Daily Kos

Scary Oil News

Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:06:52 AM PDT

Since the mid-1950s it has been apparent to some petroleum engineers that the era of readily available oil will be short indeed on a historical scale.

M. King Hubbert, the first engineer to publish such results, predicted in 1956 that oil extraction rates in the "lower 48" contiguous United States would peak, then begin to decline, around 1970. The actual peak of U.S. production came in 1971, clearly confirming Hubbert's calculations.

The world's earliest extraction of petroleum by drilling began near Titusville, Pennsylvania on August 27, 1859. From that date until the peak in 1971, the heyday of U.S. oil production lasted only 112 years. Yet even that is a significant overstatement, since in today's terms the entire world output of crude oil was negligibly small until about 1915. We might more reasonably say that the "good times" for the Lower 48 lasted only 55 years.

More below the fold.

Hubbert later predicted that world oil production would peak in the 1990s. But the whole world is a much more diverse territory than the lower 48 states, and had not, at that time, been as comprehensively surveyed. Hubbert's prediction for the world's oil production peak, we now know, turned out to be premature.

But how far off was Hubbert really? The February 2005 newsletter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO) predicts that world "conventional" oil will peak in... 2006.

The exact predicted date of the peak is quite controversial, with some authorities claiming it is still decades off. Further, the experts seem to agree that we can never be certain we have seen the peak until after it has passed. Thus no one has been absolutely sure whether it's time for the public to start worrying about this bothersome problem.

So when one of the Bush Administration's most respected petroleum advisors unexpectedly says that "we may have already passed peak oil," producers and consumers of petroleum all around the world instantly sit up and take notice.

Matthew Simmons, President of Simmons & Co International, is reported to have told Al-Jazeera just that.

If Saudi Arabia have damaged their fields, accidentally or not, by overproducing them, then we may have already passed peak oil. Iran has certainly peaked, there is no way on Earth they can ever get back to their production of six million barrels per day.

Since world oil consumption has been increasing steadily for many decades, the day when actual oil production begins to decline is a serious moment indeed. And previous experience in the oil business indicates that once production actually declines for a given region, it never goes up again. In effect, the oil fields are starting to empty out, and it becomes progressively more difficult to extract the remaining oil, which is trapped in porous rocks rather than simply floating on the surface, waiting to be pumped out.

By all means read about Simmons's new words of caution. Then, if you really want to know what fear feels like, take a look at this recent article by Jan Lundberg. Lundberg was formerly the author of the famously authoritative "Lundberg Letter" about the petroleum business. Although the newsletter continues to be published under its original name, Lundberg himself has moved on and now works on conservation issues.

The bell curve of oil "production" was devised by Marion King Hubbert, a Shell Oil and U.S. government geologist. Although Hubbert has on the whole been borne out except in the minds of fundamentalist-classical economists, what he did not factor in was collapse. Therefore, the curve will be truncated to a cliff just as the gap between supply and demand is felt and hits.

The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will, within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies can no longer slake daily world demand of over 80 million barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices too high for the wheels of commerce and even daily living in "advanced" societies. There may be an event that appears to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will be the huge consumption on a finite planet.

The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno-toys and whatnot from China will have no fuel. There will be fuel in many places, but hoarding and uncertainty will trigger outages, violence and chaos. For only a short time will the police and military be able to maintain order, if at all. The damage that several days' oil shortage and outage will do will soon wreak permanent damage that starts with companies and consumers not paying their bills and not going to work.

And that was just the good news. For reasons of delicacy I have refrained from quoting Lundberg's next paragraph. If you want more, follow this link to the full article.

Although Jan Lundberg is probably in a better position to understand these matters that I ever will be, nevertheless I make bold to say he is being overly pessimistic. If panic does come, it will likely be quelled somehow before civilization is completely disrupted. Price controls and military supervision will ensure that the remaining oil arrives at critical destinations at least most of the time for several years, if not decades. Note: warranty void if nuclear weapons are used to secure oil supplies for any one country.

