It dawned on me, and clearly last year people figured it out:

http://www.good.is/post/less-oil-more-unrest-are-declining-resources-driving-the-arab-revolutions/

Oil production is at its lowest since it peaked.

Oil consumption is the highest it has ever been.

Egypt... Gee, I wonder why nobody gives a damn about liberating them?

Syria - Children massacred everyday by a psychopath dictator still allowed to stand up and say he didn't do it. Nice. Don't expect intervention anytime soon, because there's no oil to "liberate".

.................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

Side Note: Malaysia - "Bersih" (Clean [elections]) Movement 2010-2012

While nowhere as bad as the Middle East, of course, unrest is significant and subsidies reduced (higher gasoline, food, etc. prices) due to oil decline.

But only some countries are messed up, right? Not so.

Sudan & South Sudan.. Ah, our two newest, most peaceful countries, right? Not for much longer, perhaps.

Yemen - Game Over

Indonesia - Game Over - Kicked out of OPEC

Indonesia: Lady Gaga death threats, called "Iblis Neraka" (Goblin of Hell), Devil's Messenger

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-27/lady-gaga-indonesia-concert-off-after-threats/4036038

Extra Credit Question 1: Libya  (Hint: what role did the US play in Libya? Why is it not doing the same in Egypt or Syria?)

Extra Credit Question 2: Iran (Hint: which country does the US most want to invade?)

UAE - Not looking good - I wonder if that's what caused the Dubai crisis?

Saudi Arabia - The "Mother" of all oil producers - Stagnating for 10 years but strongest so far (Hint: Which is the US, UK/Nato's favourite Middle East country?)

Interestingly, Qatar - I wonder if everyone loves Qatar because it's a free, democratic, open society?

Kuwait - Well, I guess the liberation of Kuwait was worth it, but seems to have plateaued as well. Ah well, it was a good dry run for the longest, most devastating war since WW2 10 years later.

Iraq - Ah, success story here. Luckily they were invaded, got the juices flowing again, because Saddam slacked off around 2000-2002.

He got beheaded because he couldn't meet the quota, funny that. Reminds me of Frank Herbert's Dune. Whichever House couldn't keep up the Spice shipments to the Emperor got shafted nicely.

In any case, Mission Accomplished indeed.

Australia - Oil Game Over - Luckily they have minerals, natural gas and coal. The whole world will need them soon.

Japan - I wonder if this is why the nuclear energy industry in Japan went so long with so many "oversights" (or nearsights, I should say)

Ah, Good Ol' Mother England. I wonder why the economy became decrepit...

United States - "No report available at this time."

Funny, how the US Energy Information Administration doesn't have energy information on the US.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US&trk=p1

Maybe because they have been silenced now, because the reports they've been making were too, hmm, honest?

Former US energy chiefs say EIA budget cuts to increase price volatility

http://www.abrahamgroupllc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.home&id=51

EIA: Slashed Budget Forces Cutbacks in Oil Data Collection and Analysis

(I have to make a new post because I sometimes can't edit the old one ... see AJAX/whatever issue above)

Isn't it fascinating, in the time when it is most needed, accurate (or at least an important source) reporting of oil production and consumption, especially in the US itself, is wiped off the map?

Back to it...

Canada, oh Canada...

Shh... I think they have weapons of mass destruction...

Venezuela - Don't even bother

Brazil - They'll need it to make all them iPads

Short term, things are peachy. Funny how more oil production leads to more oil consumption

Is it just me or does that blue line drop below the red line at the end?

Ah Bahrain, I wish I could have a sex-on-the-beach while having sex on your beach.

Without getting beheaded*, that is. Not going to change, they're not worth invading anymore.

*Apologies for the racially offensive quip. It's only death by firing squad, and only if said beach tryst was rape...

Psychologist and women’s rights activist Fakhriya Dairi supports its use in rape. "Executing criminals could be cruel, but rapists destroying the future of their female victims is more cruel. Rape is a tragedy to all women, but it is worse here as female rape victims are blacklisted in Arab societies with no hope of getting married," said Dairi. 

