COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Proof Committee Hansard

SENATE

RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT

REFERENCES COMMITTEE

Reference: Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels

TUESDAY, 11 JULY 2006

SYDNEY

CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION

This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee.

It is made available under the condition that it is recognised

as such.

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I have studied oil reserves for the past 40 years, from when it was a
> very new science. In the beginning, there were a few specialists who were not very good, and
> then came the greatest specialist of oil reserves. He began working for a petrol consultant in the
> 1990s and, in 1995-96, established what is in my opinion the best set of oil reserves in the world.
> These are the oil reserves of Dr Colin Campbell. I think these reserves are the best. I have been
> able to prove not only that these reserves adapted very well to my model but also that they
> correlate the production of the 11 OPEC countries in a satisfactory way. So I have adopted them.
> Dr Campbell is of the opinion that the total endowment for conventional oil of the planet is
> around 1,900 billion barrels. I think this is the best number that we have at present. I have been
> working with that number for the past seven or eight years. Out of that number of 1,900 billion
> barrels, Dr Campbell is of the opinion that for the two polar sectors, the Arctic and Antarctica,
> you should have roughly 52 billion barrels. I think that Dr Campbell splits that number roughly
> half and half between the two poles.

OK, so we started off with 1,900 billion barrels in the earth.  The biggest undeveloped part of that is in the most difficult places on earth to exploit, divided between the two poles.


> As you know, it is very
> difficult to drill in ice-and there is an icecap of at least 2,000 metres that you have to drill
> through before you get to the lower tectonics. But maybe one day, when the price of oil goes up
> to $200 or $300 a barrel, some oil companies will decide to try their hand there. That could be a
> possibility. I hope it will not happen. But some governments will have their backs to the wall and
> in suburbia there will be unrest over petrol.

And at that time there will be plenty of crowds forming within the neo-slave class, ready to work for a raw fish on an icebreaker headed towards the North or South Pole.

> Senator JOYCE-I said it would be in the next 10 to 30 years. Do you think that is the time
> frame for the price of oil to go up to $200 or $300 a barrel? I note you have stated that you
> believe the production of oil will start to fall off to around 55 million barrels a day.

Note, almost every government official in the world from the beginning of time until today has never made anything except a document, has never explored for anything except funding, and above all, has never considered that anything is "finite".  They can't even say the word 'finite' because it is like a death curse to them.  All of their existence is bent upon getting more taxes to expand their government or department.  Full stop.  And they are the least concerned about constraining laws of physics or economics that get in their way.  I am preparing you for what is coming up...

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes-in 2020.

> Senator JOYCE-So that is within a time frame of 10 to 30 years. When will people start
> exploring new areas?

Here we go... time to "get more supply" when "market demands increase".  Nevermind constraints.  Just go get it, dammit!

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-It is extremely difficult to forecast precisely the price of oil in the
>  future. I can see a range of $100 to $150 not very far into the future.

> Senator JOYCE-That is $100 to $150 a barrel?

No, 150 dollars a tanker.  We will just "go get more" and everything will be OK.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes, this we are certainly going to get to. In my opinion, we could
> get there very easily. We are a couple of hurricanes or some geopolitical problems or a war away
> from having a worse problem than we have today. There you could go very easily, but after that
> where can this price go? I am studying that right now, and I have not reached a conclusion yet.
> There must be some outer limit, and I am beginning to think that maybe the outer limit could be
> $300 per barrel. I am not so sure yet, because we are entering a brand new era in human history,
> an era we have not been prepared for at all.

Samsam says "outer limit"... meaning, that is the point when industries buckle and snap, when the industrial civilization is finished, when oil no longer is able to bring food out of the ground and into our homes, when the S**T Hits The Fan!

> For the past six generations, we have been used to
> having cheap oil always available whenever we wanted it, more or less. Today, in 2006, all of
> this is beginning to change. We are entering an era in which we know nothing much, where we
> have a brand new set of rules. I am trying to find out what these new rules are. I have already
> reached two or three new rules. One of the new rules, in my opinion, is that there will be in the
> very near future nothing like business as usual. In my opinion, nothing is usual from now on for
> any of the countries involved. And the lower you are in the pile, the worse it is going to get.

"lower you are in the pile" means caught in a place totally dependent upon oil, having no economic or social options to leave that place.  It could be a retiree in the new suburban getto or a vegetable salesman in Cairo.  I don't think this is strictly about nationality or net worth on paper because paper will burn and nations can quickly move into civil wars.

> Senator JOYCE-You also made the statement that steps made today are cheaper than steps
> made tomorrow. With regard to mitigating or alleviating the crisis that would be caused by an oil
> shortage or a price of oil that is completely prohibitive to the development of industry and the
> fundamental freedom of people to drive around, what steps do you envisage would be
> worthwhile taking today? And without loading your answer, can you refer to issues such as the
> production of a biorenewable fuel industry, the development of ethanol as a fuel alternative and
> biodiesels, and alternative forms of combustible material that can be used in internal combustion
> engines.

Ha ha ha ha... sure.  As soon as Senator Joyce begins to sense that we are out of places to "start to explore new areas" then he says, quote: "without loading your answer, can you refer to issues such as production of a biorenewable fuel industry..."

Right Senator.  We will of course easily bring tanker after tanker of cheap oil online as soon as we organize that biorenewable fuel industry that you are soo keen about.  All we have to do, sir, as you probably suspect, is to take the fuel and make bio crops and then take the biocrops and make fuel.  That is the cycle.  And beyond that, of course you know that we will use the fuel to also mine and fabricate and service the capital intensive industrial processes from which we make the biorenewable fuel.  And besides that, we will grow our food and make the cars and fly to the moon too.  Lots of room on the moon for exploration there Senator.  Tanker after tanker at 150 USD per ship, made from soybeans, sugar cane... all grown in Brazillian wetland razed forestland there Senator.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Allow me to take your questions one by one. I said that steps needed
> to be taken, because now I am thinking that the price is going to go up. There is no other way.
> Now let me open a parenthesis: the price might go down tomorrow to $55, but it will come back
> up again.

We will always have oil, but 55 dollar oil is gone.  And 100 dollar oil will be gone one day soon.

> So you will have in this period a high level of volatility, but eventually it will go to
> very great heights-maybe to $200, maybe to $300. As long as you have price driven oil, I think
> it is a very good thing whatever this price is, because one day you will have a question of
> availability. You will be ready to pay any price, but there will not be any oil.

I can hear the good Senators mumbling in the background: "But can't we go get more after we run out?  Samsam, you don't know how government works obviously.  Whenever wy run out, we just go get more.  Can't you chemists think of some new process to make oil out of taxpayers or something?"

Samsam continues on...

> I remind you that oil is a very special commodity, which is something that is very difficult to
> realise today. For example, you have no free market in oil. Naturally, you can go to the NYMEX
> stock exchange and buy as many barrels as you want at the price of $74 now, but these are paper
> barrels. If you try to buy 10,000 barrels a day of real oil, of genuine barrels, you will have
> enormous problems getting that much oil on a regular and sustainable basis. So that is one of the
> problems that we will encounter in the medium term.

Yes, like silver.  The current price is 12 dollars, which is also about the cost of production.  And there are more paper shorts on the market than there is above ground supply.  So where is the physical silver going to come from if some big shot investor is ready to buy 12 dollar silver in the amount exceeding the total supply?  And it doesn't take that much money to do.  And oil is in the same situation.  As soon as Nigeria or Venezuela cuts off their oil, the whole world feels pain.  The world wasn't in such dire straights a few years ago... and certainly Nigeria couldn't have disrupted the entire world 100 years ago.  So look at the trends Senators!  Can't you see that we are on a runaway train, this industrial civilization?  Can't you see that "go get more" is senseless?  We have to change the way we live, not "go get more".  Oh, what's the use?

I can't talk t these guys, but Dr. Samsam continues on patiently...

> Any step you take today is to your advantage. I will give you one example. The city of Perth
> in Western Australia has free buses. I have been on these free buses. It is a fantastic service.
...

I stop Samsam's compliments short because these guys are not listening.  Then The good Senator Joyce offers more of his genius questions.

> Senator JOYCE-You said it is not really a perfect market. Yes, you can go to the New York
> Stock Exchange and buy oil, but it is paper oil; you are not buying the actual product. You have
> also talked about how the price of oil will possibly go to a horizon of about $300 a barrel. Of
> course, that would mean we would be paying about $6 a litre or something like that for fuel for
> our car, which obviously means we could not afford to fill up. Do you feel the major oil
> companies have the intention to exploit an arrangement which has the world paying $200 to
> $300 a barrel for oil?

There you go... can't get more so we find an alternative.  Can't find an alternative so we go after the corporations and taxpayers.  Go get 'em Senabor Joyce!

> Obviously it would be in their financial interests to get to that position,
> because it is maximising the returns on their stock on hand. Their stock on hand is the oil in the
> ground, and obviously there is a great financial windfall for them to keep the predominant means
> of internal combustion a mineral based oil product. The question I am asking is: will the oil
> companies drive the intention for people to continually use oil and be quite prepared to profit
> from a market of $200 to $300 a barrel? Will they ride us out to the very end? Will their
> intentions be to ride this cash flow window to its completion?

I am always amazed at the creative ways that a politician can ignore all of the simple to see and difficult to do solutions.  Instead, they focus on the cheap shots and one-liners.  Sure, voters won't understand a Senator that says "we have to change our way of life from top to bottom, inside-out, back to front, every which a way."  But we need leadership, not cheap shot accusers.  And we know that there will be price gouging, just like we know there will be hoarding of supplies. 

