[mojo2]

I think once we all understand why Iraq's oil is so important we'll then be able to unify behind the effort to "giterdone!"

Don't you agree?

http://www.motherjones.com/commentar...light_oil.html

The Twilight Era of Petroleum
The world is about to see the end of easy oil -- and the beginning of the resource wars.

Michael Klare
August 04 , 2005

Introduction by Tom Engelhardt.

The Chevron ad began: "It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30. Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century. One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over..."

I rubbed my eyes and read on:

"What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond. Demand is soaring like never before. As populations grow and economies take off, millions in the developing world are enjoying the benefits of a lifestyle that requires increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40% more oil than it does today. At the same time, many of the world's oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically and even politically. When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.
"We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations? What role will renewables and alternative energies play? What is the best way to protect our environment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts?..."

I rubbed my eyes again. Most of this ad, part of a new campaign by an oil major, might easily have been taken more or less word for word from any of the pieces Michael Klare -- author of the indispensable Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum -- has been writing for Tomdispatch over these many months. When Klare writes such passages and they prove accurate somewhere down the line, they can perhaps be called "prescient." When the Chevron ad people do the same, what you have is something like a confession reflecting a seismic shift in mainstream consciousness -- and we have to take our seismic shifts where we find them. After all this time, it seems that "peak oil" may suddenly be on some part of Big Oil's agenda, which tells you something about the cul-de-sac into which we've blithely managed to drive our SUVs.

Just to add a little footnote of my own: During last year's fierce hurricane season, after catching endless TV and newspaper coverage of the destruction, and finding hardly a passing mention of the possibility of a link between the weather of that moment (commonly referred to as "bizarre" or "strange") and global warming, I wondered aloud whether our media (like our President) wasn't living in something of a bubble world (Xtreme weather meets Xtreme media bubble). Numerous journalists promptly wrote in angrily to suggest that I was off the wall; that, scientifically speaking, such a linkage was not even worthy of being raised in a respectable newspaper.

This year, with the first hurricanes arriving earlier, fiercer, and in record numbers, and hurricane prediction numbers for the rest of the season soaring, the TV news finds itself more regularly switching from scenes of destruction in the south to unnaturally melting vistas in the north, and its reporters regularly wondering on air about global warming tie-ins. And when, in a study which first appeared in the British science magazine Nature, Kerry Emanuel, an MIT ocean climatologist, suggested that the rise in hurricane intensity might indeed be linked to global warming, the news was not relegated to science journals, anxious insurance company publications, or on-line environmental websites. It could be found in USA Today ("Hurricanes have grown fiercer in recent decades, spurred by global warming, and even tougher storms are likely on the way, a researcher predicts...") and a wide range of other major publications. This too represents at least a modestly seismic shift worth noting.

Michael Klare, in the meantime, continues his Tomdispatch exploration of the new era we've crept into, upside down and backwards (at $61 dollars to the barrel of crude oil), and what to make of it.

The Twilight Era of Petroleum
By Michael T. Klare
Several recent developments -- persistently high gasoline prices, unprecedented warnings from the Secretary of Energy and the major oil companies, China's brief pursuit of the American Unocal Corporation -- suggest that we are just about to enter the Twilight Era of Petroleum, a time of chronic energy shortages and economic stagnation as well as recurring crisis and conflict. Petroleum will not exactly disappear during this period -- it will still be available at the neighborhood gas pump, for those who can afford it -- but it will not be cheap and abundant, as it has been for the past 30 years. The culture and lifestyles we associate with the heyday of the Petroleum Age -– large, gas-guzzling cars and SUVs, low-density suburban sprawl, strip malls and mega-malls, cross-country driving vacations, and so on -- will give way to more constrained patterns of living based on a tight gasoline diet. While Americans will still consume the lion's share of global petroleum stocks on a daily basis, we will have to compete far more vigorously with consumers from other countries, including China and India, for access to an ever-diminishing pool of supply.

