Ventura on Peak Oil, the end of American empire, and railroads

[villager]

From his latest "Letters at 3 a.m." column

$4 a gallon

BY MICHAEL VENTURA


America is over. America is like Wile E. Coyote after he's run out a few paces past the edge of the cliff – he'll take a few more steps in midair before he looks down. Then, when he sees that there's nothing under him, he'll fall. Many Americans suspect that they're running on thin air, but they haven't looked down yet. When they do ...

Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, a pillar of the Establishment with access to economic information beyond our reach, wrote recently: "Circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember. ... What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do anything about it" (quoted in The Economist, April 16, p.12). Volcker chooses words carefully: "dangerous and intractable," "willingness or capacity." He's saying: The situation is probably beyond our powers to remedy.

<snip>

$4 a gallon by next spring, and rising – $5, then $6, probably $10 by 2010 or thereabouts. Their economy can afford it; ours can't. We may hobble along with more or less the same way of life for the next dollar or so of hikes, but at around $4 America changes. Drastically.

The "exburbs" and the rural poor will feel it first and hardest. Exburbians moved to the farthest reaches of suburbia for cheap real estate, willing to drive at least an hour each way to work. Many live marginally now. What happens when their commute becomes prohibitively expensive, just as interest rates and inflation rise, while their property values plummet? Urban real estate will go up, so they won't be able to live near their jobs – and there's nowhere else to go. In addition, thanks to Congress' recent shameless activity, bankruptcy is no longer an option for many. What happens to these people? Exburb refugees. A modern Dust Bowl.
<snip>

There's only one section of our economy that has that kind of money: the military budget. The U.S. now spends more on its military than all other nations combined. A sane transit to a post-automobile America will require a massive shift from military to infrastructure spending. That shift would be supported by our bankers in China and Europe (that is, they would continue to finance our debt) because it's in their interests that we regain economic viability. What's not in their interests is that we remain a military superpower.

And that's where things get really interesting. The question becomes:

Can America face reality?

<snip>

more at:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-04-29/cols_ventura.html

[oneighty]

1. "What me worry?"

"We are all going to be dead anyway."

180

[lala_rawraw]

20. Well it is the strategy, no?

Too many people, not enough resources.... solution would be?

I don't even want to see my own speculation in font:(

[Fovea]

24. Entering the Age of Malthus?

Probably not, but wow will things ever get bleak.

I agree that $4/gal is a great shot for that tipping point.

I also agree that it is in our creditor's best interest to help us land softly. But first comes the smack down. We will have to be shown the alternative to cooperation.

Agriculture will suck up some workers. It will become a labor intensive process again. The difference is that truck farming is dead. Farming will be the new exurban occupation.

Globalism will shrink, and manufacture of most consumer items will be local at franchise factories. I may buy a Bang and Olfsen CD player, but it will be made in Kansas City, not Sweden.

For bigger ticket items, assembly teams will contract at a local factory, and build in-place.

Human power will be back for a lot of gadgets. Get used to pedaling, you will be doing it a lot. Not because we couldn't do these things with rechargeable and solar, but because the culture will adopt economy of energy, not time, as it the current paradigm.

New materials currently use a lot of oil, so when you buy that composite doodad, you will not be thinking of replacing it soon.
There will simply be no room for a product with designed obsolescence.

It will be a lot harder to do than I make it sound. And it will look like a Mad Max movie in places, but I believe in hairless monkeys, and their poo-flinging intransigence regarding doom.

[Delphinus]

28. Yes.

You said: "I also agree that it is in our creditor's best interest to help us land softly. But first comes the smack down. We will have to be shown the alternative to cooperation."

First comes the smack down - and if we had a responsible government, this would have already happened. Tell the truth - we can handle it!

Life is going to change - and since we're aware, we hold the advantage because we can start adapting now, before the herd.

[villager]

34. & another "yes" here: "the culture will adopt economy of energy...

...not time, as the current paradigm."

That is really well put...

[slor]

2. Thanks for posting this...

too bad we have a moron in charge at this time. If I lived in a rural area, I would start working, with my neighbors, on farming. Hell, even we urban folk may want to start thinking in those terms.

[villager]

3. farming and self-sustenance are always good

Ventura lays out a different scenario, involving rehabbing the rail system, for keeping urban areas viable. I'll post a separate section in this thread about that...

[AliB]

11. Here's a recent article

from the sf gate about exactly what you mention.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/23/EBG247MA251.DTL&type=news

Imagine all the water and land used for golf courses, cemeteries, parks, residential landscaping, etc that is purely for decoration. It's almost like there's a phobia of having edible plants in the cities. I live in San Diego and it blows me away that people will spend a dollar for an avocado while we live in one of the only areas of the country where you could grow thousands of them each year in an average back yard.