But Senator.  You are a grown man so please confirm for me your goals.  Are we going to forever target those who gouge prices?  Are we going to forever target those who hoard supplies?  Meanwhile, this finite resource on which we all rely is going to zero anyway and your civilization (tax base resource) is doomed in it's present form. 

Oh forget it.  I can't get through to him Samsam... why don't you try?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I do not think it is in the interests of the oil companies for the price
> to go very high. I think they are very well satisfied with the present price, but I think it will not
> be in their hands.

OK, that was more eloquent than I could have said it.   Samsam continues...

> It will not be in the hands of the companies, it will not be in the hands of the
> oil producers. I can see Saudi Arabia and others being very worried by prices that are too high,
> but I do not think any one of these players can do anything about it.

Ha, exactly!  Even the price gougers are worried because their whole way of life is  coming to an end as well.  Even price gougers have more sense than to celebrate the end of their way of life.  But not Senators.  Senators celebrate easy one-liners that distract voters from core issues and exacerbate problems beyond repair forever.

Sorry Samsam, please go on.  As you can see, I am of little use here...

> When there is not enough oil, first you will have to raise its price and then you will have the
> problem of its availability. There may be some kind of worldwide rationing-I do not know. I
> am trying to look at the future but the future I am talking about, as you mentioned, might be
> beyond 2020. Maybe beyond 2020 we will have some reasonable idea. What will happen after
> that is very difficult to predict. I do not think the oil companies would like such a scenario at all.
> They will be forced-

Just then the good and wise Senator got angry and cut Samsam off...

> Senator JOYCE-Who can afford oil at $200 a barrel? Who would be using it?
> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I think the Chinese are ready to pay anything for oil. I agree with
> you that it will be very difficult.

Other Senators clearly see that Senator Joyce is not making any progress inventing reality so Senator Milne jumps in...

> Senator MILNE-Recently we had the head of BP in Australia talking about their statistical
> review. They take at face value the claims, particularly of Middle Eastern countries, about the
> extent of their reserves. We are aware that a few years ago these countries readjusted their
> reserves, yet there were no new discoveries that would have justified that. This is a really critical
> question to ask because it goes to the heart of the argument. Could you give us your frank
> appraisal of the Saudi reserves, in particular, and the Middle Eastern reserves, generally, and the
> extent to which they have been inflated for political and economic purposes et cetera and do not
> reflect what is actually there?

Oh yes,  now we are going to get to the heart of the matter.  Finally. 

Firstly we looked for other places to "get more".  That didn't work.  Secondle,  we looked for alternatives to "get more".  That didn't work.  Thirdly, we started to attack the gougers and hoarders to "get more".  That proved to be about as smart as gravel but still more easy than trying to change the way we live, right?  Isn't that what it is all about here Senators?

So, since our way of life is not negotiable, we now are finally ready to ask about those Saudi reserves. 

The Senators might as well say: "Come on, they got more down there and we can go get it.  Dammit, I don't care if it brings one more quarter of tax revenues, we are ready to expend our every political capital on keeping our doomed system alive for as long as possible.  Damn the consequences and you can forget about those lofty words like "honor" and "legacy" and "meaning of life".  I am chasing the most politically easy dollars I can find here so leave me alone!"

Samsam, doesn't go into all that.  he just says...

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Most reviews of the reserves of the major Middle Eastern countries
> today, especially the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, mention reserves amounting to
> between 600 billion to 700 billion barrels. These are official reserve figures-in other words, the
> countries involved say that they have so much oil reserves available. The Oil and Gas Journal
> and BP take these reserves at face value. As you mentioned, in the 1980s these reserves were
> revised upwards. For example, in 1988 Saudi Arabia, which had reserves of 160 billion barrels,
> suddenly took these up to 260 billion barrels. Since 1989, it has kept this number of 260 billion
> barrels; there has been no change to it up to this day. So, for 17 years, it as if they have not
> produced anything.

Well, the Senators won't see anything wrong with those calculations, Samsam.  You just told them that it is possible to double a resource and then never use it up even while you always exploit it year after year.  That makes perfect sense to them.  They always double their expenses and project continued revenue streams even if their tax base becomes impoverished and relocated to shanty towns.  They are politicians.  They promise the future and take from the present.  Reality has nothing to do with their job.

But Samsam, you are better at this.  Please continue...

> In Dr Campbell's opinion-and it is also my personal opinion-the reserves of the Middle
> East are roughly one half of what is officially said and presented. In other words, there should
> only be between 300 billion and 350 billion barrels of oil. This is the best figure I have come up
> with. I and Dr Campbell, as a rule of thumb, divide the official reserves by two to get a number
> that we believe is the actual amount of the reserves in these countries. Does that answer your
> question?

> Senator MILNE-It certainly does. Can you go on to tell us what your view is of the US
> Geological Survey and its accuracy in terms of the reserves?

Ah, Senator.  You are quite fond of using information resources that help you promise a continued gravy train into the forseeable future.  Is that a pattern or a coincidence?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Every institution gives its own numbers, and we can only compare
> theirs to ours. You can see that the reserves given by the USGS, which is an endowment for the
> world of over 3,200 million reserves, is much, much higher than the numbers we are using, of
> only 1,900 million.
>
> Of course, we cannot accept such reserves as realistic, as we cannot accept
> the projections of certain institutions like the International Energy Agency in Paris, which
> predicts that the world will be consuming 118 million barrels per day in the year 2030 as
> realistic, because I cannot see how the world can get over 81 or, say, 82 per day right now, let
> alone in the future.

And then Samsam sums up the whole discussion so far with 6 words -

> I believe we are in decline.

OK, pack your bags Senators, go home.  Stop pretending to your people that easy oil will keep flowing downstream into our impossibly dependent systems.  Just forget about keeping your doomed system alive.  Focus on the next civilization and get back into your local community ASAP. 

Samsam?

> So you have an enormous discrepancy between
> what these institutions publish and what we believe in, whether it is in reserves or whether it is
> in production of crude oil per day.

Right, that is a more politically acceptable way to say what I just said.

Any more questions?

> Senator MILNE-Given what you have said about the fact that the Middle Eastern reserves
> are probably half of what they say they are, and given what you have just said about the US
> survey, how are we going to tell? Given that the Saudis and the other Middle Eastern countries
> keep on saying that their reserves are the same-and they have been saying they are the same for
> all these years whilst production has kept on going-how are we going to know?

Ha ha ha.... of course!  Why didn't I consider that you Senators would have yet another trick up your sleeves?  Here we are at peak oil.  We see that in the prices  and in the resource wars and in the data and in the child-simple logic of "using a finite resource like there is no tomorrow" and still, still after all that... the good and wise Senators ask paraphrasing: "Give us a sign." 

And we all know that God doesn't give signs to people who can't believe the truth even when it stares them in the face.

The good and wise Senator goes on...

> What
> indications are there going to be so that we can revise the estimates to be more accurate?


> If they
> are half of what they say they are, then the shock in the share markets et cetera everywhere
> around the world will be huge.

Huge signs, yes Senator.  That is right.  Like Easter Island on nuclear steriods Honorable, Sir.  And just around the corner, dear Honorable, Sir. 

Please continue Honorable, Sir...

> You mentioned before that they may not be able to manipulate it
> forever because of the horizontal wells and the step change that will occur. Is that the main
> indication-when one of the wells goes kaput? Or what will happen, in your view?

Ha ha ha... yes Honorable Senator.  You hit the nail on the head.  The big indicator of Peak Oil is when "wells go kaput".  Genius.  Give that man an explosive cigar!

Samsam, please use your usual diplomacy here.  I need some help again.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-From an outsider's point of view, you have two ways of following
> what will happen. One is the price. The second is the production. If the production for the next
> couple of years remains stagnant, then it will mean the institutions that are predicting production
> of over 100 or 110 are wrong....if you see the price continuing to increase, it
> will prove that we have been right.

Samsam, be careful.  If we both start insulting them with sarcasm then we won't be able to pull this dynamic "good cop - bad cop" duo on them.  You took a big risk there when you said that Peak Oil will be proven right if we see price "continue to increase".  This may be interpreted by them as ridicule.

Let's hope that they don't catch on...

> So these are the two ways you can follow the story, but I will return to the French philosopher
> Pascal. He said the best way may be to take a bet and bet that we are right, because the ones who
> bet that way have not much to lose. If we are wrong, everything is going to be fine. But, if we
> are right, I think the ones who took precautions will be very much rewarded in the future.

Good.  Excellent.  You threw a renowned philosoper into the mix.  That should throw their scent away from any sense of being ridiculed and put them back into their self-important sense of being.

Ho, hum... Any more questions?

> Senator MILNE-What do you regard as the most authoritative estimate of world reserves?
> You have spoken about Colin Campbell. Is there anything that you would refer to or would you
> argue that that is the most accurate assessment?

Right.  Good question Senator.  and the follow up question might be: "How are we going to go and get the easy reserves in a winnable resouce war while still appearing like good guys to the world?"

Samsam?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-No, I certainly believe it is the most accurate. I have studied almost
> all, not all, of the reserve sets that I have been given or that I have come by. I can assure you that
> my personal archive is a very complete one. I have met almost everybody in this industry-and
> especially those at the world petroleum congresses, which were the Olympics of oil and were
> held every four years; before the internet age, at least-and I really think that the 1,900 billion
> barrels in Dr Campbell's set of data are the very best that you could find in the world today. I
> cannot imagine that we will have any better set in the future, especially given that Dr Campbell
> with Mr Jean Laherrere, a petrol consultant, have done very impressive research on almost all
> the oil provinces on the planet.