The concept of a "twilight" of petroleum derives from what is known about the global supply and demand equation. Energy experts have long acknowledged that the global production of oil will someday reach a moment of maximum (or "peak") daily output, followed by an increasingly sharp drop in supply. But while the basic concept of peak oil has gained substantial worldwide acceptance, there is still much confusion about its actual character. Many people who express familiarity with the concept tend to view peak oil as a sharp pinnacle, with global output rising to the summit one month and dropping sharply the next; and looking back from a hundred years hence, things might actually appear this way. But for those of us embedded in this moment of time, peak oil will be experienced as something more like a rocky plateau -- an extended period of time, perhaps several decades in length, during which global oil production will remain at or near current levels but will fail to achieve the elevated output deemed necessary to satisfy future world demand. The result will be perennially high prices, intense international competition for available supplies, and periodic shortages caused by political and social unrest in the producing countries.

The Era of Easy Oil Is Over

The Twilight Era of oil, as I term it, is likely to be characterized by the growing politicization of oil policy and the recurring use of military force to gain control over valuable supplies. This is so because oil, alone among all major trading commodities, is viewed as a strategic material; something so vital to a nation's economic well-being, that is, as to justify the use of force in assuring its availability. That nations are prepared to go to war over petroleum is not exactly a new phenomenon. The pursuit of foreign oil was a significant factor in World War II and the 1991 Gulf War, to offer only two examples; but it is likely to become ever more a part of our everyday world in a period of increased competition and diminishing supplies.

This new era will not begin with a single, clearly defined incident, but rather with a series of events suggesting the transition from a period of relative abundance to a time of persistent scarcity. These events will take both economic and political form: on the one hand, rising energy prices and contracting supplies; on the other, more diplomatic crises and military assertiveness. Recently, we have witnessed significant examples of both.

On the economic side, the most important signals have been provided by rising crude oil prices and warnings of diminished output in the future. A barrel of crude now costs just over $60 -- approximately twice the figure for this time a year ago -- and many experts believe that the price could rise much higher if the supply situation continues to deteriorate. "We've entered a new era of oil prices," said energy expert Daniel Yergin in an April interview with Time Magazine. If markets remain as tight as they are at present, "you'll see a lot more volatility, and you could see prices spike up as high as $65 to $80."

Analysts at Goldman Sachs are even more pessimistic, suggesting that oil could reach as high as $105 a barrel in the near future. "We believe that oil markets may have entered the early stages of what we have referred to as a ‘super-spike' period," they reported in April, with elevated prices prevailing for a "multi-year" stretch of time.

Of course, the world has experienced severe price spikes before -- most notably in 1973-74 following the October War between Egypt and Israel and the Arab oil embargo, as well as in 1979-80 following the Iranian Revolution -- but this time the high prices are likely to persist indefinitely, rather than recede as was the case in the past. This is so because new production (in such places as the Caspian Sea and off the West coast of Africa) is not coming on line fast enough or furiously enough to compensate for the decline in output from older fields, such as those in North America and the North Sea. On top of this, it is becoming increasingly evident that stalwart producers like Russia and Saudi Arabia have depleted many of their most prolific fields and are no longer capable of boosting their total output in significant ways.

Until recently, it was considered heresy for officials of the oil industry and government bodies like the U.S. Department of Energy to acknowledge the possibility of a near-term contraction in oil supplies. But several recent events signal the breakdown of the dominant consensus:

*On July 8, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman told reporters from the Christian Science Monitor that the era of cheap and abundant petroleum may now be over. "For the first time in my lifetime," he declared, major oil suppliers like Saudi Arabia "are right at their ragged edge" in their ability to satisfy rising world demand for energy. Despite the huge increase in international demand, Bodman noted, the world's leading producers are not capable of substantially expanding their output, and so we should expect a continuing upward trend in gasoline prices. "We are in a new situation," he asserted. "We are likely at least in the near-term to be dealing with a different pricing regime than we have seen before."

*One week later, oil giant Chevron took out a two-page spread in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other major papers to signal its awareness of the impending energy crunch. "One thing is clear," the advertisement announced, "the era of easy oil is over." This was an extraordinary admission by a major oil company. The ad went on to say that "many of the world's oil and gas fields are maturing" and that "new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically, and even politically." Equally revealing, the ad noted that the world will consume approximately one trillion barrels of oil over the next 30 years -- about as much untapped petroleum as is thought to lie in the world's known, "proven" reserves.

