Oil crisis scenario

[John Collins]

While undergoing surgery and receiving morphine via a pump, I had this strange dream that seems to make some kind of sense. We know that oil will run out within 50 years. The armies, navies and air forces of the world will be grounded, permanently. No fuel for trucks, tanks, ships, planes - all useless.

An alternative source of energy is needed that will replace oil, but there is nothing realistically available not even on the horizon. Time is needed to develop an alternative but for now oil must be preserved and usage cut.

Governments will buy a bit more oil each day than they need in order to put into vast storage reservoirs because if no alternative is found by the time the oil runs out, whichever country has the most reserves will be the most powerful. But that only delays the inevitable.

The world is told about this dearth of oil, but no one does anything about it on an individual level so more drastic action is needed. Year upon year of warnings and discussions have not resulted in any significant reduction in consumption. It is noticed that the earth is warming up due to normal variations in the Sun’s heat output. It is decided to blame global warming on the amount of carbon emissions coming from fossil-burning engines. Reductions in those emissions are encouraged and the extravagant use of petrol consumption discouraged. Carbon neutral policies are established, smaller engines are advantageously taxed, more use of public transport is suggested.

Research into alternative energies receives a financial boost but this is still not enough, more drastic action is required to reduce petrol consumption globally.

A series of financial catastrophes is engineered. Firstly a massive increase in the price of crude oil to frighten people into being more sparing, but this increase cannot be sustained, so the price drops back after a few months. Secondly a global financial crisis is manipulated by encouraging risky lending/borrowing and then tightening credit, this, allied to the increase in crude oil prices, generates a massive global recession. The price of crude drops to an all time low. No one can afford to use it and consumption halves.

This is the stuff of fiction and yet there are signs that it might not be too far from the truth. First of all, even though global warming is attributed by some scientists to carbon emissions this cause is not universally accepted. There are just as many ‘experts’ who believe that this is a feature of normal fluctuations in the output of heat from the sun and has nothing to do with anything that mankind has done to the planet. The carbon emission argument is not sufficient explanation for the sudden increase in temperature and neither is the belief that by reducing said emissions to a much lower level ever likely to return the global temperature to its previous level.

And the current policy being implemented to license carbon credits to airlines which they will have to pay for, to permit them a limited amount of emissions is plainly ridiculous. There is only one good reason for carbon credits and it is to reduce the amount of petrol being used, regardless of how much carbon is being emitted.

Secondly, as evidence that carbon emissions reduction is just a scam to force us to reduce petrol consumption, we need look no further than the production of bio fuels. The encouragement of the development of bio fuels goes against all the arguments that we have heard about carbon emissions causing global warming. Bio fuels are far dirtier than petroleum products and yet their increase in use has not been discouraged in the way that the use of petroleum products have been. And it has been suggested that using land to grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands, and grasslands that store huge amount of carbon. How can biofuels possibly be justified against a backdrop of global warming said to be caused by the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting carbon emissions?

I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture, the above scenario requires the existence of a small, well-connected, group who hold the reigns of financial power globally. Theoretically such a group could exist and might well have the best of intentions but whether these connections that I have made are real or imaginary, I cannot tell.

If they do exist then I hope that they read this and put some of their resources into helping us to solve Bessler’s wheel.

JC

[AB Hammer]

Greetings JC

Once one of us has some provable success, I believe it will get there attention. Otherwise we as just a bunch of hopeful dreamers in there eyes and no need to pursue. IMO

[docfeelsgood]

if that scenario were to unfold it would be mass starvation for at the global population levels of today let alone 50 years from now you could not produce enough food without mechanization to grow it or transport it . better get some seed for your victory garden !!!!

[WaltzCee]

I like the idea of the armies of the world grinding to a halt. We don't need an alternative to keep them moving.

I don't like the idea of starving to death. Do people taste like chicken?

an article at wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves


Walt

[DrWhat]

Bio fuels also make use of scarce arable land so bio fuels eventually will have a major detrimental effect on food production.