OK Senator, he seems pretty confident.  What is your next move?

> Senator JOYCE-Is that 1,900 billion barrels of recoverable oil from now to the end?

Ahem... wishful thinking is your next move?  Senator, are we playing legos and coloring books now?  Senator... ah, nevermind.  Samsam, you are the diplomatic and eloquent one of us two... please let him have it.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-1,900 billion barrels total is the estimate of convention oil. You have
> the non-conventional, which include, among others-

Sensing a no-win for his fellow Senator, Senator Joyce cut in...

> Senator JOYCE-Shale oil.

Oh, no, here we go again...

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-the tar sands, the shale oil and the heavy oil of Venezuela and
> Orinoco and all these kinds of oils, which are classified by Dr Campbell as non-conventional.

The Senators smell blood in the water, but it is actually more of that fake blood sold in costume shops.  Nevertheless, they will later pounce on the whole non-conventional theme.  But first Senator Webber cuts in and he wants to bring in the great price distraction as a first priority...

> Senator WEBBER-I want to continue to explore the impact of price. Obviously the higher
> the price, the greater the impact on consumer behaviour. In my home state of Western Australia,
> the higher price is making fields that were seen to be unprofitable worth developing. For
> example, we have all known that the Browse field has been there for a long time and now
> Woodside are looking at developing it. Could you give us an understanding of how an increase
> in price may bring other oilfields onto the market?

You mean, how more money will make more oil from the air?  Like squeezing blood from a turnip?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I am sorry, I did not understand your question.

> Senator WEBBER-I am asking about the relationship between the increase in the price and
> the increase in the development of fields that were previously seen as unprofitable. Does the
> increased price mean that there will be an increase in exploration with the result that new fields
> may come on stream?

OK, go easy on him Samsam.  Remember, if you act like me then you will never be invited back here again.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes, I understand now. Many people are of the idea that with the
> price increasing you will have new fields that before were not very profitable. Now, we will
> certainly see some of these factors coming into play....

> ...In my opinion, however all these are developed in the future, it will have very little impact on
> either peak oil or world production. It might make a change of, say, half a million barrels in total,
> not more, and half a million barrels will have very little impact. It will just shift the production
> curve upwards a bit but it will have very little impact. The reason is this: if you look at the US
> curve of decline, which was correctly predicted by Dr King Hubbert in 1956 and which peaked
> in 1970, it has been steadily coming down-but for the addition of Alaska. Alaska just shifted it
> a bit but it made no difference on the peak. It has been declining continuously since,
> notwithstanding the developments in exploration, exploitation and all the new technologies and
> the new investment that were possible at prices of $36 in the early 1980s. So I think that neither
> investment nor new technology will have any significant impact on the process of transition that
> we have entered.

In other words, money won't make a big difference either.  So let's see, we talked about new exploration, gougers and hoarders, lying reserves, alternatives and now money.  What will these Senators think of next?  Haven't they re-digested every possible argument in existence for keeping the tapeworm system alive for just another quarter of profits?  And what about their political energy spent on changing the way we live?  Don't hold your breath waiting for them to ask those questions.  No, better crash an existing plane than to refurbish it's shell into a retro restaraunt.  I told you these guys have never made anything and can't consider any reality that gets in the way of their next quarter of tax revenues.

> Senator STERLE-Can you explain the claimed inadequacies of optimistic official agency
> predictions of oil production? We have had submissions from oil agencies that have told us that
> it is very rosy out there because they are spending lots of shareholders' money-that is how rosy
> it is. Your report and your figures and Dr Campbell's figures are at completely the opposite end
> of the spectrum. Can you explain how the oil agencies could be so far removed from your
> studies and be so different?

Senator Sterle!  Senator Sterle!  Stand up Sir!  Look in the mirror.  No, look at yourself.  Now, ask the question again.  Go ahead, say it.  You don't know how someone can paint a rosy picture when reality is so different.  Ha ha ha ha ha.  But that is all you do every day of your pitiful "career".  You and all you government elites.  You lie and paint a rosy picture to everyone while you strip mine tax payers for a better tomorrow while delivering nothing in return except more promises and less deliverables.  YOU are the rosy painters, all of you.  Listen to your questions, like children that don't want to go to sleep early.  But you all need a good spanking.

Samsam?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Maybe one explanation could be that they are interested parties and
> we are disinterested parties. If you hear some people saying today that the price of oil is going to
> drop to $25 in the near future, and I think it is almost impossible for such a thing to happen
> unless there is a major catastrophe on a global scale-

> Senator JOYCE-Like a meteorite or something like that?

Ah ha.  Ladies and gentlemen.  I have an announcement to make.

That little casual statement by Senator Joyce presents a monumental shift in this discussion.

Hear me, hear me, hear me.  The good and wise Senator has just uttered the biggest Freudian slip of the century.  Having confronted all of the barriers to new supply, he utters the one way that he can keep his system alive far into the future.  He said "Like a meteorite or something like that?"  Did you see the sly smile as he spoke?  Demand destruction, folks.  That is what is on these people's minds.  When supply goes "kaput" with Peak Oil, then we will have "a meteorite or something like that"!

Be ready, folks.  "something like that" is a mega-city dirty bomb.  "Something like that" is depleted uranium dust covering entire civilizations.  Demand destruction is the only way these guys can keep their jobs.  And they hope to keep their jobs while looking like the good guys so guess who will implement the "something like that"?  Terrorists.  Paid assets most likely but not necessarily.  Could be the real thing now that every impoverished resource-rich country hates that we are bombing their children and mothers and elderly and future generations.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-At least.

Yes, at least a meteorite. 

Silence fills the room.

Samsam goes on to discuss some issues about price, but I am too awe struck to hear what he says.

I come to my senses when Senator Joyce starts yammering about those biorenewables again.

> Senator JOYCE-It could also inhibit the development of a biorenewable fuel industry too.
> If they say there is a lot of alternative product around, then they do not need a biorenewable fuel
> industry.

Right Senator.  You just put your golden finger upon the heart of the problem with the precision and penetration of a diamond bullet, Sir.  The problem, as you say, is that we have so many alternatives available to us and that is why we don't even need a biorenewable fuel industry.  Therefore, no incentives exist for us to do much of anything... is that about right, Sir?

Somebody bring me some asprin.  Samsam?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I do not believe that there are alternatives around. In my opinion
> there is no alternative to crude oil. There is nothing that can replace it, and this is the problem the
> world is facing today. There are no alternatives and I will try to explain very briefly why. In
> general economics we are taught a very basic rule. When the price goes up, demand comes
> down, and you have the marvellous figure of Professor Sam Wilson to explain exactly how this
> works. For crude oil this does not work at all. We were always taught that when the price
> doubles demand will come down by something. In the past two years the price has tripled and
> demand has not come down by anything. How far can we go? Nobody knows. I think that it will
> take three digits-at least over $110 or $120-for us to start seeing demand maybe coming
> down.

Ahem... except for "demand destruction", right?  Like a meteorite "or something"?

Anyway, please continue on your excellent supply-side discussion...

> Why? Firstly, you have no way of preserving oil products easily-no way at all. We are all
> used to the car and we want to drive that car as far as we can possibly pay for it. Even at prices
> of $1.40 per litre for petrol you are beginning to have problems in the population economically,
> so what will it be like when the prices are much higher than that? $1.40 per litre is one of the
> cheapest prices in the Western world. It is just a little above fuel prices in California today so it
> is very cheap.
>
> Not only do you not have preservation, you do not have any means of substitution, and I will
> come back to your previous question on alternatives. There is no alternative to crude oil. For the
> ones who believe that GTL is going to be an alternative, I am sorry to say that this is not a fact.
> Today you have only 85,000 barrels per day of GTL capacity in the world. I do not think you
> will ever have much more than that, and 85,000 is nothing. It is a drop of water in an ocean.
> The latest GTL plant has just been started in Qatar and I do not know how it is going to fare. It
> makes 34,000 barrels. It is an enormous plant. I think it cost one and a half billion dollars at
> least. It has two enormous reactors. If anything goes wrong with these reactors-my God, I do
> not know what is going to happen! So that is for GTL.
>
> You have coal to liquid. The only coal to liquid plant today in the world is in Secunda in South
> Africa. It makes 150,000 barrels per day of liquids. I can tell you that because I have visited it,
> half by helicopter and half by walking around the facilities. It is a very messy affair and it is very
> inefficient energy wise. Now the Chinese are trying to make CTL-coal to liquid-of one
> million barrels per day capacity. I think it is going to cost them $10 billion at least. I cannot
> imagine how this site is going to be. I am waiting for them to finish, but it will probably take
> them quite a long time to get that one million barrels per day off the ground.

Wow, Samsam, you are hammering down the list of "alternatives" like a machine gun.  This is the home stretch...

> You mentioned ethanol, biodiesel and all that. This is not the future. This is not sustainable
> because in the future, if our predictions are correct, the No. 1 priority will not be transport and
> all that. The No. 1 priority is going to be food. And for food you will have to have top priority
> for fertiliser and insecticides and whatever you need to produce food only. So ethanol is a very,
> very wasteful system. And again, however much you want to make some ethanol, it will still be a
> drop of water in the ocean. Just let me tell you that for every litre of ethanol you will need
> between three and four litres of water to produce it. The best way to go for these types of fuel,
> and certainly the most efficient way, is sugarcane. That is what the Brazilians are doing today.
> With sugarcane you need one square kilometre of sugarcane to produce 3,800 barrels of ethanol
> per year. It is not very easy and it is very inefficient.
>
> So I cannot see any of these alternatives coming up in the future in a big way. Now, certainly
> solar power will have a small role to play. Today it is still very expensive at between roughly
> $US7,000 and $US10,000 per megawatt. But it could certainly play a role, especially in
> Australia where you have quite a lot of sun and quite a lot of land to develop that. Wind also, in
> windy countries, could play a small role. But these roles will amount to two to three, or maybe
> four, per cent of oil consumption over the next 15 or 20 years, and not more. The orders of
> magnitude are not at all the same. You will make a small dent with each one of these but not
> much more than a dent. Replacing crude oil is not that easy.