[mojo2]

Oil Shockwave

These, and other recent reports from trade and industry sources, suggest that the anticipated slowdown in global petroleum output will have severe economic consequences. If prices spike at $100 a barrel, as suggested by Goldman Sachs, a global economic recession is almost unavoidable. At the same time, the slowdown in output is sure to have significant political and military consequences, as suggested by another set of recent events.

The most notable of these, of course, is the domestic brouhaha triggered by the $18.5 billion bid by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) for U.S.-based Unocal, originally known as the Union Oil Company of California. Unocal, the owner of substantial oil and gas reserves in Asia, was originally wooed by Chevron, which offered $16.8 billion for the company earlier this year. The very fact that a Chinese firm had been prepared to outbid a powerful American firm for control of a major U.S.-based oil company is immensely significant in purely economic terms.

Since abandoned by the Chinese because of fierce American political opposition, the effort, if consummated, would have represented the largest transaction ever by a Chinese enterprise in the United States. But the bid triggered intense political debate and resistance in Washington because of CNOOC's ties to the Chinese government -- it is 70% owned by the state -- and because the principal commodity involved, oil, was considered so vital to the U.S. economy and was thought to be less plentiful than once assumed. Fearing that China might gain control over valuable supplies of oil and gas that would someday be needed at home or by U.S. allies in Asia, conservative politicians sought to block CNOOC's acquisition of Unocal by recasting the matter in national security terms.

"This is a national security issue," former CIA Director R. James Woolsey testified before the House Armed Services Committee in July. "China is pursuing a national strategy of domination of the energy markets and strategic dominance of the western Pacific" -- a strategy, he argued, that would be greatly enhanced by CNOOC's acquisition of Unocal. Seen from this perspective, CNOOC's bid was considered a threat to U.S. security interests and thus could have been barred by Congress or the President.

The notion of blocking a commercial transaction by a major foreign trading partner of the United States obviously flew in the face of the reigning economic doctrine of free trade and globalization. By invoking national security considerations, however, the President is empowered to bar the acquisition of a U.S. company in accordance with the Defense Production Act of 1950, a Cold War measure designed to prevent the flow of advanced technologies to the Soviet Union and it allies. This is precisely what was being proposed by a huge majority in the House of Representatives. On June 30, the House adopted a resolution declaring that CNOOC's takeover of Unocal could "impair the national security of the United States" and therefore should be barred by the President under terms of the 1950 law. This outlook then made its way into the omnibus energy bill adopted by Congress before its summer recess: Citing potential national security aspects of the matter, the bill imposed a mandatory 120-day federal review of the CNOOC bid -- effectively ensuring its demise.

Further evidence of a growing amalgamation between energy issues and U.S. national security policy can be found in the Pentagon's 2005 report on Chinese military power, released on July 20. While in previous years this report had focused mainly on China's purported threat to the island of Taiwan, this year's edition pays as much attention to the military implications of China's growing dependence on imported oil and natural gas. "This dependence on overseas resources and energy supplies... is playing a role in shaping China's strategy and policy," the report notes. "Such concerns factor heavily in Beijing's relations with Angola, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Middle East (including Iran), Russia, Sudan, and Venezuela... Beijing's belief that it requires such special relationships in order to assure its energy access could shape its defense strategy and force planning in the future."

The unclassified version of the Pentagon report does not state what steps Washington should take in response to these developments, but the implications are obvious: The United States must strengthen its own forces in key oil-producing regions so as to preclude any drive by China to dominate or control these areas.

Just how seriously American policymakers view these various energy-related developments is further revealed in another recent event: the first high-profile "war game" featuring an overseas oil crisis. Known as "Oil Shockwave," this extraordinary exercise was chaired by Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and featured the participation of such prominent figures as former CIA Director Robert M. Gates, former Marine Corps Commandant General P. X. Kelley, and former National Economic Adviser Gene B. Sperling. According to its sponsors, the game was conducted to determine what steps the United States could take to mitigate the impact of a significant disruption in overseas production and delivery, such as might be produced by a civil war in Nigeria and a terrorist upsurge in Saudi Arabia. The answer: practically nothing. "Once oil supply disruptions occur," the participants concluded, "there is little that can be done in the short term to protect the U.S. economy from its impacts, including gasoline above $5 per gallon and a sharp decline in economic growth potentially leading into a recession."