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50879

OK OK, Ms Dairi, oh, when will I learn No Means No. Can I at least where a Master Chief helmet, and customise the weapons each member of my firing squad uses? Kinda a Grand Theft Auto-Call Of Duty-Halo mashup.

Ah, Mexico, mui bien your oil is mui caliente. Oh, wait.

The new anti-immigration movement should drop pamphlets in Mexico saying,

"Don't bother coming to the US ... There's no oil here anyway."

A super fast bullet train from Mexico City to Canada would help Canadian oil production

and create US jobs. Oops, we need oil to build and run trains.

In Russia, Oil uses You. Hmm, not for too much longer, seems to have plateaued.

Oh, Norway, Norway, say it ain't so, pretty please...

Greece ... Well, it's all the bl**dy debt, nothing to do with oil, right?

Funny thing, that oil production thing seems to be lowest with

consumption highest. Nah, nothing to do with oil. Austerity is the solution! Heil IMF!

Spain - A nice tapas of low low oil production dishes and high high oil consumption platters

Nah, probably nothing to do with 1 in 2 young adults completely unemployed across the whole country.

More austerity is what the chef ordered! Vamos!

Turkey... I won't even bother thinking of some witty remark.

Brazzaville ... Sounds like a pornographic theme park. Actually, it's the Congo

Certainly a very voluptuous chart of oil production.

Sounds though like the people of Brazzaville ain't getting laid with the same oil their pumping out.

Vietnam... Ah, the new jewel of South East Asia. The Motorcycle-to-Hummer success story.

Hope they can keep it up, them Hummer's need lotsa the good stuff.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

(I know some of the spelling and grammar above is atrocious, I can't bloody edit the posts sometimes. Ah well, maybe I'll make an iPad iBooks2 from this)

To be honest, I'm feeling quite disturbed at the moment. I didn't expect my country-by-country research to be so poignant. It was all a lark, and then 10 countries in, I was like, f*** me this is no tin-foil-hat, Nostradamus-loving conspiracy theory.

A part of me wanted this whole "peak oil" thing to be some stupid tree-hugging lefty hippy liberal pot-smoking beat up. You know, like genetic modification, pesticides, global warming, the death of Blackberry, renewable energy, the debt crisis, and all that nonsense that's just fear-mongering that's threatening to take all the rights away from us honest, hardworking, heterosexual freedom-loving citizens of the world. 

Weird thing about hindsight though...

This is bad. Real bad. Like when RIM announced the Playbook bad. You had that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach, that it's going to be all downhill from here.

Jokes aside, we're screwed. The patient's dead. Flatlined.

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1

I just chucked this data into Numbers to graph 2007-2011.

http://peakoil.com/what-is-peak-oil/under-construction/

What happens when a petrol company becomes a "GOLD" company? When more and more people need gold to live, what incentive do corporations have to continue to sell gold at current prices?

Oh, Pakistan better enjoy what it can now. Time's up.

Nigeria - Plateaued

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Wow. Looks like someone got drunk last night and went on a peak oil bender. Not just spamming his own thread but hitting every other one with his peak oil preaching.

 

Nice.

A pleasure, as always. Funny how facts and figures and graphs are spamming, and not all the other threads and almost every post saying "Obama Sucks". 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

Its refreshing around here to have a thread with some substance, as opposed to endless (often infantile) partisan playground bickering, involving the excess baggage about the relative merits, or lack thereof, of Obama vs. Romney, or Democrats vs. Republicans. Thanks, nvidia.

Thank you, you're welcome. As I mentioned, I feel global warming and other issues pale in comparison to Peak Oil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Present facts nvidia and you'll get booed off stage by this right wing crowd.
I looked through all the posts earlier on and it's great to see all these countries figures presented in one place.
I think oil plays a large role in many things, but the geography of northern Africa and those countries wants of being more closely tied to Europe, I think is why we're seeing the Arab Spring.