Great!  What will these guys say now?

> CHAIR-I would like to follow up on this issue of price. The Australian Bureau of
> Agricultural and Resource Economics-ABARE-in their submission to us have done
> predictions based on future oil costs of $US30 per barrel. How realistic do you think that is?

Oh, about as realistic as your self-importance and your pension plan and your retirement plan and your stock holdings and your grid-reliant home and your tax base.  Same thing.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I believe you will never, ever see $US30 per barrel again unless you
> have a bird flu epidemic that wipes out at least millions of people or, as Senator Joyce said,
> something hits the planet and disrupts all calculations.

Samsam, that little "or something" that Senator Joyce said is called demand destruction, and it is being considered a viable option for keeping elites in power.  We aren't naive people.  Simple bird flu doesn't begin to cover the extent of these guys' imagination.  Yes, I know that bird flu resembles a weaponized version of the extinct Spanish Flu and Black Plague that has been admittedly brought back from the dead from the christalized lung tissue of some poor fool stuck in a glacier.  This is admitted on mainstream press, all of it.  But pure coincidence that the same flu is being replicated now outside of the laboratory a hundred years later.  But anyway, other things can equally "happen".  Like a bigger 911 terrorist act for example.  Maybe a big war between the resource-rich impoverished people and the weapon-rich impoverished people.  The sky is the limit to the ways that demand destruction can be implemented.

Senator Joyce, with his sly smile, chimes in to remind us about the consequences of such "unforseen" and unfortunate events.

> Senator JOYCE-That takes out Europe.

Samsam graciously moves to another subject, perhaps sensing that he is in a wolves' den of sick, inhuman ideas that always come into fruition whenever big government elite types sense their doom.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I cannot foresee anything below even $US50 per barrel. That in my
> opinion would be very bad news, because if it goes back to, say, $US50 per barrel for some
> reason and for a short period of time, people will think: 'Ah! So $US75 was just a spike and now
>  we are back to the good old days and we can begin consuming again. Let's go and buy that big
> SUV that we were looking at.' You then lose two or three years at least. So $US30 in my opinion
> is absolutely impossible. You can quote me on that.

OK, so is that about it then?  Any other questions?
 
> CHAIR-Thank you. My next question relates to the industry. BP when they made a
> presentation to the committee said that the prices now are basically the same proportionally as
> the spike in the 1970s. What is your opinion of those comments?

Ah yes.  This question seems to be saying, "today's prices are no big deal.  Adjusted for inflation, we are no bigger than the spike in the 1970's".

Still predictably struggling to keep your way of life alive Senator?  But the arguments are getting weaker and weaker when confronted with the facts aren't they?  Is this a trend Senator?  I mean, is it a trend that arguments for living as we are living get weaker and weaker?  If yes, then perhaps you or at least someone, your secretary, anyone will ask the question about moving into a sustainable system?  Or is that completely out of the question?  Is it better to demand destruct half of the world's population first, keep your job, and look like a good guy in the process?

So are we no worse off than in the 1970's, Samsam?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-If you take into account inflation, it is the roughly same-it was
> $US75 to $US80 in those days. But those were spikes. Today it is a totally different problem.
> Today it is a transition into the unknown; then it was known. I am now personally of the opinion
> that if they had continued with the spikes we would have been much better off today. But they
> did not. After the two oil price shocks of 1973 and 1979 you had two price counter shocks in
> 1987 and 1998, when it dropped below $US10 per barrel. That was very bad news, because then
> demand started going up again. If all these reserves had been better controlled, maybe the
> transition would have been much easier. Just to remind you, in 1950, which is not that long ago,
> global consumption was only 10 million barrels per day. That was very easily controllable with
> the reserves we had. What is not easily controllable is the 81 million barrels per day that we have
> today.

Well, that settles it.  We are far worse off now than in the 1970's because we are more and because we have  zero buffer of reserves. 

Next?


> CHAIR-I want to go back to the price per barrel. What is your understanding of what IEA is
>  saying is the standard price per barrel?


> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-In the world or in the Middle East?


> CHAIR-In the world.


Why he is aksing about price again is amazing to me.  What is he looking for, a price tax or something?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-It is very difficult to reply to that question because you have many
> costs per barrel, depending on whether they are onshore or offshore and whether those offshore
>  are in shallow waters, deep waters or ultra deep waters. To make an average over all that is very
> difficult. I could not answer you. I can tell you that it is not $75 per barrel; it is certainly lower
> than that.

> Proceedings suspended from 10.20 am to 10.34 am

During the break, I reflected upon what it was like growing up.  I look at children today and I am reminded about my own childhood.

Children are open to instruction because their mind is still forming.  I look at these Senators and I see petrified brains seeking only power and ready to sacrifice anyone and anything to maintain even an illusion of normalcy.  They are dead men walking and yet they condemn the living children indirectly and directly with their silent support or active support of resource wars because they know that without resource wars, their way of life is finished.

A child embraces change as a normal process of growth and is excited about change.

Brain dead Senators fear change and maintain their power at the expense of children.

Sad that children have no power and only dinasaur-brains using dinasaur-blood maintain power and drive us into the tar pits with them and their stupid empty, brain-dead promises.

Just then, the session began once again...

> Senator MILNE-In your opening presentation, you said that you thought that in 2006 we
> had begun transition 1, and that it would be a relatively gentle stage, and then we would go to
> extreme discomfort, presumably in transition 2. Can you outline to me the time frames you see
> for each of the transition stages, and how they will proceed? What will trigger moving from
> transition 1 to transition 2? When do you expect the real crisis to hit in that transitional phase?
> You mentioned it, and I would appreciate more detail on it.

See?  Now they are planning for the best time to implement "demand destruction".

Watch out Samsam.  Choose your words carefully.  Remember, you are expendable. 

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Certainly. From now on, from 2006 to 2020, making predictions is
> an extremely difficult process, because we do not know exactly what to expect of these transition
> periods. But I have decided for the time being to split the next 14 years into four transition
> periods, which I call transition 1, 2, 3 and 4. Every transition period has a steeper gradient and I
> do not know exactly how long each of these will take, because it depends on many factors.
> Nevertheless, I envisage now that transition 1 should take between three, four or five years, but I
> would have to revise this every three to four months.

Good work.  You gave nothing.

> Now I will try to explain to you when I predict will be the end of transition 1 by drawing you
> a model on the whiteboard. We are here in 2006, which is, according to my model, the first year
> of transition 1. And we want to go all the way to the end of transition 1. Here, in the world of oil,
> we have the following: today, we have a demand for oil which comes from all of the countries
> and the regions on earth. The demand is about 81 million barrels per day. What happens to this
> demand is that it does trigger a supply. This supply comes from two entities. The first entity is
> non-OPEC and the second entity is the 11 OPEC countries. The OPEC countries are the
> marginal producer-that is, whatever non-OPEC produces is subtracted from the demand, and it
>  leaves what is required from the OPEC countries to produce to make up the rest of the demand.
> This is the system today. It is a very simple system. It has been in place since 1960, when they
> created OPEC. In my opinion, the international oil industry created the entity of OPEC for this
> very simple reason: to have a marginal producer. So far it has worked very well. But today
> OPEC is not playing its role, because it is producing oil out, which is not a good thing.
> I will open a parenthesis here about the oil industry and the oilfields. There is nothing worse
> for an oilfield than to be pushed. I believe that is what is happening to oilfields like Ghawar and
> Cantarell. They have been pushed. A better example is the Samotlor oilfield of Russia, which
> was a marvellous oilfield that the Soviets in the 1980s, when they badly needed money to have a
> system that would be a rival to the American Star Wars, destroyed, in my opinion. It was an
> extraordinary oilfield which could produce three million barrels a day. Today it is only producing
> 300,000 barrels a day. If they had managed that oilfield better, I think they would have had a
> much higher return. Pushing an oilfield is not very good for it. Letting an oilfield rest is the best
> thing you can do for it. The Iraqis' oilfields had a marvellous time during the 1990s because they
> rested for a long time. I would be glad if such a thing could happen to the Iranian supergiants-if
> they could rest for some time. I think it would not be bad.

Right.  You showed them that their own greed works against them when they just seek continued increase in exploitation rates.  But Samsam, I fear that they don't care.  Now that everyone knows that supply is at a dead end, all they want to know about now is the demand destruction part of the game.

> Coming back after this parenthesis to this system, between the beginning and the end of T1,
> you will have the two major scales tilting. At the end of T1 you will have a supply, and this
> supply is going to dictate the demand. Here you will have entities which will have the marginal
> demand. So it will be a totally different system form what we had at the beginning. It is this
> tilting of the scale that will in my opinion determine the end of T1. We have just begun shifting
> from one to the other.

So, the Senators are hearing only "we still have time to implement demand destruction.