[villager]

35. we'll be bringing back the "victory garden"

soon enough!

[villager]

50. just read the article...

...an inspiration/model to us all for the times ahead... thanks...

[trekbiker]

37. exactly...

talk about the wrong guy in the wrong job at the wrong time..

Bush is the absolute worst at the absolute critical time. Imagine if Gore was Prez. He understands whats coming

[phantom power]

4. Just a guess, but...

I wouldn't hold my breath for our current neo-con government to "face reality" and kow-tow to China. After all, these are the same nut-jobs who think they create reality.

Just a guess.

[villager]

5. no question it won't be *this* government

question is, can we get a "reality-based" administration in... in time?

[Boomer]

8. Unlikely

Even if it weren't for Diebold and other issues that have basically destroyed the election process, too many Americans don't seem to want a reality-based government. They certainly don't want to hear the truth. As times get worse, they'll listen to anyone -- anyone -- who offers them a palatable illusion of the future.

In my darker moments, I wonder if such a person will make * look good in comparison....

[villager]

10. well, more Americans voted for "reality-based," after all...

I don't think the Other Side can do better than a 50/50 split, so what will happen to America as a (cohesive) whole under the "collapsed empire" scenario remains to be seen...

Perhaps like Rome and England different geographical parts will seek separate destinies...

[Frederik]

31. Arnold Schwartzenegger. n/t

[stillcool]

6. Great article.... I particularly liked the end...

'The America we've known is over – very soon. The America we can create is up to us'

Forgive my ignorance but can you tell me what kind of publication the Austin Chronicle is? Articles on the effects of oil are not an easy find in the main-stream, and i'm curious, especially being that its Austin.

[villager]

7. it's an "alternative" paper....

Austin's version of the LA Weekly, or Village Voice, etc...

[stillcool]

9. ah...Thanks!! n/t

[chlamor]

12. nominate

[ThoughtCriminal]

13. Naturally, Bush is trying to kill passenger rail

On the Titanic, he would have burned the lifeboats on the theory that it would warm up the water.

[villager]

14. he would've burned lifeboats...

...if his handlers told him there was a profit to be made from it...

[many a good man]

15. No country gets two centuries anymore

No country gets two centuries anymore. The 21st will be China's century. That's what $4-plus a gallon means, and nothing can stop it.

They are in a much better position because they don't rely on cars as much as we do. They only need oil to power their industry and transport their exports. American corporations have already found that it is energy costs are less in China because they are less wasteful than Americans. Combined with low labor costs, there's no good reason to produce hardly anything here in the old USA...

[starroute]

16. Michael Ventura's an interesting writer

I've been catching pieces of his here and there for twenty years -- and for at least that long, he's been suggesting that sooner or later, American was going to face a day of reckoning and find it had very few real friends in the world.

I suspect, though, that even he's a little shocked now that it's actually happening.

[tom_paine]

17. Oh my yes, the bad times are a-comin'

Which is why the Busheviks have so swiftly put their Police State on the books.

They want to be ready to crush us like bugs when sh*t gets so bad that even the sleepiest fools will awake.

Too late.

[Boo Boo]

18. It's not that I don't fear Peak Oil, but, with all due respect...

This guy is full of shit. "...post-automobile America..."

Give me a break.

:eyes:

[villager]

22. thanks for the deep, reasoned analysis...

n/t

[Boo Boo]

23. Sure, no problem.

Saying that Peak Oil will have serious economic impact is one thing, and certainly justified, but the idea that we are on the verge of "...post-automobile America..." is absurd.

I would hope that this is a self-evident point.

[Fovea]

25. You would hope that this is a self-evident point

But I think it is not.

Why would you say that it is self-evident?
I am curious.

[villager]

30. well, that's a little better...

if oil spikes suddenly, though, and since no significant numbers of "non gas" cars are available, his point is well taken, in the context of an America essentially "built" around the car, to one that, quite suddenly, can't be...

[trekbiker]

38. autos will be here a long time to come..

100 to 200mpg cars running on oil, bio fuels, electric, etc. A Prius that gets 120-185mpg has already been demonstrated (of course it charges up at night). Solar and wind have great potential as efficiencies go up (assuming personal energy consumption can go down significantly). I'm not ready to give up on technology's ability to surprise and overcome obstacles. People can learn to live using a lot less energy than we presently do. I can see a day where gas costs $20 gallon but autos get 5, 10 times the mileage, we drive slower, commute less miles. Autos can be made smaller, lighter, much more efficient. Hybrid technologies are just beginning and will be amazing. A big breakthru in electric storage technology and PV efficiency could change everything. Also, as demand for oil flattens out or falls due to high price, it is possible that the apex of "peak oil" could be drawn out for a long long time.