Not surprisingly, the outcome of the exercise produced a great deal of alarm among its participants. "This simulation serves as a clear warning that even relatively small reductions in oil supply will result in tremendous national security and economic problems for the country," said Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Energy Future (SAFE), one of the event's principal sponsors. "The issue deserves immediate attention."

Entering the Era of Resource Wars

From what is known of this exercise, "Oil Shockwave" did not consider the use of military force to deal with the imagined developments. But if recent history is any indication, this is sure to be one of the actions contemplated by U.S. policymakers in the event of an actual crisis. Indeed, it is official U.S. policy -- enshrined in the "Carter Doctrine" of January 23, 1980 -- to use military force when necessary to resist any hostile effort to impede the flow of Middle Eastern oil.

This principle was first invoked by President Reagan to allow the protection of Kuwaiti oil tankers by U.S. forces during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 and by President Bush Senior to authorize the protection of Saudi Arabia by U.S. forces during the first Gulf War of 1990-91. The same basic principle underlay the military and economic "containment" of Iraq from 1991 to 2003; and, when that approach failed to achieve its intended result of "regime change," the use of military force to bring it about.

A similar reliance on force would undoubtedly be the outcome of at least one of the key imagined events in the Oil Shockwave exercise: a major terrorist upheaval in Saudi Arabia leading to the mass evacuation of foreign oil workers and the crippling of Saudi oil output. It is inconceivable that President Bush or his successor would refrain from the use of military force in such a situation, particularly given the historic presence of American troops in and around major Saudi oilfields.

In setting the stage for its simulated crisis, Oil Shockwave identified a set of conditions that provide a vivid preview of what we can expect during the Twilight Era of Petroleum:

*Global oil prices exceeding $150 per barrel
*Gasoline prices of $5.00 or more per gallon
*A spike in the consumer price index of more than 12%
*A protracted recession
*A decline of over 25% in the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index
*A crisis with China over Taiwan
*Increased friction with Saudi Arabia over U.S. policy toward Israel
Whether or not we experience these precise conditions cannot be foreseen at this time, it is incontestable that a slowdown in the global production of petroleum will produce increasingly severe developments of this sort and, in a far tenser, more desperate world, almost certainly threaten resource wars of all sorts; nor will this be a temporary situation from which we can hope to recover quickly. It will be a semi-permanent state of affairs.

Eventually, of course, global oil production will not merely be stagnant, as during the Twilight Era, but will begin a gradual, irreversible decline, leading to the end of the Petroleum Age altogether. Just how difficult and dangerous the Twilight Era proves to be, and just how quickly it will come to an end, will depend on one key factor: How quickly we move to reduce our reliance on petroleum as a major source of our energy and begin the transition to alternative fuels. This transition cannot be avoided. It will come whether we are prepared for it or not. The only way we can avert its most painful features is by moving swiftly to lay the foundations for a post-petroleum economy.

Michael T. Klare is the Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books) as well as Resource Wars, The New Landscape of Global Conflict.

This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch.com

[von Wrangell]

FFS try to keep it in one thread!

[Doofy]

[spauldingg]

Hey, mojo, don't take this the wrong way, because I think it would be a good thing...
Have you thought of starting your own blog/website on this subject? You might reach a larger audience with one than just the limited amount of people here who already know your views on oil/iraq. And also, instead of posting here page after page of quotes from other sources, you could just link to the article on your blog. You also could editorialize on subjects that aren't entirely relevant to whatever topics are posted here. Plus I think you would have fun doing it. And are more likely to find like minded people who could help distribute these views to the mainstream press, maybe.

just a thought.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Hey, mojo, don't take this the wrong way, because I think it would be a good thing...
Have you thought of starting your own blog/website on this subject? You might reach a larger audience with one than just the limited amount of people here who already know your views on oil/iraq. And also, instead of posting here page after page of quotes from other sources, you could just link to the article on your blog. You also could editorialize on subjects that aren't entirely relevant to whatever topics are posted here. Plus I think you would have fun doing it. And are more likely to find like minded people who could help distribute these views to the mainstream press, maybe.

just a thought.