> In the time frame of T1, you might have some volatility in that it will start shifting to one side
> and then shifting back again to the demand side and going back and forth. So one has to be very
> careful. But in the end it will be the total shift that will in my opinion make the end of T1 clearer.
> About T2, T3 and T4, it is still very early. I am working on the next transition, but first we have
> to get this transition right.
>
> One thing I might add about T1 is that I see not only that business as usual is not in the new
> rules but also that mega projects are not to be begun, because mega projects are long-term
> projects that take 10, 20, maybe 25 years. Because we do not know exactly where we are going
> at this stage, it is very dangerous to begin mega projects. But people are still doing this. The
> Europeans have begun a freight train line from Barcelona to Kiev, which is roughly 2,600
> kilometres. The idea of having freight trains is a very good idea, but it is a bit late now.

Ha, ha, right.  The mega-projects continue like there is no tomorrow.  But the Senators do have a plan for tomorrow.  It doesn't involve the mega-projects.  Mega-projects just help them justify their vision for a continued growth of oil supplies.  In reality, mega-projects are doomed because additional supply is impossible.  So the game switches to either Powerdown or demand destruction. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that our leaders are not interested in powerdown.  They are interested in demand destruction only, because if they destroy demand then they can keep their present industrial-dependent system chugging along a little while longer and they can hegemonize themselves higher in the elite food chain and look like good guys (they hope) in the process as they protect us and destroy our civil liberties for the sake of defending our lives from some paid assets that they call evil terrorists.

Go on Samsam, this is a good tactic you have of telling the truth.  All this comes out when light shines into darkness.

> If you
> have rails you might make the service a bit better, but you should not construct it from scratch
> because it will take 20 years and cost at least ¼ELOOLRQ,GRQRWWKLQNWKDWVXFKDSURMHFWZLOO

Wow, that must be a big number.  Anyone have the Farsi translation of that?

> ever be finished because the high oil prices will trigger rises in prices for all other commodities.
> You already see that steel is way above the usual prices. Copper has hit between $7,000 and
> $8,000, and it will go much higher than that. Nickel is $22,000. I think $22,000 is very cheap
> today; it will go much higher. All these commodities and all these metals will go very much
> higher, because it is the crude oil price which dictates the prices.

Ah, commodity prices.  Good.  Now we are talking.  and silver?  Food?

> Sugar is going up, orange juice
> is going up-everything is going up-because the price of crude oil is going up. It is the price of
> crude oil which more or less dictates all the other price hikes. In my opinion, you will have a
> correlation between all the price hikes in the future, and you can already see the first signs now.

So, oil prices go downstream, and downstream is us who feed on oil-based food and stuff and services... that is all we do is live on oil.  And oil is leaving us?  How many of us will leave with oil when it leaves us without all that food and stuff and services?

> Senator HUTCHINS-What do you see in transition phases 2, 3 and 4? Do you see any
> specific dates?

OK, now Senator Hutchins chimes in.  I suppose that he wants to calculate when will be the optimum time for some kind of "meteorite or something" to enter into the equation.

Samsam, are you going to give him any dates for a possible use by higher ups in their demand destruction scenario?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-No, not now, not yet. The gradients will get steeper, so the effects
> and the impacts will be greater. T1 is very benign; the gradient is very slow and you almost do
> not notice it. We will go from, maybe, 81 to 79½ over the next few years; it is not difficult. But
> T2 will be much more difficult-it is already-because it will start dropping considerably; then
> you will notice the drops every year, probably, and then it will get worse and worse. It is a
> process, fortunately, where the introduction is easier than the following phases. But it is still very
> early to start predicting what T2 will do. Firstly, we have to see what T1 is going to do, because
> already, in many aspects, T1 is difficult to predict, with all the events that could take place in the
> next three to four years.

Good work Dr. Bakhtiari.  A diplomatic way to say "things will get steadily worse in this system until you revamp the system."  Will they understand your message?

> Senator HUTCHINS-But you yourself have made a prediction that you do not see that the
> rail link between Barcelona and Kiev will be, to use my words, economically sustainable.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-No.

> Senator HUTCHINS-What should governments do if you say that supply will determine
> demand?

Unfortunately, the discussion is still over how much oil exists and who gets to use it.  Nobody wants to talk about removing oil from the equation of a new system to be developed not reliant upon oil.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I think that every society, every city and every government should
> do a certain number of things-many things; 1,001 things. There are not one or two solutions.
> There is no panacea. There is no silver bullet that you can just shoot to get rid of this. You have
> to start as early as possible and think about this type of future. I do not think the Europeans are
> ever going to make it. I do not think that Airbus A380 is a valuable aeroplane. It is a marvellous
> aeroplane, but it is arriving at the wrong time. They should have built it 20 years ago-and it
> would have been marvellous-when we were in the ascending curve of petroleum, not in the
> descending one, and not now that we have entered T1. I told them five years ago but naturally
> they did not want to listen at all, so they carried on. Now they have the problems and they are
> paying the penalties to all these companies already. It is still not commercial. I do not know why
> it will be commercial. I do not see a very bright future for that.

Samsam, you say the same things to each question and yet they keep asking the same question to all of your answers.  I see no hope in this dialogue anymore.

However, you are more resilient and intelligent than I.  Perhaps you will find a hole in their armor and reach into their hearts.  I doubt that they have human hearts, but maybe you will prove me wrong.

> There is not too much innovation now; there is certainly a returning to commodities and
> exploration. I know of a company in Australia that invested very heavily and has just found a
> brand new copper mine. That is fabulous, because the copper they are going to extract in a few
> years is going to make enormous profits. If you put money into oil exploration-whether
> onshore or offshore-almost whatever you find is going to make money. These are types of
> investment. Or you could invest in agriculture but not ethanol or biodiesel.

Oh yes... you threw them the bait.  Now, will they bite?

> Senator HUTCHINS-Yes, I was going to ask you about that-and I do not know if that is
> the point we are at, Madam Chair. You seem to be dismissive of alternative fuels.

Dismissive?  How about despiseful or vengeful or hateful against the so-called laundry list of fake alternative fuels?

Samsam?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes. I do not think it is a very good idea. You can always try it on a
> small scale, but I think that energy wise it does not make much sense. Now we are in transition
> 1, I try to look at things from an energy point of view, not from an economic point of view. We
> do not know these days exactly what economics are. You have to think energetically and about
> the things you really need. For example, Western Australia-sorry, I am always coming back-

Samsam gets cut off again...

> CHAIR-That suits three of us, so that's fine!
>
> Senator WEBBER-We're okay with that!
>
> Senator JOYCE-They are seceding!

Samsam continues...

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Really, I think Western Australia is doing all the right things. They
> were kind enough to have been the very first to invite me, and I am very happy for them.
> Western Australia does not have enough water and the water table is falling. It is a very big
> problem. They are putting in two desalination plants. They are obliged to put in two desalination
> plants. The desalination plant will need fuel-it will need gas-to run. In my opinion, they have
> no alternative so they are obliged to do this. When you are forced then you have to do it. I see
> that one problem in the future in Australia, much more important than the oil problem, is going
> to be water.
>
> Your precipitation is going lower and lower. I heard that in June you had an average of only 14
> millimetres of rain instead of the normal 108 millimetres. When I crossed from Perth to Sydney
> in the plane, over 3½ hours, what I saw was very dry. I think one of the problems is water. When
> you consider that every litre of ethanol or biodiesel will take between three and four litres of
> water then you start having a problem on the water side and on the energy side. I think you have
> to reconsider the economics of all of that in the near future.

Again, we have peak oil and peak commodities and peak water... when will these guys wake up that everything is downstream of oil and now we have to revamp or re-engineer or re-invent our whole industrial economy?  We basically have to go back to a more localized, agrarian AND SANE economy and society and civilization.  But Duh... not the Senators.  They will be elite dinasarus forever and drag us all into the tar pit with them.

> Senator WEBBER-On that optimistic note-being a Western Australian-what do you
> consider the prospects for the future of gas as an alternative?

Ha ha ha ha ha... I would laugh longer and louder if I were not so full of disrespect for you.   You suggest that natural gas replace oil as an alternative?  Oh man.  You guys just don't quit.  What's next?  How about this?  Let's use gasoline as a replacement for crude oil.  No, no, how about this: Let's use turkey guts.  This was actually suggested in an article I read about 5 years ago.  Turkey guts will replace crude oil and keep our industrial economy humming along just fine.

Tell him Samsam...

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Gas is the big issue, because we are not only having peak oil but,
> according to my prediction, in 2008 or 2009 we are also going to have global peak gas. Peak gas
> and peak oil are two totally different things because oil is a very special commodity. Gas is not
> the same because you cannot just put it in a ship. You either have to consume it locally, pipe it to
> some other country or put it in a LNG tanker. You have only those three alternatives.
> Fortunately, Australia has an enormous amount of gas, and I believe this is going to become
> very handy because the peak for gas will be between 100 and 105 TCF global production in
> 2008-09. Because of this peak in gas, you will have enormous problems all over the world but
> firstly in the US. The price of gas is going to go sky high. Today, it is incredibly cheap. Gas in
> the US has a threshold price today of between $7 and $8 per million BTU. This is going to go
> much higher. Every year you will have to add $2 to $3 to that price. The US price is going to
> affect all the other prices, and it has already begun in South-East Asia. All that will be linked
> through the LNG price that you will have, and the price of LNG is going to go very high.
> I think that Russia does not have much gas anymore, although it is the largest producer in the
> world. I am very worried for the Europeans, and probably this winter you will see that the
> Europeans are going to have an enormous number of problems. If it is a harsh winter in Europe,
> you might have thousands of people dying. You had hundreds last year, but that was only the
> beginning. If this winter is harsh, you will have thousands dying because the Russians simply do
> not have enough gas to provide to Europe.

