World Oil Production to Peak in 2013

Hello,

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 country.

Regards.

You can find much more on:

formatting link

Reply to
peakoil
Loading thread data ...

Uh, the former NHL Commissioner?

Reply to
News

News wrote in news:TY6dncUxxuWwarLXnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@speakeasy.net:

You're thinking of CLARENCE Campbell, and he was NHL President, not Commissioner.

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 time.

Try and tell me there's no oil in that hair...

Reply to
Tegger

Yep. The bad old days.

Colin Campbell is currently NHL Senior Executive Vice President (WTF? Title inflation?) and Director of Hockey Operations

Reply to
News

News wrote in news:jaWdnRoDbLbwYrLXnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@speakeasy.net:

And he doesn't even seem to be related to Clarence. Or maybe he's hiding that relationship because he doesn't like oiled hair. It's a conspiracy...

Reply to
Tegger

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.

Reply to
rjdriver

The sooner we use up all the oil, the sooner we get alternative energy...

John-put the petal to the metal!

Reply to
asadi

I once read somewhere that people in the future will hate us for burning all the oil rather than saving some for other (many other) uses.

Reply to
dgk

dgk wrote in news:ef0235hncpjl5jqqb7vq6jsj3kiedro9lk@

4ax.com:

People were using almost none of that oil until the internal combustion engine came along. Farmers had for countless generations regarded "rock oil" as a simple nuisance.

Reply to
Tegger

He had said peak was in early 1990s at one time.

The US and several Oil Majors suggest around 2030-ish.

Reply to
rick++

What was his call on peak whale oil?

Reply to
News

Thus spake News :

"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?"

Reply to
Dillon Pyron

"Senior Executive Vice President"

Reply to
News

Bingo!

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...

JT

Reply to
Grumpy AuContraire

Grumpy AuContraire wrote in news:YRAYl.65860$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Actually, a surprisingly small amount comes from hostage-taker countries.

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.

Reply to
Tegger

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...

JT

Reply to
Grumpy AuContraire

Grumpy AuContraire wrote in news:JMZYl.68068$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Can you name one of those speculators?

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.

Reply to
Tegger

Welfare recipients should be required to go to a station and pedal bikes to turn generators....to make the electricity...

john

Reply to
asadi

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 and planning.

The northeast corridor is electrified and many other urban rail systems are as well. Diesel/Electric is fine for long haul.

JT

Reply to
Grumpy AuContraire

Grumpy AuContraire wrote in news:qJiZl.359732$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

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 those "speculators".

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.

Reply to
Tegger

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.