I ONCE thought of doing a podcast with someone. Can't quite recall who that was...

I was just slightly ahead of the curve. The heavy duty (huge, major, seismic) info is already out there now.

I'll content myself here frustrating (and being frustrated by) the avante garde Mac folks.

[AKcrab]

Make One ****ing Thread And Stick With It!

[spauldingg]

Some people have a face for radio, I have a voice for TV. (Think "erkle")

[Dakar]

More like a voice for print media.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I think once we all understand why Iraq's oil is so important we'll then be able to unify behind the effort to "giterdone!"

Don't you agree?

because the last thing we want to do is change our way of life, even though it is unsustainable? asking americans to conserve is tantamount to saying that their religion is wrong, and we all know how well that argument goes. securing, by force, those remaining resources for our own use will only raise resentment among the other people who live on the earth and who can't get the resource.

the answer to resource shortages 60 years ago was grow a garden to provide yourself with more food. five years ago, it was the exact opposite - go out and spend $ at your local mall buying stuff that will probably end up in a landfill. government needs to be doing more on this particularly vital domestic front.

people (US and europe to some extent) need to question values they've held for most of their lives in order to deal effectively with it. in the end, i think whether we start conserving now or wait, it will resolve itself, the question is how elegant and humane will that solution be.

[goMac]

Nono Mojo, you don't get it. The idea is to move off of oil.

We will lose any war in the Middle East. It is too far away. Our military is not strong enough to keep oil secure there. It's a miserably poor idea, demonstrated by Iraq today. Iraq has been "getting better" for quite a while.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Make One ****ing Thread And Stick With It!

This is an example of market segmentation. Like GM.

The posters who like this thread aren't posting in the other and vice versa.

Interesting, innit?

But, seriously, they are two separate thoughts. Just as there is more than one thread devoted to the war. These are different aspects of the oil thingy. In time we might have a whole room devoted JUST to oil.

There already are websites and forums that are devoted to energy matters. This is a BIG and important topic that we are only NOW beginning to wake up to. Expect multiple oil and energy threads as we go along. Conservation. Gas prices. Exploration. The war. Energy policy. Alternative energy sources. Production. Economic aspects of the oil industry. Useage. All those (and even more I haven't mentioned) are subtopics that wouldn't be well addressed by having only one thread.

What about a thread on the Exxon Valdiz?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

More like a voice for print media.

Good to see you here, Dakar.

[spauldingg]

Really, dude, start a blog.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Nono Mojo, you don't get it. The idea is to move off of oil.

We will lose any war in the Middle East. It is too far away. Our military is not strong enough to keep oil secure there. It's a miserably poor idea, demonstrated by Iraq today. Iraq has been "getting better" for quite a while.

I agree that we should embrace the goal of becoming free of oil altogether.

Show me the links that tell us exactly how we can do this in the next 20 years and I promise you it will become my NUMBER ONE LIFE'S CAUSE!

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Show me the links that tell us exactly how we can do this in the next 20 years and I promise you it will become my NUMBER ONE LIFE'S CAUSE!

you need links to tell you to:

1. conserve, don't waste resources?
2. work where you live, live near your work?
3. grow a garden?
4. ride a bike?
5. tell your friend's, neighbor's?
6. etc, etc?

[edit to add:
buy solar panels for your house, buy clean power from your electric company, buy a used car instead of new, inflate the tires, follow the speed limits, etc. etc.]

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Really, dude, start a blog.

I admit I've given it some thought as a result of your suggestion, but what would I get from blogging that I don't get from posting here?

What would you look to get from my blogging that you wouldn't have by my just continuing to do here what I've been doing?

The only thing I can think that ANYONE here might gain by my becoming a blogger is to whatever degree they would be free to post BS and nonsense without being called on it.

Although I'm certainly NOT the only one who does this, but I do recognize I bring certain truths to the table.

Assuming your suggestion really isn't motivated by a desire to remove my POV from the boards (as blogging would probably take much of the time I spend here) what's the advantage of being a blogger?

My ego doesn't require much more care or feeding than it gets here. Are there any folks who are making serious $$??

