Global warming, no worries. Why? Don't freak out.

[danastas]

Ready for the dark ages?

This is in Business Week:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_26/b4040074.htm?campaign_id=rss_magzn

You may want to reconsider buying guitars for "investment."

Do countries hide their oil reserves? Some argue that they exaggerate oil reserves so that people don't get wind of how little there is left (causing increased tensions over diminishing supplies). Here's an article yesterday:

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece

[Cleveland Metal]

Sure brightened my day!

Umm, thanks! Haha...

[Tashtego]

better start building nukes

[danastas]

better start building nukes

I had the exact same thought. Clean-er coal maybe too. definitely mix-in alternative sources which can account for 5-10%. Cut consumption. Lightbulbs, better gas mileage, public transport, energy star insulation, close your freakin' doors when running AC in Miami!! and in Manhattan, everyone has their windows open in the dead of winter because the landlords turn the heat up to 80!

[Shawn Lutz]

when water runs out then we have a problem You can live without oil, you can't live without water

I actally would think that the opposite would be true...some coutries intentionally UNDER estimate their reserve supplies

[GodOfRhythm]

They've got enough time to start implementing alternative sources of energy. But governments everywhere are just postponing and postponing....They better get that helium 3 mining on the moon started within this and the next 15 years.

[danastas]

when water runs out then we have a problem You can live without oil, you can't live without water

I actally would think that the opposite would be true...some coutries intentionally UNDER estimate their reserve supplies

The Independent article says they overexaggerate them. Supply and demand says you should underestimate to drive up demand. But that's the way an economist thinks. As the article points out, economists tend to view the world as being infinitely rich in resources. But the shiekh's in Arabia are dealing with a finite resource. Think of the pressure they'd be under if they revealed how little there is left.

Nations are going to hoard this stuff, and entire empires can topple once enough people figure out that their entire future is being sold out from under them (i.e. what happens when a national resource is sold to enrich the few?). Look at what's happening in Iran and Venezuela. they are starting to nationalize their oil supplies. That will create stability among that electorate, because they'll have oil when the shit comes down. But it also means the elites and the rich won't be profiting AS MUCH as they could be.

[danastas]

when water runs out then we have a problem You can live without oil, you can't live without water

I actally would think that the opposite would be true...some coutries intentionally UNDER estimate their reserve supplies

By the way, all the Great Lakes states, and Canadian provinces on the Lakes, are getting together soon to sign a law which forbids the export/piping/pumping of Great Lakes water unless there is unanimous consent among the state/provinces. This will mean, effectively, that all Great Lakes water will be used solely by the states are ound the lakes.

I have no idea what all those people in Arizona and Las Vegas are planning to do. If you ask me, Ed Roman is getting out at the right time.

[Tashtego]

You inspired me to go looking for more articles on the subject. Here is another that is pretty informative.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html

[Tashtego]

I had the exact same thought. Clean-er coal maybe too. definitely mix-in alternative sources which can account for 5-10%. Cut consumption. Lightbulbs, better gas mileage, public transport, energy star insulation, close your freakin' doors when running AC in Miami!! and in Manhattan, everyone has their windows open in the dead of winter because the landlords turn the heat up to 80!

I think all those things will happen gradually as price motivates. We could accelerate it by bombing the shit out of Saudi Arabia and Iran. It would be good for the environment.

[YetAnotherOne]

The comment about Iran's rationing of oil being a sign of impending doom is disingenuous at best. They ration oil because a barrel of their oil consumed by their creaky and corrupt socialist economy produces less wealth than a barrel of their oil sold for hard currency on the open market, particularly for those in charge.

There is a strong motivation for oil exporters to fudge their remaining proven reserves on the high side but not for the nefarious reasons implied by one of the above articles. Oil has historically been a boom / bust business characterized by periods of massive exploration and investment followed by price crashes which in turn drive many new producers right back out of the business. Right now we're once again in a boom time which will, invariably, be followed by increased production and lower prices. The wild cards that the environmental crowd would prefer the public not know about are oil derived from shales and coal, there are enough reserves locked in those forms to last a century or, likely, significantly longer even at much higher rates of use. Trouble is the boom / bust nature of the oil business has never sustained prices high enough for long enough to make recovery of those reserves commercially viable. If today's prices are sustained for a few more years many alternative recovery techniques will become commercially viable.