Yup, facts are "spamming". Ah well, maybe I should have just posted a funny animated gif video loop so that it can be more palatable for the "audience".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 


Even in the simplest terms a poorer country has a higher chance of revolution, and when oil plays such a large role in some of these countries, it's nice to see where things are at in regards to their oil surplus, or lack of one. Western countries, who see opportunities in political change, are bound to exploit this. In the case of Europe, closely backed by the US, this change has profound implications for extending its influence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Not at all, it just that this was sort of out of the blue spam fast that reeks a bit of "doth protest too much.". As for the "facts", yes many have been presented, but in a way hardly digestible and in a way that distracts from the most relevant question:

 

What is the trend and status of total worldwide oil production, known available* reserves and consumption?

 

The individual country statistics actually distract from this question. All that matters, in this case, is what the aggregates are for all countries.

 

*A final note about known available oil reserves: This has been mentioned many times to those who have held on to and predicted "peak oil" (Hint: this has happened so many times we've lost count)...the currently "known reserves" refers to reserves that are known to be available and accessible using current technologies and justifiable at current prices. It is certainly NOT all of the oil that is remaining in the world.

 

Anyway...back to the Malthusian Fear-Mongering Festival.

Indeed, it was an inspired moment. That's just how I roll. Why bother if you're not passionate about something.

And, I aim to please, for Google just isn't as fun as it used to be. To be fair, that was a good point, I wanted to look at individual countries, just as a lark.

What I found, was rather disturbing.

---------------MORE SPAM! YAY!--------------------------

Anyway, as for total oil:

Note the sections that say "total oil" in these graphs, lest I be accused of not providing total world figures.

The facts speak for themselves.

Myth 1: New oil is constantly discovered by high technology, advanced science and use of iPads.

Oil discovery is long, long gone. You need to discover oil, before you can extract it. 

In the graph below, we can see that the best oil finds finished in 1980. That's thirty years ago.

So, if we're that fantastic, why haven't we found more oil? 

Sure, maybe it's out there, and we just haven't got round to looking for it.

You would think though that with all that we know, and the massive size and resources of massive oil companies,

they would have spent the last 30 years, the grandest in all human history, actually looking for oil and finding oil.

Myth 2: There's still plenty of oil to go around, right now, it's all hunky-dory.

Never mind any "peak", this graph shows production has plateaued. Unlike global warming,

which relies heavily on future predictions, oil production is reasonably well recorded.

So either one believes the plateau is temporary, that somehow in the graph below we can 

draw some sort of arithmetic progression straight line. But see Myth 1. Where is the oil going to come

from? Oh right, reserves. See Myth 3.

Myth 3a: There's plenty of oil reserves out there. We just need to pull it out of the ground.

Let's look at OPEC reserves over time. Not pretty. Thank goodness for Saudi and Venezuela.

However, see Myth 3b.

Myth 3b. There is a global oil inspector, Mr. Oil, who goes to all the countries and 

looks and verifies oil production so the world can live safely.

Not the case. There is a history of overstatement and unaudited results. 

At best, the growth of reserves is nowhere near the increase in production and consumption.

Myth 4. Oil production can go on for ever.

Well, this depends on whether you believe the projections or not. 

If you can't see the other side of the mountain, or if the peak is covered by clouds,

it's natural to think you can keep climbing forever. All the ~current~ 

historical records, and projections from past years, have now been validated.

The peak is definitely in sight. Unless one believes that behind this peak is a

mountain with an even higher peak. 

The part before 2007 is historical fact. The part that comes afterward is an ASPO extrapolation.

Myth 5. All those tree-hugging hippies have caused us to drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption,

so who cares if we are running out of oil.

China alone is gobbling up a massive amount of oil, and they don't look like stopping soon. Poor hippies.

Well, that's just China, the rest of the world has changed. Doesn't seem to be the case.

Myth 6. Canada and Artic, Antartica have vast, untapped potential. We just need to start mining there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_exploration_in_the_Arctic

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/ns/us_news-environment/t/study-anwr-oil-would-have-little-impact/#.T8w9ko7wSNE

Myth 7. Increased co-operation, understanding of global human needs and increased democratisation of the world

will make oil easily accessible to the whole world. The might of the UN, US, UK/Nato and so on will ensure peaceful

exploration and recovery of oil the world needs.

This graph is self-explanatory. Unless you think Angola, Saudi, Nigeria, Libya, Iran and Iraq are "Girls Gone Wild" party hotspots,

these ain't no Spring Break destinations.