Senators give the same question, Samsam gives the same answer.

I see only disconnect.

Ignorant question repeated forever from Senators.

And in response, we have the eloquent and diplomatic Dr. Samsam Bakhtiari, responding intelligently and with the patience of a prophet, with truth and hard facts.  But still they can't hear him because their political eyes can't see the truth.  The refuse to buy into a truth that forces them to change everything about their dinasaur life.  So the endless disconnect will only be resolved in the dinasaur tar pit.  And let's hope that people don't follow their leaders into extinction.

Samsam goes on heroically...

> The Americans do not have enough gas. The Americans had the incredible chance to have the
> mildest winter last year in 100 years. If that had not happened, I do not know where the price of
> gas would be today. That was very lucky, and they now have enough reserves for the coming
> winter because all the storage depots are almost full. That is a positive point, but the Europeans
> do not have that kind of chance, so you will have lots of problems. The price of LNG is going to
> go sky high because everybody will want LNG-in America, Mexico and Canada, which are in
> full decline; in all the South-East Asian countries and especially in China; and even in Europe. If
> the Europeans cannot get the Russian gas, their only solution will be to get LNG from wherever
> they can.
>
> I can tell you that, with gas prices in the US being around $6 per barrel, you have LNG spot
> sales today of $12 per barrel-and we are in a normal situation. So, wait for the panic and you
> will have prices of $25 or $30 per barrel, and maybe much more than that. For one week in
> March this year the British did not have enough gas and the price of gas shot up to $258 per
> barrel oil equivalent. At first I thought I had made a mistake of one decimal place, but then I
> realised it was not $25.8-it was $258. For one week they were paying that price for their gas.
> And we are in a very normal situation now; we are not at peak yet. So you can imagine how it is
> going to be when it is at peak, with the panic in all those countries because of the winter months.
> Just wait and see how it develops this winter in Europe.

So, again we are back again starting at the abyss of hopelessness if we follow the Senators, or we can formulate a new question.  One about changing the fundamental way that we live on earth separate from oil as a resource.

Will the brain dead Senators come back to life?

> Senator WEBBER-That is pretty dark.

Yes Senator, your future is dark if you keep taking us all there.  Your leadership is dark if you keep pushing your old paradigms.  You are dark lord of the future that Samsam describes if you don't formulate a child-simple question about change and stop running us all into your tar pit.

Does anyone have anything intelligent to say here, Senators?

> Senator JOYCE-Going back to the biorenewable fuels issue, ethanol is being used in
> Brazil, and the terminal gate price of ethanol in Australia is around 80c a litre, so the reason that
> it is not being utilised is that the oil companies refuse to take it up. I have heard of a lot of what
> is going wrong but what we are really looking for is the solution; we are looking for the way out.
> Or is the world as we know it going to come to an end and this is just a prologue to the end? We
> need to find the solution.
>
> I do not say ethanol is a panacea but it is certainly a mitigating circumstance. We need to take
> it up. It could run conjointly with a whole range of issues. I have two questions. Firstly, if
> ethanol is not the answer, can you explain why it is being used so prolifically in places like
> Brazil, and why the United States, Europe and Asia are all taking it on board as a component of
> trying to deal with the impending oil crisis-or the oil crisis that is already here, apparently?

Ugh!  Another run into the tar pits. 

Anything else, esteemed Senator Joyce?

> Secondly, what is your solution? What is the noble horizon we need to head towards in order to
> maintain our current standards of living and economies?

Double Ugh!  You missed it all again.  How many years Senator?  When does the Lemming reconsider it's direction?  Do you have to be in the tar pit to change your mind?  Do you have to be smashed on the rocks first?  Halfway down?  At what point in the death of our civilization are you ready to do something that does not rely upon oil as feedstock to your tax revenues?

Samsam, I am lost.  I am consumed by disrespect for these fools.  If you go on from here, please take my blessings and good wishes with you.  I cannot go any further.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Allow me to take those questions one by one. First I will address the
> alternatives. Brazil can use ethanol as a fuel because of its enormous amount of sugarcane. There
> is also the idea of self-sufficiency. People like the Brazilians and the South Africans always have
> a complex about self-sufficiency. If the South Africans have gone after GTL and have pursued
> coal to liquids, it is because they want to be self-sufficient. It was not an economic decision; it
> was a political decision. I think the Brazilians are in somewhat the same situation. For them,
> because of the enormous amount of sugarcane they have, it does make some sense, but I really
> doubt that it makes a lot of sense in terms of energy. And I believe that, come the day there is
> conflict between producing ethanol or biodiesel and producing food, food is going to win
> because, first of all, you have to eat.
>
> There is another danger in Brazil. They are destroying the Amazon rainforest at the rate of
> some 20,000 square kilometres per year and on that land they are planting food crops-in
> enormous amounts. I think that this will also be part of the future: when the other countries do
> not have enough food, they will go back to the Brazilians. Brazil has become one of the largest
> exporters of food in the world, whether it be soya beans, sugar, coffee or beef. It is almost
> anything. They have the surpluses. The Americans are also trying to get the ethanol. It makes a
> small dent for the time being, but not a very big one. I think that it is only a question of a few
> million gallons. I do not know what percentage you have, but it is not very much.

OK, so what does the wise Senator say to this?

> Senator JOYCE-Our percentage is pathetic.

Of course, the kind and wise Senator can only decry that his government and society is not deeper into the fake alternative (and taxable) mal-investments.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-All of the others are trying. I heard there are a few million in
> Australia, but it will not make a very big difference, so I am not very keen on these types of bio
> alternatives. As for your second question about what should be done, there are many things.
> Everyone should study their own situation and see what can be done with the possibilities at
> hand, and not one thing, not two, but 10, 20 or 50... congregate 1,200 people from different walks of life in
> teams of eight, give them each a computer and have all of these ideas go back to the top for the
> selection of the ones they think are viable and useful. Have teams of elders. You have a fantastic
> man out there, Mr Brian Fleay. He predicted peak oil in 1995. It is extraordinary what he did. He
> was maybe the second person, after Dr Campbell, to have done that. And he did it almost from
> scratch. So people like this could have predicted that in 1995-in 1995 he wrote his book, so he
> must have predicted it in 1993 or 1994.


> Senator JOYCE-Sorry, I have missed something. What is this team of elders?

> CHAIR-What he is talking about is dialogue with the city.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes, to have these people present their ideas and solutions, and then
> to build on that through a committee of elders. Or create steering committees through such
> people, and then get younger people to come in, very bright people, to start setting the priorities,
> because one day you will have to set priorities for the use of petrol. Have these in place soon,
> maybe in the next year or two. You will not need them in the next year or two, but have them in
> place already so that you are prepared. Get prepared for any eventuality. Have a special
> committee for that now. That is what I can see. I can advise that such things should be done this
> year or next year so that when or if the crisis really hits, then you have something to fall back on;
> you have a team that is already prepared and who has thought these problems through.
> Thinking about these problems is very important, but there is something else. It is going to be
> very, very difficult to change the minds, to have the minds set on the new realities. For six
> generations we have been thinking one way-that is, that petrol is always there, petrol is not too
> expensive, oil products are not too expensive. We do not think about it. We do not think about
> fertilisers. We do not think about insecticides. Why? They are not that expensive, so it does not
> come into the day-to-day consideration. Petrol was always $1, not that much of a problem. We
> are used to that. The problem is going to be when it becomes $3 or $4 or $5. Then people will
> notice. Already at $1.40, some people are beginning to think about it, so when it becomes higher
> they have to change their minds, their way of thinking and their way of planning.

There.  Samsam is telling you to think of something other than what you are thinking.  Can you "get it"?  Or will I collapse here and go blank with frustration like my computer does whenever I demand too much from it's processor speed?

> Senator JOYCE-But changing the way people think is a very hard task. That is not really a
> solution; it is nirvana. I want to go back to shale oil. They say there are three trillion barrels of
> shale oil equivalent in China and two trillion barrels in the United States, and I think we have
> 440 billion barrels of equivalent shale oil between Proserpine and Gladstone. Surely if the price
> of oil keeps heading north, this potential oil will begin to be exploited. Can you give me your
> impressions? You have gone through gas to liquid and coal to liquid. Do you have any opinions
> on the shale oil issue?

No, of course the wise and good Senator Joyce says that it is too hard to change the way people think.  His job is to lie to them about their rosy future.  And to support resource wars to support the lie.  And to collect precious tax revenues all the way to the tar pits of extinction.  

Who is finding it difficult to change their thinking, Senator?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes. There is a lot of shale-many thousands. There is an enormous
> amount of oil in there, but it is a very messy and difficult industry. In Canada, you have about
> 1.1 million barrels per day of synthetic crude oil produced, which is being exported mostly to the
> US, and which makes economic sense, especially at the prices of $74 to $75 per barrel. I think it
> costs them around $30 to $40 per barrel, so they are making some money. But I think it is
> limited, and I think the limits to that industry are, according to my prediction, roughly three
> million barrels per day. I cannot see Canada or the US together making more than three million
> barrels per day at the 2020 or 2025 horizon, investing enormous amounts of money. The shale
> oil industry is like the oil industry. You go to the best places first, naturally. And then, as you go
> along, it gets more difficult, it gets more expensive and it gets messier. I think you need roughly
> 2,000 tonnes of shale oil to make one barrel of synthetic crude oil. You can imagine, on an
> enormous scale, what that involves for the land and for everywhere else.

Are we back at Shale again?  I lost count how many times and how many ways this gets discounted as an 'alternative' to oil.  Samsam has superhuman qualities of a Ghandi, let me tell you.  This guy is the greatest.