Read Lundberg's dire predictions and judge for yourself.

-----
Warning: take only as directed. May affect your ability to concentrate at work. If mental distress occurs, immediately close the web page and whisper several times to yourself, "everything will be fine in the end." Flush system with alcohol. Repeat as necessary until panic subsides.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 39 comments

  •  Oil is over $50/barrel today n/t (none / 0)

  •  The Democrats... (none / 0)

    ...need to make this a crucial plank in their platform, and not just a talking point about reducing US energy dependency on the Middle East.  We need a 21st century Marshall Plan that invests enormous resources in developing alternative energy sources, converting transportation, agriculture and manufacturing to other energy sources, reducing pollution, etc., etc.  Think of the economic activity such a program would stimulate, and, for once, it would be investing in the future instead of investing in (military or environmental) destruction.  Kerry never really articulated this vision.  We need to run someone in 2008 who gets this, because, frankly, we don't have much time left to try to do this the easy way.

    -7.75, -7.64 www.politicalcompass.org "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

    by scorponic on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:24:53 AM PDT

  •  Complete collapse (none / 0)

    With the spectre of an inverted yield curve in intrest rates ahead of us, i.e. recession, I think this further shows the incredible ineptness of the republicans to think about anything longterm economically.  I've come to the conclusion that the chief difference in economic world-view between the left and the right is simply the choice between long-term common prosperity and short-term gain for those in power.  I do think that there is something to Lakoff's father/mother arguement, but to me that's more of a take on the morality issues.  

    The lack of investment in R&D for more environmentally substainable energy sources should not be a surprise considering our Great Leader's background in the Texas oil industry.  That does not however excuse the right for what will correctly be looked upon as their "energy speculation" fueling a potential new depression.  Of course the MSM will never blame the Republicans for anything but oh well, here's to the new media.

    I have been radicalized by the worst Administration in history.-- Armando

    by dtp0601 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:24:56 AM PDT

    •  no kidding (none / 0)

      when this came up in one of my classes, one of those conservative guys pipes up with, "don't worry, when the oil stops flowing, the market will just pressure people to come up with something new."

      never mind that "just coming up with something" might take years and never mind what will happen in the mean time. never mind that our oil infrastructure may be useless.

      i don't think this is the mother/father thing. i don't know if it's even selfish motivation. to me, some of this just seems like blind, knuckle-headed faith in their idea of "the market". it seems to me to tie more into desires for simplicity... not wanting to really understand how the underlying ideas and processes in markets but rather wanting to believe that, "everything will work itself out".

      which reminds me of the fallacy that because evolutionary forces led to humans, those same forces will keep us on top. in the case of environmental changes, everything will work itself out.

      •  Faith-based stupidity (4.00 / 2)

        The conservative faith in "the market" mirrors the conservative belief in God -- just another giant magic fairy that will pop in to save the day when it's been fucked beyond all recall.

        Faith is a useful motivational tool to keep you going while you're waiting for new information. Trapped at the bottom of the well? Held by the CIA in a secret Asian torture chamber? Did your cancer metastasize? Those are great times for faith. Something might just happen to change things, so don't shoot yourself just yet. If you have to believe in ancient superstitions or the invisible hand of Adam Smith to get by, fine.

        On the other hand, when you have some freedom of movement and the ability to collect information and plan for the future, faith is just mental laziness and cowardice.

        Yes, the market will come up with "something else". The problem is that our current civilization is built upon the faith-based notion that we are exempt from the laws of thermodynamics, and unfortunately, nothing is exempt from the laws of thermodynamics. The "something else" that the market will devise as a replacement for the sudden unavailability of petroleum is likely to be the sweat of our backs.

        We should be grimly thankful that, as Democrats, most of us have done real work in our lives, and will not be as surprised to see sweat as the Republicans will. We might in the end win them over by showing them how to bandage their blisters.