Addendum to "There's oil in places around the world we just haven't got of our butts to drill it" myth. (Can't edit old post, Safari shows white page of death)

Offshore Petroleum Reserve 5: Protected U.S. Coasts

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that new drilling wouldn't have an impact on the economy until 2030. After all, you can't just find a promising drill site and throw an oil rig on top of it overnight. Even after decades of production, experts warn that the economic impact might be minimal.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/5-offshore-petroleum-reserves1.htm

Offshore Petroleum Reserve 4: Brazilian Coasts

But to move up in the global oil market, Brazil first has to establish enough platforms in the region to permit full-scale production -- a project that will cost billions, especially given the depth and weight of the petroleum deposits.

Ownership of the Santos, Campos and Espirito Santo basins is a clear-cut issue. After all, the areas fall within the limits permitted by the U.N.'s Law of the Sea treaty. But what happens when potential oil fields pop up in more contested waters?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/5-offshore-petroleum-reserves2.htm

Offshore Petroleum Reserve 3: The Arctic

Who owns all these potential resources? Well, it's not as straightforward as you might think.

Under the 17th century Freedom of the Seas doctrine, the Arctic belonged to no one, but under theUnited Nations' Law of the Sea treaty, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States all have a legal claim to valuable seafloor territory. The treaty gives countries exclusive economic rights to the 200 nautical miles extending from their coastlines. This lands large portions of the Arctic's petroleum riches firmly in U.S. and Russian hands.

However, the U.N. treaty also allows Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States to file claims for more territory if they can prove their continental shelves extended into the Arctic seabed. As a result, the five contenders for northern oil riches have all launched vigorous campaigns to survey the ocean floor. By this, they hope to convince the U.N. to give them as big a slice of the Arctic oil pie as possible.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/5-offshore-petroleum-reserves3.htm

Offshore Petroleum Reserve 2: Antarctica

 The protocol, which went into effect in 1998, placed a moratorium on mining and drilling for petroleum for a minimum of 50 years. Even if mineral resources are accidentally uncovered through scientific research, no one can legally exploit them.But treaties aren't the only thing keeping drills out of tempting petroleum deposits. Sometimes, we just lack the technology.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/5-offshore-petroleum-reserves4.htm

Offshore Petroleum Reserve 1: Ultra-Deep Waters

Regardless of the challenges involved, these ultra-deepwater fields contain the kind of riches petroleum companies would love to claim. One particularly popular area is the Lower Tertiary in the Gulf of Mexico, where geologists have detected potentially lucrative drill sites at depths of 15,000 to 30,000 feet (4,572 to 9,144 meters). Chevron's Tahiti field in this region contains an estimated 400 to 500 million barrels of oil [source: USA Today]. The entire Lower Tertiary region may hold as much as 15 billion barrels total [source: Wired].

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/5-offshore-petroleum-reserves5.htm

(So, all we need to be able to do is drill 5km to 10km... This is as DEEP as Mount Everest is HIGH. "Currently, deep-sea spar platforms can reach down through 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) and Transocean drill ships are capable of reaching depths of 12,000 feet (3,658 meters) [source: USA Today]"... So, we can only hit 4km right now. We have to double that to reach the real good stuff. Possible, maybe we'll have underwater cities too, like in Star Wars Episode 1 and Bioshock. Don't get me wrong, James Cameron was able to go ~himself~ to 11km DEEP. That's amazing. http://deepseachallenge.com/the-sub/sub-facts/ ...But large scale extraction of 50 million barrels per day of oil from ultra-deepwater, assuming the reserves are accurate, is probably quite another thing. At best, it will take 10-20 years for such ultra-deepwater mining to take place. See above as well. It says Chevron's Tahiti Field contains 400-500 million barrels of oil. that would be gone in 6 DAYS. The Lower Tertiary region has 15 billion barrels. Sweet. But, that would be gone in 6 MONTHS)

Addendum to Myth about Reserves. Let's look at the chart below. Let's say you've got three major regions that each have 300 billion barrels. 

That would give you 900 billion barrels in reserves as of 2012, which is definitely on the high side given the graph below.

