Congratulations to Lise Maring, Bruce Thomson, and Kendrick Holder for their
bold and clear thinking.
I think most readers will agree that it's best to be realistic when
navigating the treacherous Strait of Messina (between the rock of Energy
Depletion and the of whirlpool Overpopulation). Realism is crucial. So is
the optimism (i.e. confidence) that you can be a Darwinian survivor. In that
regard, Bruce Thomson's scenario (i.e. Message #4, Digest #214, copied
below) is, IMO, realistic and fully consistent with Jay Hanson's dieoff and
my Olduvai Theory.
My presentation to the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, "Crude Oil
Production and Prices: A Look Ahead at OPEC Decision Making Process," last
Friday in Bakersfield, California ended with a Prelude to the Olduvai crash
(pages 12-14, the scenario pasted below):
------------------------
BEGIN EXCERPT OF PTTC PRESENTATION:
>
> 12. THE ROAD AHEAD
>
> The Road Ahead, based on the information in sections 2-11 above, IMO, leads
> directly to war in the Middle East in a matter of months, not years. Oil
> prices will skyrocket. Chaos will spread far and wide. Desperate leaders
> will take desperate measures. The following scenario, of course, is 100%
> fiction but it does convey the magnitude of the problems we face.
>
> Scenario: Early 2001. War breaks out in the Middle East when an agreement
> for the sovereignty of Al Quds (East Jerusalem) fails for the umpteenth
> time. Terror strikes Jerusalem. The police are overwhelmed. The
> conflagration jumps to Tel Aviv and Amman then sweeps westward. Athens
> and Rome erupt. Moscow too. Explosions rip Berlin, Madrid, Paris and
> London. Dublin is not spared. Then it leaps across the Atlantic to New York
> and Washington DC. Even Seattle forgets the WTO riots. Meanwhile oil prices
> go ballistic $100 plus per barrel. Gas stations, supermarkets and stores
> are looted. World leaders panic. "UN" stealth bombers strike "suspected
> terrorist sites" in Tripoli and Baghdad. It's stealth bombers versus
> "stealth bombers", but the latter quickly gain the upper hand. The Sixth
> and Seventh Fleets join the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf. "UN"
> paratroopers occupy all of the oil fields and refineries in the Middle
> East. Banks of Patriot missiles ring Jerusalem. Helicopter gunships hit
> Gaza and Jericho. Israeli "peacekeepers" secure Palestine. Wall Street
> plummets 70% in one day. CUT
>
> Complete speculation, but it could happen.
> 13. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
[snip ]
> ... Regarding 'spare capacity': OPEC Chairman
> Ali Rodriquez on 11 September 2000 emphasized, "World oil production
> capacity is reaching its limit." Regarding oil prices: Dr. Walter
> Youngquist on 10 September 2000 encapsulated the consensus of several
> experts, "It's going to be a seller's market from now on. With
> firm-to-higher prices and steady demand for all the oil that can be
> produced." Agreed, World oil production is near its limit and prices will
> rise. In a more dramatic scenario, however, I believe that the World oil
> data, the oil forecasts and OPEC's hegemony of World oil exports combined
> with the "key-to-peace-and-war" deadlock over East Jerusalem all indicate
> that war is imminent in the Middle East. Consequently oil prices will be
> highly volatile perhaps hitting $100 or more per barrel during the
> coming months.
> Bottom line: The Road Ahead, IMO, leads directly to war in the Middle East
> and beyond causing severe shortages of oil and staggering prices for oil
> and oil products.
END EXCERPT.
-------------------------
COMMENTS:
1. Nobody in the PTTC audience disagreed with the War in the M.E. scenario
and highly volatile oil prices, as pasted above.
2. In fact, an Arab-born man (a petroleum professional) in the audience
completely agreed, saying, "Yes. The path the US and UN are on definitely
leads to war in the Middle East. But I don't think it will spread worldwide
as you suggest."
3. The tales of woe from the "small independent producers" were heart
rending indeed. For example, to forestall the inexorable depletion of the
their oil wells it was proposed (1) to increase the efficiency of the use of
electricity at the well sites (a BIG $ problem now in S. Calif.), (2) to
"wash" the aging bore holes with [sic] 4,200 gallons of hydrochloric acid
per hole to clean out the "gunk" that's blocking the flow of oil. So-called
"Acid Stimulation Treatment to Sustain Production", (3) "DOE's Cost Share
Program", (4) "Reservoir Simulation", (5) "Oil Well Wireless Monitoring",
(6) "Short Radius Lateral Drilling", and other desperate (and costly and
temporary) measures.
4. But there was good news too. The higher prices for oil should keep the
small independents in business for a few years longer.
5. A Clinton & Gore Funny: One PTTC speaker cited a study that put the cost
of 1 barrel of oil from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) at $60 per
barrel (i.e. purchase price + storage + maintenance costs). So Clinton &
Gore are going to bring down the present price of $34 per barrel oil by
selling 30 million barrels of oil that cost the US Government $60 per
barrel. Ho! Ho! Ho! The oilmen roared.