        Support Our Troops: Send the Commander-in-Chief to the Front!

        by eodell on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:20:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder... (none / 0)

        If your neocon classmate is from Irish decent.  When the great potato famine occured, the response of the Brittish parlement was exactly that: let market forces iron all of it out.  Many people lost their lives and many people left Ireland forever.

        Also, who is to say that 'market forces' won't turn the USA into a third-world country?  We don't produce anything and our natural resources are just about tapped.  If we don't invest in our people and technology, we have nothing to offer.  Market forces say that we will then be abandon.  This is why total capitalism is so scary with American exceptionalism.  It is a receipe for disaster.

        I'm from Colorado - Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.

        by RichM on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:10:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hubbert Peak? (none / 0)

    Hubbert Peak! (I've catching up on Season Six and just watched it - Sorry)

    AT&T offers exciting work for recent graduates in computer science. Pick up the phone, call your mom, and ask for an application.

    by Scipio on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:28:22 AM PDT

  •  The link (none / 0)

    to lundberg's article isn't working for me.  Would love to read it.
  •  Two issues can screw up our lives (none / 0)

    Well, more than, two. But let me focus on two.

    1. When oil production peaks, and never goes up again, and

    2. When demand for oil out strips supply.

    The first is a permanent and irreversible condition.

    The second can be answered by either bringing more supply on line, or depressing demand (such as through a world-wide recession).

    Both scenarios are scary. We can argue about when the first one will occur. The second one, however, is predicted to occur on a quarterly basis during the 1st and 4th quarters. It's only a matter of time till its full time proposition.

    Just think how proud you'll be to tell your kids how you voted this year.

    by DyspepTex on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:35:14 AM PDT

  •  oops, I meant to say (none / 0)

    DURING 2005!

    Just think how proud you'll be to tell your kids how you voted this year.

    by DyspepTex on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:36:27 AM PDT

  •  other forms of energy (none / 1)

    are available.  if it take a crisis to exploit them... I won't be suprised... luckilly the technology has not been stagnant even while the oil industry has stunted it's growth and blocked it from the mainstream.

    but it's there.

    hydrogen from solar is my personal favorite.

    •  Biofuels will bridge the gap (none / 1)

      If this comes to pass I predict biodiesel & ethanol production will explode, and local producers are already setting themselves up to be there when demand for such fuels starts to climb. Until engines are converted to fuel cell technology, standard combustible engines will be fed these readily made biofuels to keep operating.
      •  With the U.S. diesel market ... (none / 0)

        ...running at about 1% of the total autos sold here, and ethanol's unfortunate energy input-yield ratio, I don't see these fuels as being a bridge. Which is not to say biodiesel doesn't have a role to play. But its contribution, and ethanol's, at getting us past an oil-based economy will, I predict, be exceedingly small.

        I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:17:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The existing cars on the road (none / 0)

          The owners of the existing cars on the road will be scrambling for alternative fuels when petro fuel prices hit $5-7 per gallon. The alternative fuel production capabilities will rise up to try to accommodate that demand faster than people will radically alter their lifestyles by parking their vehicles. Compromises will be made, more people will turn to mass transit, communities will organize into cooperatives to produce/procure their own fuels, and industry will begin integrating alternative technologies for fuel cells/hydrogen into the market. The existing vehicles will continue to operate by whatever means the owners can muster. Warranties will not be as important as their mobility, and owners will start risking it with their alternative fuel purchases. The alternatives fuels activities will indeed grow enormously if and when this peak petro crisis hits with the bang as predicted.
      •  Ethanol instead of Fructose! n/t (none / 0)

      •  I doubt it... (none / 0)

        World grain production is already falling behind consuption, and stocks are falling. While production can expand, it already needs to because of population growth; even more demand, to create fuel, would make prices explode.

        Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.

        by M Aurelius on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:44:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What an unfortunate metaphor (none / 0)

        "I predict biodiesel & ethanol production will explode"

        Just think how proud you'll be to tell your kids how you voted this year.

        by DyspepTex on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:42:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Delay to production & distribution (none / 0)

        Sure, Biofuels can buy some time. Except they have huge entry barriers:

        The corn/carbs to make the ethanol and the biodiesel production/scavanging/recycling, in significant quantities to make up for traditional oil-based fuels, will take a while to bring online--meaning planting new acreage (several years and significant investment in land/tools/operations), building or converting new mfg plants (more significant investment and a long permiting process), distribution channel issues (transportation, pipelines, scheduling/dispatch, tankage [ethanol and biodiesel have to be stored along the way and at the retail point of sale in separate tanks], and trucking issues [again, tanker trucks set up to transport these fuels]). (Longest blog sentence ever?)

        Retail is another whole ball of wax: tankage as noted above (a huge issue at the retail level--space, EPA/local permits, the actual and lost-earnings costs of tearing up the facility to install new tanks and pumps) as well as new pumps are two huge issues that are not resolved over night, but take long-term planing and considerable capital expenditure---meaning business plans, investment aproval, planing, permiting, and construction.

        Then there's the education and approval process for the consumer and their vehicles--I know biodiesel will run in any diesel, but is it approved under warranty for all vehicles? Did you know that most trucks on the road today are leased, and the leasing aggreements specify fuel and oil types and grades? And for ethanol, what's the process to run gas cars and trucks? Mods to the carb/injector's mapping? How about smog testing? And so on.

        I can see where this could take years to bring on-line in any broad way.

        Please don't see me as negative to the idea---I totally agree with you that it should happen, but I've been around business too long not to see the challenges.

        •  H2/hybrid (none / 0)

          I've always (since the 70's energy crisis when we started talking about this stuff) thought that hydrogen could be the ultimate winner. You can find a ton of published reasons why H2 will not work in a large-scale rollout--some written by engineers I greatly respect--but I 'get' that's because we allow too many negative conditions at the beginning of the argument.

          If we have to build a raw materials-manufacturing-distribution-retail-vehicle infrastructure anyway (for ethanol and biodiesel), why not just do it for H2?

          And for that matter, if we can combine the H2 mods with hybrid technology, we could reduce the amount of H2 we have to distribute, AND we jump toward fuel-cell technology (by having a disti network for H2 used in fuel cells and furthering battery and motor development in hybrids).

          But wait, there's more: there are several potentially cool ways to produce H2 using solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy production--with either centralized manufacturing and distribution, or de-centralized local H2 generation using small-scale solar and/or geothermal technologies.

          Of course this would take a massive effort over a decade at least to kick into gear, with full governmental support in terms of funding, education, permit process, tax credits, research grants, regulations, and so on. But (I think) it could be done, and we would initiate--and lead--a quantum leap for the entire world.

          Fat chance, says the experienced cynical side of my brain...

  •  Well then... (none / 1)

    ...it's just as well that Bush's economic policies will make it harder for more and more of us to afford gas.

    "I'm not negative - I'm ANGRY!" -- Howard the Duck

    by Roddy McCorley on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:48:59 AM PDT

  •  Some people will never get it (none / 0)

    Last year I was talking politics and war with two staunch Republican friends - staunch for no other reason than that's how they were raised, and critical thought and questioning isn't part of their lives, unless it directly impacts their homes or their pocketbook (me! me! me!)

    One friend didn't believe me when I tried to explain "peak oil" to him. Typical status quo. He also does not accept that oil had anything to do with Bush's war in Iraq, and truly believes that his family is safer because of Bush and his war.

    He also said, in a nutshell, that since we can't change our dependence on oil TOMORROW, what's the point? (My immediate though was that he was employig the same rational that Laura Bush used to argue against stem cell research - that's it's not fair to give people hope because the research is too preliminary.)

    The other friend thought I was out of my mind when I told him about PNAC. He though I was making them up. What a wild imagination I have.

    Perfect candidates for the Republican party. The sad part is that there was nothing I could say to change their minds, or even get them to learn about the topics. I was just shrugged off as a crackpot liberal.