Heck, let's call it an easy 1 trillion barrels in reserves in the world as of 2012.

Indeed, it is listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves as

barrels in total reserves, and this is a very, very high side estimate.

This is the total "proven" (ie, reasonably obtained) reserves.

Sure, that number is fantastic. 1.4 trillion reserves.

We use 80 million barrels a day alone.

1.4 trillion divide by 80 million divide by 365 = 48 years.

IF all the oil was extracted from the earth tomorrow,

IF our current oil consumption remains the same,

IF the oil extraction remains economical

IF all the oil in these proven reserves is accessible

IF all countries where these reserves exist will drill and share their oil

Then

IT WOULD ONLY LAST 48 YEARS.

IF oil consumption averages to 100 million barrels a day (very likely, in fact, low side estimate)

Then

IT WOULD ONLY LAST 38 YEARS.

This means

Most of the world will live to see the end of oil.

Even if one or two of the Myths listed above were thoroughly discredited, the bulk of the evidence is definitely not promising.

And some of the "solutions" are becoming ever more far-fetched. To some degree, a colony on Mars of 100,000 people by 2050 becomes more plausible.

It's all still possible, including travel to the nearest stars, terraforming of Mars, discovering some unlimited, cheap source of energy.

But even if that happens, it needs to happen not 2020, 2025, 2100, 2200, but TOMORROW.

Even if we strip out any ideology, liberal or conservative, left or right, the facts stand for themselves.

Either the oil is there, or it isn't. Either it can be economically extracted, or not. Either the world needs more, or it needs less. 

Either oil prices will stay the same, or it will go up. It is unlikely to go down.

There's no value judgement here, nothing to "save" except... ourselves.

I don't care if Obama, Romney, the Dalai Lama, or Assad owns an oil company. An oil company needs oil to extract oil, and it can either do this sufficiently, or not.

The CPU is pegged 100%, possibly overclocked too. And unlike an Intel chip made by many more people and CPUs, our single global Oil CPU is 100%.

Sure, you can add more cores, up the voltage, use liquid cooling, but you're still throwing more energy at making the CPU work even more past its limit.

Just like with overclocking, at some stage, even ignoring physical limits, the overall energy input to get more performance hits a point of diminishing returns.

Not to mention stability issues which are unpredictable. Burning out, freezing, crashing ~ you see what I'm getting at here.

A whole bunch of things has to go just right to maintain our current unsustainable growth. And only a few things need to go wrong (or come true, in this case) for things to get real bad.

Here's a test of some material I may or may not work on. Please critique.

More high impact, testing "hipster logo parody" graphic. Made in Keynote (Biohazard component from open source)

Wow, I'm absolutely killing it in this thread! Time for lunch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Dude...really?  I know you're on this Peak Oil bender, but a few points:  

 

1) "Proven" reserves have nothing to do with oil that is "reasonably obtained."  That is simply not the definition.  These are merely the reserves have been A) Discovered and B) Proven to exist in certain quantities

 

2) Proven reserves have a history of being MUCH larger than originally "proven."   And proven reserves are NOT a sufficient basis to predict how much recoverable oil their actually is.  

 

3)  New theories suggest that oil may not even be fossil fuel, much less a finite resource. 

 

 

 

Now, back on the wagon for you.  :) 

Note: Don't take my passion wrongly, I think I've found something I really believe in, and climate change, debt crisis, wars, people being assholes, useless failed companies, worthless tech ideas, obesity, diabetes, cholesterol, cancer, the world becoming slaves to China... can actually all be traced to one thing, the Energy Crisis.

In response to the above... 

LOL and people are "skeptical" about global warming. :D

So oil is neither a fossil fuel nor a finite resource? 

Wonderful, because we need a few trillion barrels more in the next 10 years. 

Funny how nobody has found all this extra oil.

I was giving the benefit of the doubt to "proven reserves".

In truth it is clear, even by your own statement, this is a fairytale number,

like 3G speeds "up to 20mbit/sec". 

You say the actual amount found is more, but I would ask for a chart to prove this. You can see above the graph that clearly shows discovery has dropped significantly. So, either all that's discovered has not yet been extracted, or there's a lot there's not been discovered yet.