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Good to see you here, Dakar.

Uh, do I know you?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

you need links to tell you to:

1. conserve, don't waste resources?
2. work where you live, live near your work?
3. grow a garden?
4. ride a bike?
5. tell your friend's, neighbor's?
6. etc, etc?

[edit to add:
buy solar panels for your house, buy clean power from your electric company, buy a used car instead of new, inflate the tires, follow the speed limits, etc. etc.]

With all due respect, bbt, I was posting about these matters before you got here although you may have been 'walking the walk' and actually living an authentically "GREEN" lifestyle longer than I.

That's not as important as your recognizing, in this matter, this post, that you are preaching to the choir. We both have the same goal I think and I welcome fellow travelers on this energy conservation path and hope you will also recognize and welcome me.

Where I am is trying to alert people to the fact that this problem goes FAR BEYOND the price they pay at the gas pump.

We are facing:

- a diminishing supply (Peak Oil having been reached or will shortly reach).

- an endangered supply

- a very fine line between having enough and being SEVERELY affected by just a relatively small shortage or disruption.

- a population which believes we have nothing to fear.

- a future with NO realistic answers in sight.

Conservation and alternative energy sources such as you have mentioned are certainly good ideas.

BUT, if people ready these bandaid measures and think that by conserving and buying a hybrid and etc. that there is nothing more to fear, they are SADLY MISTAKEN.

And I paint the doom and gloom NOW so that people can take a longer view and prepare for what WILL BE COMING.

The day when we will live WITHOUT oil.

A world without oil. What will that be like?

That's what I want people to ponder...TODAY...while there's time to plan.

If they put all their faith and hope on alternatives that really AREN'T the answer they will be sorely mistaken and very angry.

You mark my words, one day you will hear people saying, "NOBODY TOLD ME!!!"

Actually, the truth is out there and has been for some time but, well... you know how we are.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Uh, do I know you?

No, but a new face is USUALLY welcome. I've seen you in the lounge but seldom (ever?) here in the P/L.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

No, but a new face is USUALLY welcome. I've seen you in the lounge but seldom (ever?) here in the P/L.

Yeah, you're nuts. All but 3 of my posts occurred in the PL.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Yeah, you're nuts. All but 3 of my posts occurred in the PL.

Well, let it be said I began with an ATTEMPT at civility.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Well, let it be said I began with an ATTEMPT at civility.

I would have appreciated an attempt at accuracy.

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I admit I've given it some thought as a result of your suggestion, but what would I get from blogging that I don't get from posting here?

What would you look to get from my blogging that you wouldn't have by my just continuing to do here what I've been doing?

The only thing I can think that ANYONE here might gain by my becoming a blogger is to whatever degree they would be free to post BS and nonsense without being called on it.

Although I'm certainly NOT the only one who does this, but I do recognize I bring certain truths to the table.

Assuming your suggestion really isn't motivated by a desire to remove my POV from the boards (as blogging would probably take much of the time I spend here) what's the advantage of being a blogger?

My ego doesn't require much more care or feeding than it gets here. Are there any folks who are making serious $$??

No, I don't want you to remove your POV, it's just that you are blogging already, you're just doing it here, anyway. And as much as I love your comments, it's getting a little redundant.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I would have appreciated an attempt at accuracy.

I attempted. I failed. So, you assess me as being nuts. That's ok. You haven't posted enough to realize the importance of adding some clues to the words you post so that a person might know if you were kidding and calling them nuts in a friendly way or being insulting. An icon or a phrase might help.

Once you spend more time at MacNN you'll get the hang of it.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

No, I don't want you to remove your POV, it's just that you are blogging already, you're just doing it here, anyway. And as much as I love your comments, it's getting a little redundant.

As is your pov to me at times. When I have enough I'll put you on 'ignore.' Until then we'll just exchange pleasantries and behold each other spreading a well known message.

Eh?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I attempted. I failed. So, you assess me as being nuts. That's ok. You haven't posted enough to realize the importance of adding some clues to the words you post so that a person might know if you were kidding and calling them nuts in a friendly way or being insulting. An icon or a phrase might help.

Once you spend more time at MacNN you'll get the hang of it.