    Oh well, I wasn't using that civil liberty anyway.

    by think2004 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:01:58 PM PDT

  •  Those of us who have ... (none / 1)

    ...for years found the "peak oil" argument compelling have gotten a bit of vicarious vindication as those who ridiculed Hubbert for his predictions have increasingly become part of the pollyanna minority.

    Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère predicted in 1998 that global peak oil could occur as soon as 2008. They were widely laughed at. Here's a link to their piece in the March 1998 edition of Scientific American. For the technically minded, here's a chart-filled look at their scenario as of 2003.

    The scariest part of your essay: If panic does come, it will likely be quelled somehow before civilization is completely disrupted. Price controls and military supervision will ensure that the remaining oil arrives at critical destinations at least most of the time for several years, if not decades.

    Well, now, we can guess whose military and which destinations. Sorry, if that happens on the scale necessary, civilization will be disrupted, big time.

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:05:12 PM PDT

  •  Predictions of impending exhaustion of oil... (none / 0)

    supplies are based on the biogenic theory of the origin of petroleum, which is implausible and not universally accepted: see abiogenic petroleum origin.

    But this is not to say that dtp0601 is not correct when he writes above about the "incredible ineptness of the republicans to think about anything longterm economically".

    Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

    by Alexander on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:05:39 PM PDT

    •  I'll buy that the biogenic theory ... (none / 0)

      ...of the generation of oil is not universally accepted, but your claim that it is "implausible" could stand some elaboration. Are you a Goldian?

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:25:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suppose that I am a Goldian (none / 1)

        ... in that I read his The Deep Hot Biosphere, and it seemed like good science to me. On the other hand, it is very hard for me to avoid the impression that no one would ever have come up with the biogenic theory if chemistry and cosmology were at their present stage when the problem of the origin of petroleum was first posed. To me, the abiogenic theory is more attractive than the biogenic one because the former is simpler, and links up with science outside of petroleum geology.

        I've posted about this at dKos before, but apparently dKos diaries are not preserved indefinitely. I copied my diary on this subject to my moribund blog, however: The US invasion of Iraq was motivated by a false scientific theory. To quote from it, the fundamental problem with the biogenic theory is the following:

        According to the biogenic theory, since "fossil fuels" derive from the remnants of biological material from the surface of the earth, the hydrocarbons making up fossil fuels must have been formed fairly close to the surface of the earth. Using statistical thermodynamics, Russian scientists were able to calculate whether hydrocarbons could form at the depths postulated by the biogenic theory, and the scientists found that with the exception of methane, a simple hydrocarbon, they could not. Much higher pressures, present only at much greater depths, are required.
        Again, I should mention that even if the biogenic theory is wrong, that doesn't detract from the validity of most of the points made on this thread. Furthermore, increasing use of fossil fuels is disastrous simply for ecological reasons, such as global warming.

        Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

        by Alexander on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:24:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The End Of Oil? (none / 1)

    A very good article. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

    Here is a more recent article written by Mark Williams in the MIT Technology Review titled The End of Oil?


    The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno-toys and whatnot from China will have no fuel.

    Interesting that this should come on a day when CNBC is talking about OPEC hinting that they will reprice oil in Euros instead of dollars, the DOW is down 140 plus, oil is back up to $51 per barrel and at least one analyst, for the first time I can remember, says to sell WalMart.

    If panic does come, it will likely be quelled somehow before civilization is completely disrupted. Price controls and military supervision will ensure that the remaining oil arrives at critical destinations at least most of the time for several years, if not decades.

    The problem I think goes way beyond how we fuel our economy. The crux of the problem is, I think, how we put food on our tables. I am an electrical engineer, not a chemical engineer, but I do have some understanding as to how nitrogen based fertilizers are manufactured.


    The intermediate product in the case of nitrogen (N) fertilizers is ammonia (NH3), which is produced by combining nitrogen extracted from the air with hydrogen from hydrocarbons such as natural gas, naphtha or other (heavier) oil fractions, and hydrogen  which is obtained by means of the Steam Reforming Process.