Saudi Aramco... Why, I'm blinded by their truth. The most responsible and ethical company on the planet in the most democratic, free and open country on the planet. Hmm, not.

If there is all this oil, why has global production plateaued?

If all this oil is abundant and out there? Why has no single significant production of unconventional oil started in the past 5 years? Canadian tar sands not counted, they've been doing it for a few decades now.

The argument for more oil than we currently really know about is built upon more and more assumptions, "predictions" and hypotheses, that has no link with ~current global production~. At some stage, you might as well say, yeah, well, we can colonise Europa by 2050, since there's plenty of water there, we'll never run out of water on Earth.

It's building to the point of blind hope. "Yeah, it may be out there, it may be easily obtained, it may be super abundant"... Maybe, maybe, maybe. Our cars don't run on Maybe.

The gas tank is empty, and everyone is scrambling to find the nearest petrol station. Just like in real life, sure, the petrol station with tons of gasoline might be just around the corner, or it might be 20 miles away. But either way, your gas tank is showing E. Sure, there may be oil out there that will last 2000 years, but in the past 10 years, nothing has materialised.

Vapourware. Literally. Gas fumes, nothing else. And the world is now running on fumes.

Ironically, the Australian Prime Minister has staked her career, party and government on introducing carbon pricing locally starting next month. If she had just told the country, look, the world is screwed, there's no more oil, she'd be in a much better position.

What I'm curious about, and please critique, is the logical arguments regarding oil.

See, in global warming, there are two inductive leaps that need to be made.

One, that we are causing increase in global temperatures.

Two, that these global temperature increase of just 2degC is bad, real bad.

In the energy crisis, the two inductive leaps that need to be made are:

One, that of the resource/ reserve/ proven reserve/ what Saudi says it has is ~in reality~ equal to or more than what is claimed to be there.

Two, that not only do existing resource/ reserves/ etc. numbers have to pan out ~in actual production~, but there are still vast resources as cheap and energy-dense as oil.

Yes, some "proven reserves" may turn out to be more, some may be less. The discovery graph way above does show that even discovery, which leads to estimates of proven/ resource/ reserve/ whatever, has markedly dropped away many decades ago.

Even if people were faking discovery, they haven't been faking it much at all. So why the discrepancy between discovery and reserve estimates? If reserves are continually increasing, due to ostensibly, continuing new discoveries, then the discovery graph should reflect this. So either the discovery reporting is false, or the reserve reporting is dubious. Only if both the record of discovery and the record of reserve statements match, then we could say either is correct, or either is false. But at this stage, one of the two is false or true, but not both false nor both true.

To be honest, what I've uncovered here in this thread alone is clearly very, very significant.

Luckily at this stage all this peak oil information is out there in the open. Lest I be "Assanged". Also the documentaries are out there on iTunes Store, I've found it very enlightening. Just watching five documentaries on iTunes Store, and it's clear for the past 10 years most of what we've known is well, limited.

Yes, of course for some of us on the "left" for decades we've known, save the forest, save the trees, use bikes, cars are bad, rich people are evil, electricity is going to cause a hurricane to kill innocent African children.

Putting aside any moral argument, the facts stand for themselves. Either the energy is there, or it isn't. It's like downloading a new 3D game on your Mac. Either it's going to run, or it's going to crash, depending on the game and the hardware. We can ~hope~ the game is compatible, we can ~hope~ the Mac has enough specs to run it, but of course if we looked at the facts then we can know if it's going to run.

In the case of energy, we ~know~ what's there, and what ~may be there~ is ~hope~. Not that ~hope~ is bad, but, let's understand that it is ~hope~.

I think people just haven't "got" how critical the situation is.

For me, the penny dropped when I went through individual Middle East countries and looked at their situation and US/UK/Nato action with regard to their oil. When you see it, it is so blindingly obvious how important oil is in US/UK/Nato policy and "intervention", that any other reason given is ridiculous. Just look at Egypt, Syria, Saudi, Iran, Iraq and Libya. Given that all those regimes are all screwed up beyond recognition, cherry-picking who to help and who not to help seems confusing, but if you look at their oil situation, as I've outlined above, it is really quite simple. 