Watch him lead the horses gently back to the water of truth.  And then, well, we know what happens next don't we?  These horses don't drink truth, they just drop more of their s**t.

> Already, at the level of 1.1 million barrels a day, the Canadian rivers are becoming so polluted
> as to have triggered alarm bells over Canada; the fish are dying and it will soon be impossible to
> clean up all the rivers. There are side problems for that as well. If one day we reach three million
> barrels per day I do not know what the situation will be there, but I do not think we can go
> further than three million; that is it.
>
> There is also the heavy oil in Venezuela. Today there are 600,000 barrels of capacity. I do not
> think the Venezuelans can go beyond twice that amount, and with the government they have now
> they are stuck with their 600,000. I do not think anybody will be willing to invest in such
> expensive and difficult processes of exploitation. But even if the conditions were right I think
> they can go to 1.2. I really cannot see them going much further than that. So, yes, there is the
> potential but you have to transform the potential into production.
>
> I forgot to tell you about the tar sands and the shale oil. All the heat you need for that comes
> from natural gas. You are spending 1½ million BTUs for every barrel you are going to produce;
> that makes a lot of gas. What the Americans are beginning to tell the Canadians is, 'We'd rather
> have this gas than anything else.' So you have other problems that arise in this exploitation-at
> most, three million for tar sands and shale and one million for the Orinoco heavy oil. That makes
> a total of four million over the next 20 or 25 years. It will not change a thing for people-it is a
> drop of water-in the 81 we are facing now.

A drop in the ocean.  Oil shale.  Again Samsam explains.

Next?

> Senator JOYCE-Everyone knows about the price of fuel in Venezuela-I think you can buy
> a litre of petrol for 6c or 7c or something; it is still cheap-and we know what the price of petrol
> is on the streets in Australia. The organisations that control basically from the wellhead to the
> bowser are predominantly the same four major oil companies. We know that the price of
> Chevron has gone through the roof and that the price of Caltex domestically has gone through
> the roof, so they are making a far greater return on their asset. Can you say what you believe is
> their interest in the future-where oil prices are going? Can you also give some sort of indication
> about what sort of control the major oil companies have through the whole process of oil
> production as it stands today, from the oilwell to the bowsers? What form of control do they
> have over the total production of that product? What sorts of profits do you think they would
> intend to make in the future?

Didn't we already try this one?  The price thing and the gouging thing?  Aren't we getting tired of torturing Samsam with thorny nonsense over and over like a clown suit made from a cactus?

Aren't we tired of watching how bottomless intellect and patience responds to dead weight?
 
> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I think that oil companies are like all corporations: they want to
> make profits, and they want to make the highest return for their shareholders. In 2005, they set
> new records in every country for profits. I think that in 2006 they will have far higher returns
> and record profits of, maybe, $50 billion for Exxon or something like that. It will be roughly the
> same, maybe $40 billion, for BP and a bit less, maybe, for Shell. Their shares will be reevaluated
> all the time as the price of oil goes up-and, as I told you, it can only go up.
>
> But they control part of the system. You have many players. You have the national oil
> companies now, like Saudi Aramco, the National Iranian Oil Company and the national oil
> companies of Kuwait or Qatar. The oil companies control part of the system and it seems that
> their share of oil production is beginning to decline as well. It is still quite substantial, but it is
> also beginning to decline. Naturally, I think they are in it for the profits, and they control
> wherever they are from the wellhead all the way down to the retail. I think they get profit centres
> all along the way, and they are making enormous profits.

Ho hum.  Nothing new there.  Profits get higher from limited reserves as reserves shrink in size.  So what are we going to do?  Government controls of course.  Duh.  Kill the goose and throw the egg away and starve.  Don't plant your own food and don't think outside of the oil barrel.  Keep focused on next quarter profits and next term votes.

> Senator JOYCE-The issue I am getting at is a transfer pricing issue. By the time the fuel
> gets to Australia, the same organisation controlled entity has made its profit offshore. It is only
> the final stage. The purpose of Australia is just to move the product, not to make the profit. That
> would be a fair statement, wouldn't it?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Sorry, Senator?

> Senator JOYCE-Everyone talks about the terminal gate price of fuel as if that is the true
> price. It is a transfer pricing issue. By the time the fuel arrives in Australia, the same controlled
> entity has made the profit overseas. The purpose of Australia is to move the final product of
> petrol-not to make profit but to move product-because the profit has been made before the
> product actually arrives in Australia. The purpose of the Australian retail market is to move
> product, not to make profit. Therefore, it would be the intent of the oil industry to keep
> exclusively their product out there in the market and not encourage an alternative market apart
> from their product, which is oil.

So let's kill the goose and throw the golden egg away and starve, not growing our own food, right Senator?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes. Certainly that is one of the goals of any corporation which
> makes a product: not to have rivals in the field and to try somehow to destroy or not let them in.
> Certainly you have this factor. I do not think that any oil company would be very happy to see an
> enormous boom in biodiesels, unless they could control it, which they cannot. So it will be
> certainly in their interest to see alternatives. Some oil companies want to get into solar and into
> other types of alternatives, but I do not think it is their job or their way of doing things.
> Somebody is going to do it much better than that.

OK that was pointless.

Will any Senator make a useful point and stop wasting Samsam's time?  I think you guys have made your desires quite clear.

> Senator STERLE-I have two questions. If we were to take all the alternatives around the
> world-solar, hydro, gas, CTL, GTL and all those-how far off subsidising our thirst for oil
> would that be? Could we supply the world's demands? Nowhere near it?

Where have you been Senator?  Oh yes, by the way, we can supply all of the world's demands with alternatives.

Did you just wake up from your nap or what?  Are you still dreaming and talking in your sleep?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Very, very little. In any scenario and in any field for the next, say, 20
> years: very, very little. It is a drop of water. If you make the calculation of increasing even by
> 100 per cent every single year, it is still a drop of water in solar, in biodiesel, in anything.

 
> Senator STERLE-So there really is no alternative at this stage?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-No.

Again, very diplomatic of you, Samsam.

> Senator STERLE-You spoke about Western Australia and the free public transport. I think
> it is going to send some ripples, but we really are faced in the world today-and I can only talk
> of Australia and my home state in particular-with some very hard decisions to be made.

Oh yeah.  Like, how are we going to keep on using oil and keep on collecting taxes and keep on growing our government?  Only one way if you use oil isn't it Senator?  Demand destruction.  Or, if you get voted out of power then we might have a more humane alternative.   Ha, the only alternative to oil is an alternative to you!
 
> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes.

Diplomatically spoken Samsam.
 
> Senator STERLE-It will bring in a lot of side issues of employment and revenue for
> governments-all sorts of things will pop up. If we are not fair dinkum in what we are leaving
> for the next generation-for our environment, our economies, our communities and our world-
> we really are in serious trouble. I pick up on that earlier comment you made about public
> transport and integrating public transport in trains and buses and whatever else there might be. It
> is not nirvana; it is a reality that we really are confronted with and we have to face.

Right Senator.  "It is reality" and "we have to face" it, as you say.  But will you?  Not according to a single word spoken in this session today.  But you will face it one way or another won't you Senator?  Either now with truth or later when your lies die their natural death.

Even politicians eventually have to face reality.
 
> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes. Provided that our models and our predictions are correct, this is
> exactly what you are going to face very soon. I do not want to be more negative, but I have
> started looking into T2, T3 and T4, and, my God, there are some things I started seeing down
> there that really send shudders up my spine. But I will spare you that today. Maybe that is for
> another time.

Right Samsam.  I suspect you are going to lead into the food and biological weapons and resource wars equation.

> Senator STERLE-We feel bad enough as it is.

You feel bad Senator?  But we haven't even crested over the peak yet.  This is just getting started.  The Iraq war is a vision of our future if we all continue to think as you do, and allow people like you to lead us.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-But I entirely agree with your statement. It should be done if only to
> get prepared so that if things go the wrong way you have something to fall back on-that you
> have some organisation which you have already set up. As the crisis develops you develop this
> organisation and make it ever bigger and more powerful to take care of the crisis. There are
> companies which are employing 300,000 people in 140 countries who do not know a thing about
> peak oil. I do not know how they are going to react tomorrow. The Europeans do not want to
> believe this reality. Next year they are going to start-they have already started-dying from the
> cold. According to my statistics, at least 900 people in eastern European countries froze to death
> last year. This year it is going to be double or triple that amount. This is the reality already. When
> there is a real crisis, how are they going to react?
>
> The most important point is that governments do not to cause people to panic. The worst
> reaction to this type of crisis will be panic. If governments are not prepared there will be panic.
> The more prepared governments and institutions are, the less panic you will have. Panics are
> very costly. I entirely agree with what you just said. There is still time to get prepared. We are
> not that much down the T1 slope. It will be a very slow development, so there is time.

But Samsam, I prefer panic to just happily running off the cliff with these guys.  Sorry, but panic might be the only antidote we have against their tar pits.

> Senator STERLE-Apart from what you saw in Perth with the free public transport around
> the CBD, are any other countries taking that lead?
 
> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-No, nobody.

Ha, nobody leading us away from Peak Oil.  That means, everyone is either leading us into the tar pits or following the leaders into the tar pits.  What a moronic civilization we have.  That thought begs the question: Do we deserve this?