Rail systems are great and need to be expanded. But what about the first 3-5 miles to get to the station and the last 3-5 miles to get to your workplace? same goes with shopping, etc. I dont think we'll be going back to thousands of tiny little villages surrounded by livestock and farms any time soon, if ever.

[villager]

39. "what about the first 3-5 miles to get to the station

"...and the last 3-5 miles to get to your workplace?"


Good question: Bicycles, jitneys, neighborhood cabs, etc., augmenting whatever private, gas-based car use there is...

[Boo Boo]

40. Yes. Thank you.

I've been meaning to post something like this here, but it's kinda hard to work up the enthusiasm.

At the very least we'll end up with cars that you plug into the wall. But there are certainly lots of other ways to go. The issue here is really the cost of living in general. Powering cars will, at least in the near future continue to get more expensive, but that doesn't mean that people will stop driving. It means they'll stop doing other things. You don't give up the things you can't do without, you give up the things you can do without.

Ultimately, it's about energy in general, not just Oil. I'll buy a car that you can plug into the wall. OK, so where's the energy come from for that? Natural Gas, coal, etc. Well, the NG isn't going to last forever either, so there is still an ongoing problem of where we are going to get cheap energy---not just for cars, but for industrial processes, lighting our homes, all that stuff.

Hopefully, we are looking at a fuel cell future, powered by Hydrogen. We still need to find a cheap source of Hydrogen though. In the meantime we need to be investing in efficiency. Dick Cheney is obviously dead wrong on this point, it is not a "personal virtue," it's a matter of national security. We are currently fiddling while Rome burns, and that's gotta change.

So bring on the high Oil prices. The sooner reality sets in the better. The car is not going away. The question is really one of disposable income. As the cost of living goes up (i.e. Oil prices) how much will disposable income be reduced? Just how small is our economy going to get?

Post-automobile America? More like post-Bass-Boat America. Around my neck of the woods it's pretty common to see families piled into the truck, loaded up with off-road vehicals, headed out to the desert for some weekend family fun. Those aren't rich folks, and it's an open question whether that level of consumer spending will continue without cheap, plentiful energy supplies.

[Stuckinthebush]

46. Good points

Post bass boat America. The automobile will be here, but in a different form. We have too many people and too few urban centers to accommodate them all, so something will have to give. Necessity is the mother of invention, right?

I'm with you Boo...bring on the high gas prices. Only by feeling the pain will we start to look for the cure. As long as Joe Suburban feels comfortable driving his massive 10 MPG SUV to work 30 miles each day, then change will never happen. When Joe and his buddies say, "Screw this! I'm getting rid of this damn thing and buying a Prius!", then perhaps the supply/demand thing will kick in and those that have the engineering gift will start to look for viable alternatives.

I do think the article is correct in saying that things will change. The change will be that we no longer will be able to just load the kids in the SUV and motor five hours to the beach on weekends. We won't be looking for that large house in suburbia that takes 30 minutes to get to, we won't be taking trips (car or airplane) as much as we used to, and we will be looking for alternatives such as higher mpg cars and rail service. I say this is a good thing. Fewer fossil fuels burning and polluting the environment can't be bad in the long run.

But, no...we will still have cars. They will just look a lot different than they do now. I anxiously await the massive SUV graveyards.

[Terry in Austin]

33. Automobiles

Strictly speaking, there will of course be automobiles somewhere in America for some time to come. The wealthy will probably always have them. The point is that most people won't.

At present, things are set up with the assumption that pretty much everybody has a car. That's what will change. Too many people simply won't be able to afford to maintain a personal car and buy fuel for it.

So in that sense, America will no longer be an automotive society; in that sense, it will indeed be a post-automobile America.

[nedbal]

19. I'm as good a spot as it gets

while I normally drive the 50mi round trip to Manhattan, I bought my house partially cuz it's only 2 blocks from the commuter rail to the city. I work off the rush hour so train schedules tend to suck at my times but traffic is bearable.

[hatrack]

21. Four words that pretty much said everything in this article:

"Can America face reality?"

At the moment, I would answer with a resounding "no!"

[NEOBuckeye]

26. Our answer to those four words will determine whether or not we survive.

It is quite possible that America can and will survive for far, far off into the forseeable future and beyond it. If we do, however, collapse as a civilization and experience a die-off, it will NOT be because of Peak Oil alone. Those things will happen only because we refuse to face reality and take responsibility for it.

Peak Oil will not destroy us. Our denial of reality will.

[ozymandius]

27. Carl Jung agrees with you.

Whenever contents of the collective unconscious become activated, they have a disturbing effect on the conscious mind, and contusion ensues. If the activation is due to the collapse of the individual's hopes and expectations, there is a danger that the collective unconscious may take the place of reality. This state would be pathological. If, on the other hand, the activation is the result of psychological processes in the unconscious of the people, the individual may feel threatened or at any rate disoriented, but the resultant state is not pathological, at least so far as the individual is concerned. Nevertheless, the mental state of the people as a whole might well be compared to a psychosis.

and

The symbol is a living body, corpus et anima; hence the "child" is such an apt formula for the symbol. The uniqueness of the psyche can never enter wholly into reality, it can only be realized approximately, though it still remains the absolute basis of all consciousness.