We're not anywhere close to the doomsday scenarios those articles paint, what we are moving rapidly towards is a shortage of very cheap oil (e.g., the oil in Iraq which has a lifting cost of roughly $0.50/bbl, the lowest in the world; or that in Saudi Arabia which has a lifting cost of around $1.00/bbl, one of the lowest in the world). We'll see more things like the production in the Alberta Tar Sands (cost effective at around $15/bbl) and in situ heating of shales (Shell claims it to be commercially viable at prices above $30/bbl), extraction from coals (remember Jimmy Carter's SynFuels debacle?), etc. There are plenty of sources of oil left but few sources of very cheap oil.

[danastas]

Go back to the Independent article.

In the reason magazine, they cite scientific studies. They also cite "most analysts." The problem is, a lot of these scientists have been co-opted. The even greater problem is that no one but the actual oil majors on the noil fields can really estimate what's there. It's not like a group of independent researches have access to Rumaila. Some internal BP documents were released that showed behind closed doors, the information the companies are dealing with entirely contradicts their public reports.

The Independent article also emphasized that other experts (economists mostly) are under-equipped in dealing with these issues because they are basing their models on faulty data (i.e. what's reported to them by the oil majors).

A lot of smoke and mirrors here.

[danastas]

The thing is, if these doomsayers are right (and a lot of them come from INSIDE the industry) they are arguing that we need to get on top of alternatives now, because waiting a decade will crash our economies. I know all about Alberta, but the tar sands are like like alternative fuels. They can't even meet 10% of North American consumption, and that's if they're processed. The irony is that you need a lot of water to process, and they are already talking about diverting the Athabasca river.

I think the point being made about Iran is that they're starting to hoard for themselves. If the resource is finite, then hoarding WILL happen, ndoubtedly. Unless, of course, you're only in it for yourself and your royal family.

[YetAnotherOne]

Go back to the Independent article.

In the reason magazine, they cite scientific studies. They also cite "most analysts." The problem is, a lot of these scientists have been co-opted.

...

A lot of smoke and mirrors here.

I couldn't agree more. Your first "article" isn't really an article at all, it's an op-ed by left-wing polemicst Eugene Linden. Among other things he has advocated the superiority of primitive societies to the modern, railed against the evils of consumer society, derided globalization, opposed development in third world nations, and has a long history of zealous support for the idea that humans are destroying the planet. Not exactly the sort that I'd take at face value.

Similarly the article in The Independent is based on claims made by the Oil Depletion Analysis Center which advocates an Oil Depletion Protocol as a solution to what they believe are diminishing world reserves of light sweet crude. The protocol advocates as a solution:

• The world and every nation shall aim to reduce oil consumption by at least the world depletion rate.
• No country shall produce oil at above its present depletion rate.
• No country shall import at above the world depletion rate.
• The depletion rate is defined as annual production as a percent of what is left (reserves plus yet-to-find).
• The preceding provisions refer to regular conventional oil—which category excludes heavy oils with cut-off of 17.5 API, deepwater oil with a cut-off of 500 meters, polar oil, gas liquids from gas fields, tar sands, oil shale, oil from coal, biofuels such as ethanol, etc.

Claiming this will allow the following goals to be realized:

• to avoid profiteering from shortage, such that oil prices may remain in reasonable relationship with production cost;
• to allow poor countries to afford their imports;
• to avoid destabilizing financial flows arising from excessive oil prices;
• to encourage consumers to avoid waste;
• to stimulate the development of alternative energies.

The primary target and likely outcomes of implementation of such a scheme should be obvious upon even a cursory reading: the developed world will be forced to utilize almost exclusively sources of oil having production costs 15-60x those available to the third world (simple world socializm and wealth transfer), nations that developed their economies earlier and who in turn utilized their domestic reserves earlier will see their economies devastated by artificially inflated domestic energy prices, etc. I could go on but these folks are no more rational than the "scientist" I heard advocate a culling of the world's population to 1B or less, forced limitation of city size to no more than 20,000, and complete isolation of settlements from one another as the only possible solution that will allow the human race to survive.

[nor]

Ah, ye of little faith. Be assured, big oil is sitting on a very large pile of alternative techs. When the oil starts to dry up, they will be more than happy to share them with us once they can be certain to maintain their energy monopolies.

As for me, I'm gonna go fill the Stang with premium and embarrass some more primered Hondas.