Saudi has the most oil, so they are the West's best friends.

Iraq has a lot of oil, the rest is history anyway.

Iran has a lot of oil, next target.

Egypt, no more oil, who cares about them.

Syria, see above.

Libya ~ nice one, good opportunity to get rid of a dictator that became inconvenient.

Interestingly, no one questioned me on Afghanistan. I knew something was up with Afghanistan and oil.

Could it be ... an oil pipeline? I mean, the region is so messed up EIA has ZERO information.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=AF&trk=p1

Which is also suspect, the longest and most important region of conflict involving the USA in the hotzone of all hotzones,

and there's ZERO information on the oil use there? What about "rebuilding" the nation? I suspect that needs oil.

Anyway, it's all about the pipeline, or at best ~mostly~ about the pipeline. C'mon now. 

All around you are countries producing oil, and oil needs to flow here and there. Afghanistan is a key region.

This is of course below a biased link, but it's an interesting kick-off point for valid research

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=217166281637605

I think this pipeline is the tip of the iceberg in the Afghanistan situation.

Even if it's not oil, the rare metals theory is interesting (I'm not backing this yet till I have more research but it is interesting).

Because with or without oil, the next thing you're gonna need is rare metals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_M_BB01I4k

In 2008, this article came out, "Oh, they want to build a pipeline, what a stupid conspiracy theory"

http://web.archive.org/web/20080804165952/http://www.slate.com/?id=2059487

As far back as 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1626889.stm

Interestingly, they have started to build the pipeline.

Lo and behold,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11977744

Turkmen natural gas pipeline Tapi to cross Afghanistan

Anyone who's tired of bickering about Romney/Obama, left/right whatever get your ass on this thread and tell me this doesn't smell fishy.

"Liberating" Afghanistan from the Taliban. LOL

"Liberating" Iraq from ...?

"Liberating" Kuwait from ...?

"Liberating" Vietnam from ...?

"Liberating" Korea from ...?

You can see where it went from fighting against communism, perhaps, to fighting for, unequivocally, oil.

They say the best story or song is one that writes itself. I think I've stumbled on to it.

Let's assume, Afghanistan has nothing to do with oil, energy, gas, pipelines, rare earths, whatever.

Let's look at this:

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1268/tapi-pipeline-a-win-win-for-all

It optimistically lays out the benefits of the pipeline.

So let's take a hawkish view. Yes, Taliban are evil, US went in to fight against them and extract justice.

Now, we are helping Afghanistan by building gas pipeline. Everyone wins.

However... from link above:

A major factor deciding the fate of the project would be the political stability. Since the birth of independent Central Asian states, the region has witnessed huge political instability and religious and ethnic conflicts... Even today, despite the functioning democratic regime of Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow in Turkmenistan, the political situation remains fragile. Other determining factors include the agreement on transit fee and security mechanisms. Since the pipeline passes through the restive Afghan areas of Herat and Kandahar and Balochistan in Pakistan, it becomes imperative to have a well-defined legal institutional mechanism in place. 

The beauty of this whole thing is, why the heck would anyone want to build a big ass 1000-mile-long pipeline through the most messed up region on Earth?

Might it be because there's wonderful energy everywhere we look and this is a charity project for Afghanistan?

Or is it, by occam's razor, because we are getting more desperate to secure energy supplies?

There is such a long and obvious history about this pipeline anyways:

http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=233:afghanistan-the-tapi-pipeline-and-energy-geopolitics&catid=103:energysecurityissuecontent&Itemid=358

"At the time, the Taliban controlled 90 percent of Afghanistan but not the area held by the Afghan Northern Alliance. Unocal testified to Congress that the pipeline "cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place. For the project to advance, it must have international financing, government-to-government agreements and government-to-consortium agreements." The Bush Administration urged the Taliban regime to form a government of national unity that would include the northern tribes. Bridas took a different approach—they negotiated separately with different tribes. The president of Bridas spent eight months visiting tribes along the pipeline route and reportedly had secured their cooperation for the venture.