Heh, I struck a nerve.

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by mojo2

As is your pov to me at times. When I have enough I'll put you on 'ignore.' Until then we'll just exchange pleasantries and behold each other spreading a well known message.

Eh?

Deal.

PS Dakar has more posts than me and i've been here four times as long

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Deal.

PS Dakar has more posts than me and i've been here four times as long

And I stopped posting regularly in November.

But then again, I hope you're not giving me grief considering I have less than 1000 posts, a rarity here, for practically any join date.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Heh, I struck a nerve.

You are off topic. I know you recognize my intelligence and my posting superiority. In fact, there's only one word to describe me and I'll leave it to you to tell the rest of the community.

mojo2 is...

c'mon Dakar, you know what it is.

Cmon say it. I know you're shy.

Ok, I'll help you a bit..

mojo2 is AMA...

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You are off topic.

Zing?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Deal.

PS Dakar has more posts than me and i've been here four times as long

Maybe Dakar only posts when he has something REALLY profound to share.


<mojo tucson peruses dakar's posts in this thread>

Nah! I KNOW that's not right!

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Maybe Dakar only posts when he has something REALLY profound to share.


<mojo tucson peruses dakar's posts in this thread>

Nah! I KNOW that's not right!

Zing 2?

[mojo2]

You are off topic. I know you recognize my intelligence and my posting superiority. In fact, there's only one word to describe me and I'll leave it to you to tell the rest of the community.

mojo2 is...

c'mon Dakar, you know what it is.

Cmon say it. I know you're shy.

Ok, I'll help you a bit..

mojo2 is AMA...

Originally Posted by Dakar

Zing?

That's right!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Zing 2?

"...went the strings of my heart!"

Sorry, Dakar. Just funnin witcha.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

That's right!

Yeah, my original statement stands. You are nuts.

BTW, you're display of condescension has been royally amusing. Feeling insecure are we?

Nothing 5,000 words of text spread out over 2 posts can't solve, I'm sure.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Yeah, my original statement stands. You are nuts.

BTW, you're display of condescension has been royally amusing. Feeling insecure are we?

Nothing 5,000 words of text spread out over 2 posts can't solve, I'm sure.

Nothing personal, mate.

Well, let it be said I began with an ATTEMPT at civility.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Nothing personal, mate.

Oh good. Then I hope we're done with the posturing.

Thread continue.

[mojo2]

For anyone waiting for a mainstream media confirmation of what I've been saying these past months, here it is a whisper, rather than a shout. Why? Because in our hearts we know it's true. This is just part of the course, 'official' recognition (Associated Press) of what I was telling you all along.

www.suntimes.com
http://www.suntimes.com/output/busin...fin-oil18.html

Experts disagree on how long oil supply will last

September 18, 2005

BY GEORGE JAHN


VIENNA, Austria -- Fact: World oil production will peak someday, and supplies will start running out. But when will the tipping point come -- in years, decades or a couple of months from now?

The oil industry says crude will be plentiful for at least another generation. But some experts argue reserves are overstated, oil technologies are limited and demand, sharply boosted by the needs of China and India, could soon outpace supply.

European Union finance ministers are asking the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to ramp up production when the Saudi-led cartel meets Monday in Vienna -- despite the failure of similar boosts over the past year and a half.

Skeptics say that won't work.

''World oil production is going to peak on American Thanksgiving, with a three-week period of uncertainty on each side,'' declares Princeton professor, geologist and oil maverick Kenneth S. Deffeyes. He uses a formula first developed to pinpoint with near accuracy 1971 as the start of oil production decline in the United States.

Once supply begins to dwindle, the years to follow will see shortages that at best will cause ''global recession, possibly worse than the 1930s Great Depression,'' Deffeyes said. At worst, he warns of ''war, famine, pestilence and death.''

Deffeyes' prediction is clearly controversial. Still, it is gaining an audience, and dozens of energy experts and academics say his arguments have merit.

With supply already barely matching demand and prices high and rising, the U.S. oil giant Chevron has begun running ads declaring that ''the era of easy oil is over.'' And normally skeptical organizations are expressing worry.

