or so. We here in
Alaska are impatiently waiting for that day to come.
It's high time for us to resume a leadership role in alternative
technology NOT because fossil fuels are getting scarcer but because it's
the right thing to do in view of being held hostage by numerous third
rate fiefdoms around the world.
And I'm not talkin' about wind, solar etc. as they currently stand but
for revolutionary technology to equal that of fossil fuels played at the
turn of the 20th century.
But all this requires leadership and there ain't none of that showin' up...
Actually, a surprisingly small amount comes from
And even less would come from the hostiles if the US would
loosen environut and NIMBY rules to allow more drilling on
US lands. "Leadership" in this case would be more accurately
described as "backing off", or "getting out of the way";
a Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland or Calvin Coolidge approach.
Canada and Mexico aren't particularly hostile to the US. Mexico is
hobbled by the sort of government currently lusted after by those
in power in the US for the last 9 years or so, and its output
is a small fraction of what it could be if individuals not beholden
to political interests were in charge.
It's interesting to note how far Venezuela's output has declined
in the last few years as Chavez has made open war upon the evil
capitalist foreigners, and chased them out. The /good/ technicians
have mostly vamoosed, leaving behind the sort of engineers that would
otherwise work for (ugh) Pemex.
They are permanent losers, for ever and a day; forever dependent upon
tax money to even begin to approach break-even for the producers.
Tax funding will ensure forevermore that they will remain permanently
unworkable, and forever a ball-and-chain for those forced by the
tax code to pay for them.
Petroleum is the only practical energy solution for transportation.
Ain't gonna happen. Not in your lifetime or in mine, anyway.
My personal belief (based on nothing but my own personal
prejudices) is that the future lies in electricity storage,
or voltage potential, perhaps in the form of batteries.
When and where, and how? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else,
the power brokers of Washington included. Unpredictable individuals,
often mavericks or pariahs, doing unpredictable things with
unpredictable resources and unpredictable sources of funds, are the
true founts of technological progress. Government cannot help them,
but can hinder them most impressively.
I should have included as hostile influence that of the speculators who
are largely unregulated.
Not necessarily. Rail transport could be largely electric and the
construction of a hundred nukes as an intermediate measure would go a
long way in this effort.
We have to abandon the inefficient such as trucking in favor of rail
long distance freight.
Battery technology is coming of age faster than most realize. Two
hundred mile range is now reality and this covers the needs of better
than fifty percent of the populace.
Guv'ment still is and has always been the bottleneck of progress.
As an aside... Maybe if Yellowstone blows its top, thinking will change.
After all, it's 30,000 years or so overdue... <G>
Trucking is the most efficient thing going.
One problem with rail is severe restrictions on location, and even more
severe restrictions on timing. It takes days to ship something by rail.
Our business, just for one, would be dead if we didn't have instant LTL
trucking available anywhere in Canada and the US. I can have a load at a
particular dock in Chicago (or from there to our place) in half a day. Try
that with rail.
Electric long-distance rail in North America makes no economic sense,
unless it's diesel-electric, which it already is.
Any of the Wall street commodity investors. I was reading a good piece
this afternoon, (too freakin' hot to be outside), and wish I had kept
track of it (link). In a nutshell, the same crowd that got it to $145+
per BBL last July are back in business. Yet, OPEC just adjusted downward
their expectations for volume for the next year.
Au contraire... I takes 1 gal of diesel to move a ton over 450 miles by
rail. Trucks should be relegated to local deliveries or coverage in
areas not covered by long distance rail.
Circumstances change and such can be overcome by modifying methodology
The northeast corridor is electrified and many other urban rail systems
are as well. Diesel/Electric is fine for long haul.
You, for instance?
If you have money in the bank, are drawing a pension (even a government
pension), or have any investments of any kind (even CDs), you are one of
The "speculators" were governemnts, banks, insurance companies, investment
firms, airlines, grocery store holding companies, you name it.
These things only ever become clear once the dust settles. It turns out
that a lot of money was in the mortgage market on account of the constantly
rising prices. When that fell apart, money rushed out quickly into the next
available thing: commodities. Such a phenomenon can only be finite, and so
this one was; once the frenzy ended, prices fell back to earth.
You need to get offline and read something with actual information in it,
such as Forbes magazine, Reason magazine, or the Wall Street Journal. Even
Canada's National Post/Finaincial Post is excellent for actual information.
You're old enough to remember the truck/train de-regulation of the early
'80s. Remember how all the spur lines were ripped up a few years later?
Guess why? Trucking ended up being cheaper, that's why. Nobody wanted rail
any more unless they were shipping all the way to the sea ports, or were
shipping enormous quantities of cheap commodities similarly long distances.
It's not just the fuel that counts, but the infrastructure. It would be
hideously expensive to build out and maintain a rail network even more
sprawling than the hideously expensive one we used to have (which was
heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and was a major money-loser).
That sounds good in here, but try putting that in practice. Could I ever
have an engine deliver and pick up ONE rail car in a few hours, then take
it immediately to Montreal? Not a chance.
Trains have necessarily very restrictive schedules, since you need a lot of
cars hooked up to your engine to make a trip economically viable. It's that
inherent restrictiveness that made trains highly unpopular the moment
just anybody could start a trucking company.
Trains are still popular, but in their niche. Now that railroads are not
required to be all things to all people, they can actually make money
(instead of losing it like they used to) doing what they do best: Deliver
large amounts of goods huge distances.
Very true. Rail and electrification are ideal for densely populated areas,
but scheduling and timing are still railroads' Achilles heels.
He's referring to speculators in commodity futures. The commmodity being
oil. Until the year 2000 its was not possible for speculators to dabble in
oil futures (except for a a few "exceptions". It was considerd to be too
risky in terms of causing price spikes unrelated to to actual supply and
demand. When that restriction was eliminated by Congress (at the request of
Enron, no less)), guess what happened - price spikes unrelated to supply and
That restriction needs to be put back into place. And quickly. The Arab
feifdoms lost control of world oil prices that year, but I'm not sure who is
worse having that control - OPEC or the likes of Goldman Sacks.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.