> There might be a city or two, but I have not heard of
> any that have taken this drastic step already, and I have not seen such things at all. I can tell you
> that the future is to rails because rails are the most fuel efficient system. Would you like to see
> some figures on that? I can illustrate this for you on the whiteboard. This will give you an order
> of magnitude. At tonne kilometres per litre of fuel, aeroplanes are between two and three, cars
> are between 10 and 22, trucks are between 65 and 85 and trains are around 320. So on these very
> simple figures, I think you can see that the future is to trains, but not trains that you build now;
> trains that you had and that you are going to spend money on. I have heard that Sydney in 2006
> is planning to spend half its budget on roads and other infrastructures and half on public
> transportation-it seems to be roughly fifty-fifty. I think that as soon as you change this
> percentage towards rail and public, fuel efficiency might begin to make some sense. I think you
> can see the future here.

> CHAIR-It is not planes.

Senator, you are a genius.  The future is not planes.  Good work.  Which think tank told you that?
 
> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Aeroplanes will be the first casualty in the system. They are already
> making losses. I do not know how they can carry on because the jet fuel is directly proportional
> to the increases in crude oil. It is not like petrol. Petrol is very much cheaper because you have
> hidden subsidies and you have the taxes naturally.

> Senator MILNE-I have a strategic question about Iran's contribution to global oil supply as
> well as to gas. What percentage of global reserves does Iran hold? If Iran were to stop supplying
> overnight for a geopolitical reason, what impact would that have on 81 million barrels used per
> day? In other words, T1 is assuming everything goes along smoothly. Let us assume there is a
> geopolitical crisis and Iran decides to stop supplying into that 81 million barrels a day. What
> impact would that have?

Ho hum... have our leaders taken us to the stupid question number one million mark yet?  Perhaps we passed it long ago.  Senator Milne gives us more in that direction.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-At present I think that Iran is supplying roughly two million barrels
> of oil for exports. In the case of some geopolitical problem, you would have to take the two
> million out of the 81 million. That in itself would not be very harsh. Why? Because major
> consuming countries have their strategic petroleum reserves. They could start taking it out of
> their reserves. The latest data on the US SPR is that they have 688 million barrels in their
> reserves. I believe that the Japanese must have something around 120 million barrels. The
> Europeans, all together, have roughly the same amount as the Japanese. The Chinese are trying
> to build up a strategic reserve of roughly 40 million barrels, but they have not started yet. Maybe
> they hope for the price of crude oil to come a bit lower before they start. They could do that.
> What would be impacting heavily on the price is the psychological impact of any geopolitical
> happening, whether in the Persian Gulf or in South-East Asia. Because the leeway in T1 is
> extremely small-as I have tried to mention to you-the slightest impact geopolitically will have
> enormous consequences. If you had in Saudi Arabia, for example, or anywhere else, some two
> million to three million barrels of spare capacity-that you usually had before-then people
> would not be so worried about this geopolitical impact. But you do not have spare capacity
> anymore. I do not believe the Saudis have any spare capacity today, although they say they have
> a million or 1½ million barrels. They have no spare capacity. Nobody, in my opinion-neither
> OPEC, nor non-OPEC, nor the Russians, nor the Saudis-has any spare capacity. It would have
> an enormous impact. The price could go anywhere.
>
> I will give you just one example of what we in NOIC did in 1975 after the first price shock,
> when the price went from roughly $2 per barrel to $11 per barrel. To find out what the real price
> was NOIC set up an auction, saying, 'We have a few barrels and we are going to auction these
> barrels, so whoever is interested should give us a bid.' Through the bids, we found out what the
> real price was. Some bids were up to $41. There were people who were willing, at $11 per
> barrel, to pay $41.

Fixed system with artificial depressed pricing?  An insiders game to control a strategic commodity in a supposedly free market system?  Sounds like silver.  Sounds like the US dollar and all fiat currencies.  Sounds like our whole bloated capitalist system and fake two-party electronic voting driven government.  It's all fixed.  And these Senators are fixed too!  End of story. 

Samsam continues...

> Then you have the problem that the national oil companies today in the Middle East and in
> OPEC are not what they were in the past. That is another problem. If there is a disruption, as
> long as the system is working, you have little problem. It just goes on and on. You see that in
> cases of earthquake or catastrophe. Once there is a catastrophe, it is very difficult to put it back
> to the way it was before. You see it taking 10, 12 or 15 years to bring it back. If you have
> geopolitical problems in the Middle East, it will be very difficult after the crisis has been
> fortunately somehow solved to put the system back to where it was before. For all these
> reasons-and because of the herd instinct and the panic that might follow-you could easily
> have prices doubling overnight. If somebody were smart enough to have an auction, you would
> see prices that even I could not imagine today.

> Senator MILNE-You have just talked about the strategic ramifications of even two million
> barrels being taken out. Australia, as you know, has just signed up to long-term gas exports to
> China at a fixed price. Given what you have just said, that looks like an increasingly bad deal.

Ha ha ha... fixed price of a booming commodity.  Good deal!

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-At a fixed price?

> Senator MILNE-That is what I said. Yes, I can see that you are not impressed by the
> brilliance of that and neither are we, but nevertheless the Prime Minister and Premier Wen both
> opened the terminal in China recently, celebrating Australia selling bulk gas at a fixed price-to
> the horror of much of our country. But there are some people who are saying that given what we
> are having with peak oil and approaching peak gas and given Australia's wealth in gas and the
> importance of gas as a transition fuel Australia ought not be exporting gas, that we should be
> keeping gas as a transition fuel as transition 1, if you like, goes to the more difficult transitions 2,
> 3 and 4. What is your view about that?

Senator, with all due respect, that is about on the same level as all of your questions, as all of your tax base systems, and everything about you.  Counterproductive and idiotic comes to mind.

Samsam?
 
> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-I cannot comment on political decision-taking by national politicians
> but I believe that gas is a very strategic commodity today and the more you have the better it will
> be. You will certainly see in the next few years, even during transition 1, cases of what they call
> in international law 'force majeure' and when you are confronted with force majeure then there
> are many decisions that you can take. Natural gas is certainly a strategic commodity today and
> commodities are becoming very strategic. Commodities like coal and copper, which do not seem
> to be very strategic, are very strategic. Uranium, for example, is already costing $47 or $48,
> which is still very cheap. Uranium was $10 not so long ago when nobody was thinking about it,
> but I can see uranium going way over $100 a pound. All other commodities are important, but
> natural gas is a very strong commodity. You can always use it domestically in the long term and I
> can see that happening easily for gas.

> CHAIR-What would you recommend that we invest in? As a committee we need to make
> recommendations against our terms of reference, so what would you suggest we recommend
> should be the focus of government to deal with this issue?

Oh, here it is, finally.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-It is a very difficult question but I would have one major
> recommendation, and Senator Siewert touched upon it: to create some kind of national steering
> committee of experts in the field, dependent upon this committee maybe, to study as fast as
> possible all these questions, then under the aegis of this steering committee maybe create a very
> small executive committee to study all that and the priorities so that you have something that is
> working. That is the only thing that I could recommend now-to study.

No, Samsam, try something else here.  Let's be specific.  I will take charge if you don't mind.

Senator, what Samsam, er, Dr Bakhtiari wants to say is that you should think outside of the oil barrel for a change and stop pulling your people into the tar pit with your dinasaur ideas.  If you can get your petrified brain to consider a more localized economy that doesn't need your employment, all the better.  What we need is to rid ourselves of the dependence of a finite and dwindling substance.  Get it?  You are just getting in the way of progress, of needed change.

> CHAIR-Where do ships fit in your chart? You have aeroplanes, cars, truck and trains.
> Where does sea transport fit in?

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Ships are way down. Shipping is marvellous, in terms of energy
> efficiency, whether it be cargo or container ships. That is marvellous. Shipping is very good.

> CHAIR-One of the scenarios into the future is likely to be that there will be less air travel
> and more ship transport and cargo.

Brilliant!

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Yes, certainly. Aeroplanes in transition 1 are at risk. They are
> already at risk today and they are going to be much more at risk than that. Air travel will have to
> be more and more reduced in the future and it is going to be more and more expensive.

> Senator JOYCE-We might have to secede.
 
> Senator WEBBER-You would not be the first. And I am not walking or catching the train
> from Western Australia.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Shipping will come back because the factor of time is not going to
> be as important as the factor of energy efficiency.

> CHAIR-If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should be investing now as a
> matter of priority in public transport.

No, I would not say that primarily.  But Samsam, maybe you should do the talking for me...

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Certainly, yes. Right now. As soon as possible. Start tomorrow on
> public transport. It is better than starting the day after tomorrow. You also have the problem that,
> at some stage, you will not be able to invest that easily. The further we go down the line,
> investment gets more difficult. People who think they will undertake projects in 10 years time do
> not realise the problems of making these projects. I will give you two examples. The Europeans
> have woken up to this lately. They now want to bring gas from the Persian Gulf to Europe, but
> that is a 20-year project and it will cost at least $25 billion. It is not feasible today. They are
> dreaming. And even if they think of putting a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan to India, they are
> also dreaming. You cannot do that today. It is too late. You could have done that as long as you
> were on the curve, but when you are on the top the projects have to be smaller and smaller and
> you have to start them as soon as possible, and not get caught up by the events. It is a different
> way to do things.

Samsam, you are a diplomat.  But what good does all this banter do?  They will just promote that they talked with you and continue doing the same things.

> CHAIR-I think we are finished. Thank you for giving us so much of your time.

Finished, indeed.  And you are going to finish your society with your stupidity as well.

> Dr Samsam Bakhtiari-Thank you for your attention, Madam Chair, and thank you senators. 
> I hope it was interesting.


The discussions went on, but I couldn't bear any more.  I left with a bad headache and stomachache and heartache.

Take care,
Tate