    I think for folks who don't 'get' what Peak Oil really means, it is useful to ask them to point out one thing in their lives which is not enabled or affected by a petroleum product of some kind.

    I believe as more and more information like what you have posted here comes to the surface, it becomes easier for people to believe that Iraq is purely about oil. BTW, I happen to believe that Afghanistan too is all about oil, and to a lesser extent, about opium.

    If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:13:00 PM PDT

  •  Matthew Simmons (none / 0)

    Correct me if I'm wrong here - is Simmons still playing a role in advising Bush? He was a part of Cheney's secret energy task force... but I don't know if he still is or not. Many googles on him say he's a "former". I can't imagine the Bush administration would tolerate that kind of language from one of its own. Wouldn't that be  grounds for "leaving to spend more time with family"?

    Oh well, I wasn't using that civil liberty anyway.

    by think2004 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:19:14 PM PDT

  •  Saw this in Moore's book (none / 1)

    And I think it's exagerated. Oil prices will rise rather rapidly at some point, and the World will enter a recession, particularly the US and China.

    But there will be enough oil to fuel armed forces, police, and corporations, for quite a few decades; the victim will be the poor slob who drives 50 miles to work every day in his bloated car/SUV and has to pay $10 a gallon. Cars will get small real quick.

    In most countries except the US, Canada, Australia, and a few others, cars are not the primary commute vehicle. In most of Europe people ride the train, subway, trolley, or bus to work, and people do not use a car to buy groceries. Sprawl is relatively limited. This is also the case in the developing world and in Asia. Fuel for buses and so forth will obviously be highly subsidized, and these economies will limp along more or less in recognizable form.

    Water is a much graver threat.

    Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.

    by M Aurelius on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:41:15 PM PDT

  •  Abiotic Oil (none / 1)

    A good link which discusses abiotic oil, Russia's 'super deep wells', and a whole lot of other 'stuff'. I found a lot of links on this page fascinating, and those links drove me to other links ... and so on.

    Inorganic Oil, "Sustainable" Oil

    If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:00:01 PM PDT

  •  Here's an alternative.. (none / 1)

    Most of the problems with replacements for gas can be summed up in two words: energy density. There's no point having an equal amount of mileage on hydrogen if you need a tanker-size fuel tank to carry the H2 around in due to it's low energy density. So pure hydrogen fuel cells are not the answer, and besides, Bush plans to fuel the hydrogen economy by... burning fossil fuels to produce electricity to produce hydrogen.
    My alternative is ethanol.
    1. Easier to produce and distil than bioethanol
    2. Can be transported and distributed using the existing petrol infrastructure
    3. Can be used to run internal combustion engines
    4. Can be used to run fuel cells using a recently invented catalytic converter
    5. You can make ethanol with biomass. Any biomass.  This means that forestry and agriculture can become a net exporter of energy. This provides a use for those acres of corn which are currently being used to stuff McD's burgers and up the national diabetes and obesity rates.
    But of course, many major problems remain, not least that high-yield agriculture is reliant on fossil fuels for almost every stage of the process. My solution is a move to integrated pest management for agriculture, massive energy efficiency drives, and a shift to an ethanol/biodiesel based transportation system.

    The definition of an idiot is someone who's always absolutely sure that they are right.

    by The little blogger that could on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:02:36 PM PDT

  •  my take (none / 0)

    since the current polital leadership of the united states is composed of oil/energy specialist and cold and hot warriors and have come to power through illegitimate means (twice), the question is: what does all of this mean? perhaps the u.s. leadership realizes that the oil peak has past and is prepared to use forceful action to maintain order both at home (the patriot act) and abroad (military presence in all important sectors of the planet).

    i think the time has come for those who are aware to devise a survival system for things to come.  

  •  Thank you so much for posting this (none / 0)

    I have been hungering for such specifics for many of the ills which are headed our way.  I firmly believe that we need to be doing some "worst case scenerio" planning, and this article is a good example of that.  You got my recommendation.

Permalink | 39 comments