''The world has never faced a problem like this,'' says a report prepared this year for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Technology Laboratory. Although oil companies have searched intensively for new oil finds, ''results have been disappointing,'' says the report, from Science Applications International, which focuses on security and energy concerns.

''Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary,'' the report says.

Still, oil companies and governments are betting -- at least in public -- that new discoveries and technology will keep the world supplied for at least the next generation. And there are those who would welcome the tipping point, believing the psychological impact will push the world into a serious drive to wean itself off oil. (this is my position - mojo2)

The U.S. Geological Survey has predicted that a peak in recoverable oil production won't come until 2037, and Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi, in a recent speech to industry experts declared that ''technological innovation will allow us to find and extract more oil around the world.'' But past comments by present leaders reflect high-level awareness of the problem.

In a speech six years ago, before he became vice president, Dick Cheney spoke of estimates of 2 percent annual growth in global oil demand and at best a 3 percent annual decline in production from existing reserves.

More recent predictions also focus on high demand and lagging resupply.

Kenji Kobayashi of the global watchdog International Energy Agency wrote this year that global energy demand will grow by nearly 60 percent by 2030, and oil will remain the fuel of choice. He urged more exploration and exploitation efforts, noting a worrisome drop in oil discoveries in recent years.

Proponents of plentiful oil disagree, saying the world's proven reserves amount to 1,277 billion barrels and expected technological advances will soon open up supplies now impossible or unprofitable to exploit.

That, they argue, gives the world a decades-thick cushion to develop other energy sources.

''There will be an increase of production for the next 20 to 25 years. Only after that may we face a decline,'' said Helmut Langanger, head of exploration and production at Austria's OMV oil company.

Wrong, the critics say: As oil need and the pace of production grow, so will the rate of reserves diminish.

More worrisome are claims of inflated reporting by the Saudis, Iran and most other OPEC members whose national oil companies are not subject to audits and other controls. Even companies like Shell and Chevron are thought to base their proven reserve figures in the Middle East in part on unchecked numbers provided by OPEC-member state companies.

OPEC nations deny padding their figures, but even governments are becoming openly skeptical.

British Treasury chief Gordon Brown on Tuesday urged OPEC members to ''become more open and transparent'' on how much oil they really have and how they plan to develop it.

Energy expert Matthew Simmons said that except for Libya, Algeria and Nigeria, OPEC countries tripled their reserve numbers in the 1980s with no supporting data.

Simmons, who advised President Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, said most OPEC nations were involved in a ''proven-reserves arms race'' -- overstating recoverable stocks because the organization assigned production quotas according to each country's reserves.

In reality, Saudi reserves are probably closer to what they said they had 25 years ago and the same goes for most other OPEC nations, Simmons said. Proven Middle East reserves are probably only a third of the approximately 700 billion barrels being claimed, he said.

Simmons, whose Houston-based Simmons & Company investment firm guides companies in energy-related acquisitions, is also dismissive of claims that improved technology will increase oil recovery from reserves. He points to the story of North Sea oil, whose production peaked six years ago, despite all-out industry attempts to tap unexploitable reserves through new means.

So when is oil going to peak?

Simmons won't go as far as Deffeyes and his Thanksgiving projection. Still, he points to the world's present huge appetite for crude in saying the decline might begin sooner than some think, but will stretch over decades before the last barrel is used up.

''The difference between peak oil happening and [oil] running out completely is the difference between me saying 'I'm getting slightly hungry' and 'I'm starving to death,''' he said.

AP

Although the writer still doesn't give a completely accurate picture by skipping over what really should be his close.

''World oil production is going to peak on American Thanksgiving, with a three-week period of uncertainty on each side,'' declares Princeton professor, geologist and oil maverick Kenneth S. Deffeyes. He uses a formula first developed to pinpoint with near accuracy 1971 as the start of oil production decline in the United States.

Once supply begins to dwindle, the years to follow will see shortages that at best will cause ''global recession, possibly worse than the 1930s Great Depression,'' Deffeyes said. At worst, he warns of ''war, famine, pestilence and death.''

Prepare now by reading up on the subject. Some industries and companies will fare better and some worse from the beginning of Peak Oil. Some will be hit sooner, some later.

Knowledge is power.