6. My keynote presentation to the Geological Society of America "Summit
2000" (Reno, 13 November) will feature World oil Forecast #5 and the Olduvai
Theory. All I can say for now is that -- SURPRISE -- the proximate cause of
the Thomson-Dieoff-Olduvai crash will neither the oil crisis nor
overpopulation. Tune in tomorrow .........
Meanwhile: Take care, avoid stress, and have fun.
Rich Duncan
-------------------------------------------
FROM DIGEST #214:
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:23:40 -0400
> From: Bruce Thomson <bruce@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 210
>
> At 02:30 AM 9/22/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>>. Seems to me we
>>need to start thinking in new ways to meet this challenge. Either that, or
>>we just sit back, let it all crash, and start all over again........which,
>>come to think of it, might not be a bad idea either.
>>Lise
>
> Lise, my dear pen pal...
>
> Only if you forget to imagine the sickening, degrading horror of the coming
> holocaust of energy crash can you be fatalistic or casual about just
> letting it crash without acting against it.
>
> Here's some concepts that might make us more sober and diligent. These
> things are not to be accepted, but must be foreseen, resisted, fought hard
> now and delayed:
>
> - Millions of Americans and Canadians shocked, out of work, hopeless and
> depressed.
> - Thousands freezing to death in gloomy homes, thousands dying in
> unrelieved city heat.
> - Unlit, dangerous streets. Boarded up shops. Beggars, bodies. White
> Calcutta everywhere.
> - Day and night terror of murder, home invasions, organized criminals,
> protection rackets.
> - Martial law: Fake media, casual speech dangerous, authoritarian torture,
> murder of family/friends
> - All today's elegant shops neglected, dim, shabby caves, bare of goods,
> sparse people. Queues.
> - Squalid parks full of hopeless, dirty, sick, bored people, including
> people we know, and maybe us.
> - Crammed hospitals with no resources. Unrelieved sickness, infections,
> excruciating pain.
> - Stinking air pollution as the public burns even park trees, fences,
> benches, used oil, for warmth.
> - Destruction of forests, bushes, anything burnable. Same for wildlife,
> anything edible.
> - Dilapidated buildings, roads.
>
> It's real.
> It's coming.
> Let's make our lives meaningful by fighting it with everything we've got,
> to at least delay it.
>
> BT
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce Thomson bruce@...
> 777 Craven Road, Toronto ON Canada
> (416) 778-7799
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:30:31 EDT
> From: KHo33333@...
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 210
>
> To: Bruce Thompson
> I cannot disagree with you regarding your graphic description of the
> "die-off". In the face of this catastrophe I think the industrialized nations
> of the world will likely turn to their last resort: Nuclear Power. Nukes
> are
> dangerous (reactor safety), produced tons of dangerous waste and
> inevitably lead to more nuclear weapons (proliferation). Solar Farms
> appear to be prohibitively expensive (Solar Two produced electricity at
> 12-14 cents per kwh before the cost of conversion to hydrogen and
> transmission by special pipelines - special thick pipelines are required
> for hydrogen). Everyone likes solar. It is clean and safe but it does not
> appear to be economically feasible. Nuclear power is reasonably
> economical and can be sited where it is needed. When people are
> starving and freezing to death in the dark they are not going to worry
> very much about nuclear safety. Kendrick Holder
>
> P.S. I have always been opposed to nuclear power.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
FROM DIGEST #210:
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:51:39 EDT
> From: "Lise Maring" <lonewolf1366@...>
> Subject: Re: The dieoff
>
> Just an observation from a sporadic contributor, and some pre-coffee
> ramblings that might trigger some ideas from the engineering folks out
> there.
>
> I get the feeling that this list is changing and starting to look more like
> the Running on Empty list. Is it true then, that all possible energy
> sources have been analyzed and rejected as replacements for fossil fuels?
> If so, it would appear that the main work of this list has been
> accomplished, and the final analysis is not good news for the human race?
>
> So, okay, are we saying that there is no energy source that will totally
> (globally)and seamlessly replace fossil fuel so a change-over will be
> 'invisible to the user'? What, then, is the next possibility? Maybe have
> regional energy sources? We know wind energy works in some areas,
> hydroelectric is in place in others. Coal might still be the way to go in
> other places. Should we be thinking locally instead of globally? Should we
> be thinking about setting up cores of energy sources that we can expand
> from? What would it take to power NYC alone, for example. Could the
> smaller towns have their own sources? I keep thinking of that book "Small
> is Beautiful" by E.F. Schumacher.
>
> Well, I'm not an energy source expert nor an engineer. So, just consider
> these the rantings of an 'uneducated' person but, seems to me, there must be
> some middle ground, assuming there's time to do it, between having to have a
> global source and a world where its everyone for themselves. Seems to me we
> need to start thinking in new ways to meet this challenge. Either that, or
> we just sit back, let it all crash, and start all over again........which,
> come to think of it, might not be a bad idea either.
>
> Lise
>
Install the new Firefox