Negotiations with the Taliban broke down in July 2001, just before the attacks of September 11. In October, the US ousted the Taliban, with the assistance of the Northern Alliance. The Pashtun—roughly 40 percent of the population—are a major source of Taliban insurgents, and the pipeline route goes through the Pashtun area in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are about 30 million Pashtuns on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border. It’s an artificial border—the so-called Durand Line that was imposed by British India in 1893. It was drawn intentionally to break up the Pashtun tribes. In fact, Pashtuns in Kandahar were independent from Kabul for ages, and, until recently, Pashtuns in Pakistan were relatively independent from Islamabad.

After the 2001 invasion, planning of the pipeline continued. Interim President Karzai met with President Musharraf in Islamabad in February 2002, where they announced their agreement to cooperate on the proposed pipeline. In May 2002, the heads of state of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed to cooperate on the project, and a steering committee of oil and gas ministers was established to oversee project development. In July 2002, the steering committee requested the ADB to finance project-related studies through the provision of"regional technical assistance. In subsequent years, steering committee meetings were held at frequent intervals. India participated in the tenth meeting in 2008, and the four countries signed the Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'm not going to do your homework for you.  Proven reserves have a history of being much larger than originally thought.  Go look it up.  And no, we're not anywhere near ready to run out of oil. But don't let that stop you from going on your Peak Oil bender.  

Nice. Zero attempt to refute my points. You can stick your head in the sand. But there's no oil there.

Something foul in the state of "Denmark". It's amazing to see some of y'all thrash global warming to no end.

But when the facts of peak oil are presented... Crickets.

Don't take this personally, clearly this is a major issue that very few people are willing to face.

And they say global warming is ideology. Anti-peak-oil is certainly ideology by all reasonable measures.

I have presented tons of evidence. The only point argued is that "proven reserves have a history of being much larger than originally thought".

So of all the points I have made, there is only one point presented, of which a search shows no evidence for such a thing.

This is faith and ideology. Funnily, the same thing that has driven ~our~ oil bender, not "my" "bender".

It's clear now our situation and pure denial the world is in.

That we now rely on fantasy about there being more oil than we think, and that it's easier to extract when we think.

My case is clear, I aim to make this the last post.

I will end on another 2 graphs. If people do not want to analyse the facts and science, and instead use ideology, while trying to claim global warming is ideology, then that is the choice sentient beings are allowed to make. I shall now attempt to channel my efforts elsewhere, since if the brightest minds of this forum cannot offer any reasonable argument to my evidence presented, then clearly I have hit the peak (pun intended) of intellectual discourse available on this forum.

But I understand, this is all a scary, scary proposition for many people to grasp. Just like when we learn Santa Claus doesn't exist, shock grips us. It makes us question everything we know. I empathise with this. It's just like when we discovered quantum mechanics, or when we realised, hey, maybe God doesn't intervene in everything, some of it is purely... man-made.

So it appears Peak Oil has two fronts. The first is the facts, which people will resist, some to their dying day. The second front is simply the shock. The shock that we aren't going to be able to continue like we have. This is the shock gripping much of America and Europe just with the debt crisis and the destruction of the middle class. People cannot accept, understandably, that things are worse off economically than their parents' time, despite massive, massive advances in so many aspects of human life. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ascii 

Do you think Natural Gas might substitute some (not all) uses of oil?

 

e.g. 

Growing Energy Production in the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_mu3RJXbhs

The Impact of US LNG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4f14Hm1aVI

The International Shale Gas Industry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT23BH0VfKI

 

I believe Apple's new "spaceship hq" is to be partly powered by Natural Gas.

Why, thank you for your enquiry. Yes. Natural Gas is very, very important for several reasons. It produces less emissions, it is more energy-efficient (transport, cooking, water heating, home heating directly from natural gas, as well as bloom boxes). 

Now, there is talk of Peak Gas. But in any case, oil as we know it is going to be less and less cheap and easily available. Natural Gas is an important stopgap, and may only have 5 to 20 years before it too becomes hard to extract.

Not also that natural gas is much more difficult to transport since it is not liquid at ordinary temperatures.

There is a reason why Apple HQ/Datacenter etc is going natural gas + solar and maybe a lot of wind too. Could it be Apple doesn't want to contribute to the nightmare that is peak oil?