A lot of areas of the world have vegetation acting as carbon sinks/absorbers. Including many Tundra ecosystems, primarily carbon held in dead peat and moss. Northern Europe, Siberia and North America have vast regions. A major risk is that we reach a tipping point and that in a short space of time vast amounts of carbon are released into the atmosphere from these regions.

Not to mention shifts in ocean current temperatures and a sudden change in some current paths.

It may be too late to make short term (even long term) changes, but how can we not try and clean up our act. The world environment is going to the dogs. It is our duty to try and reduce the damage.

AB had a good point. We are so close to being absolute failures and yet so close to being heroes with this Bessler thing. I just hope that in my lifetime we become heros.

[ovyyus]

Another perspective...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/amor ... dgame.html

[getterdone]

Good to have you back JC. As a newbie to this site, I dont post much, cause Im still trying to figure out the phisics of it all. I dont know if tail-pipe emissions cause global warming, but I do know if I wrap my lips around that tail-pipe I would die. Its pure poison and theres way to much of it going up in the air.

I ve been working in the oil and gas industry for 14 years. There have been people in the industry like Matt Simmons (Simmons Energy) who have been saying for years that we were nearing peak supply.
What happened in july was that demmand past supply of 85 million barrels per day. The world will probably never produce more than 85 million barrels per day.

The biggest oil feild in the world, the Khawar feild ,discovered in 1948 ,in Saudi Arabia produces about 5 to 6 million barrels per day. In the 70s when the formation pressure started droping they built huge pipelines to bring salt-water to the feild. They pump the salt-water into the formation at the same rate the oil is coming out. Nobody knew exacly how much oil was the resovoir held until about 2 years ago when the pumps at the 2 extremities of the feild started pumping out the salt water. Now they know this reservoir will water-off in about 2 years. This will reduce supply by 5 or 6 million barrels per day, almost over-night. The same kind of senario is going on all over the world.

This website gives me hope.

Oil is a finite resourse, human enginuaty is inexaustable

[WaltzCee]

I dont know if tail-pipe emissions cause global warming, but I do know if I wrap my lips around that tail-pipe I would die. Its pure poison and theres way to much of it going up in the air.

It would be a hell of a sacrifice but think about how happy that tail pipe would be.

Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1][2] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[3][4] Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward

The experts aren't too definitive in their opinions.


Walt

[ovyyus]

When you hear an 'expert' opinion claim that something is definite or absolute or that a probability is 100% certain, then you know that opinion is probably from an expert used car salesman and not an expert scientist.

[WaltzCee]

The vast majority of expert scientists or roughly 89.123% would agree that any scientist, expert or otherwise, has the ability to quantify their opinions whether examining precise facts or probabilities.

92.7% of scientists working in public relations insist 87.36% of statistics are made up on the spot and additionally confuse the average person and further make it hard to weasel out of a position therefore refuse to quantify anything they say.

When all the facts are known they can be quantified. Even a partial list of facts can be with that caveat. Ambiguous terms are the tools of social engineers. A red flag always comes up when I see ambiguity.


Walt

[ovyyus]

When all the facts are known they can be quantified...

That may be true of simple closed systems, but exactly when (or even if) all the facts might be known in order to absolutely quantify a complex open system is questionable. In that light, perhaps expert opinions like "very likely" and "probably had" are useful non-absolute quantities with some immediate value.

[rlortie]

This article was sent to me by forum member Dave Roberts


Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given
for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the
Carter Democratic Administration? Anybody? Anything? No?


Didn't think so.


Bottom line . . we've spent several hundred billion
dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one
person who reads this can remember.


Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody
thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN
OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH?

AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR
THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!


THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'I COULD HAVE HAD A V-8.'


Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn the Banking system over to them? God Help us.

[getterdone]

I was surprised to learn that the U.S Departement of Energy has websites, posing as enviromentalist. They re trying to get some kind of monopoly on all these new thechnologise emerging on the internet.

If you go to Overunity.com , and write "angry" in the search box. You ll find a post by Hans Von Leivon, he skillfully pulls them out of their cacoon and exposes them.

Thats wath their doing part of that 24.2 billion, watching us.