[fedsron2us]

29. I agree with much of his analysis

but his article is spoiled by some blurring of the true picture. Like many commentators he overestimates the importance of the Chinese in funding the US deficits. In reality, it is Japan that is the biggest holder of US debt. China comes a distant second to be followed closely by the UK. Yet for some reason Beijing is seen as holding the whip hand over the US future whilst the governments in Tokyo and London are regarded as a mere tools of the administration in Washington.

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

It is China's role as a consumer of raw materials and supplier of cheap imports that is significant. In fact high oil prices are going to hit the Asian economies as hard if not harder than the US since energy is a significantly higher proportion of their manufacturing costs. Peak oil is a threat to all industrialised nations not just the USA.

[robertpaulsen]

32. Kicked and bookmarked!

:kick:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gdub]

41. Consider the following

Since 1860, when petroleum was first “discovered,” a debate has raged about the origin of petroleum and other hydrocarbons. Apparently, in the West, we take it for granted that petroleum, coal, natural gas, methane etc., are in fact “fossils fuels,” literally the decayed and pressurized remains of previous epochs of organic, living matter. The term used here is “biotic,” literally, from living matter. The view of those who consider petroleum biotic is that oil and other “fossil fuels” are non-renewable. Because there is only so much fossilized swamp sludge down there, when we are done using it up, it’s gone forever.

An opposing view is that what we call “fossil fuels” are in fact abiotic, non-biological in origin. The abiotic crowd believes that, rather than being the buried remains of ancient life, petroleum and its hydrocarbon relatives are products of processes that occur deep within the Earth’s mantle. The further extension of this view is that these abiotic hydrocarbons are in fact renewable, that a vast and nearly inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons is produced continuously by the geo-physical processes at work deep within our planet.

For support, the abiotic crowd points to the recent discoveries of our inter-planetary scientists. Based on the inter-planetary probe missions of the last ten years, it has been proven conclusively that what we call “fossil” fuels are present in abundance on other planets and moons in our solar system.


See this (Scientists Perplexed by Discovery of Methane on Mars):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/02/MNG4I5VJSC1.DTL


And this (European Scientists Conclude Seas of Methane on Saturn’s Moon Titan are Abiotic in Origin):

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ap_huygens_update_050127.html

The abotics argue that discovery of hydrocarbons on other worlds proves that the same resources on Earth are produced by abiotically, by geophysical processes. A comical side-bar debate takes the form of the biotic crowd conceding the possibility of abiotic hydrocarbons, but claiming that here on Earth all hydrocarbons are biotic not abiotic.

With this background, consider the next step in the story.

Russian scientists from 1940-1970, cut off from much of the outside world by the curtain of Soviet classicism, evolved a very different form of petroleum geophysics than we did in the West. This was in part due to the fact that the USSR had access to very limited domestic oil reserves at that time. Strategically, the Russians could not afford to believe in “fossil fuels.” Rather than accepting the prevailing Western notion of biotic hydrocarbons, the Soviets invested heavily in ultra-deep drilling technology in an effort to pursue domestic oil production based on abiotic theories.

Supposedly, the Soviets succeeded. As of 2004, Russia is the largest producer of oil in the world, having surpassed Saudi Arabia, even though Saudi production, for the time being, is still on the upswing.

See the following:
http://reactor-core.org/peak-oil.html

Now, the next step in the story starts to get a little confusing (to me at least).

In 2000, Saddam Hussein took the then extraordinary step of pricing Iraqi oil sales in Euros instead of Dollars, and, at the same time, flooding the world’s market with cheap oil priced in Euros.

For reference, the rest of the world continues today to price oil sales in Dollars. The effect of Dollar oil pricing is that nations that purchase oil do so in Dollars, creating a global demand for Dollars as hard currency and leading to vast foreign reserves of Dollars in export countries. As Dollars pile up outside the United States, they must be invested somewhere. The only truly safe place to invest Dollars is in US treasuries, because Dollars invested in US treasuries carry no foreign exchange risk. US treasuries are, of course, the way in which we finance our national debt. Our national debt in turn floats our economy. In essence, Dollar oil pricing in an oil-driven world enables the “American way of life” based almost completely on debt financing enabled by world Dollar oil pricing.

So, when Saddam Hussein began pricing oil sales in Euros, he was making the greatest challenge yet to Post World War II American financial and political hegemony. According to some, the strategic US rationale for the invasion of Iraq can be explained almost entirely on this basis: ending Iraqi Euro-based oil sales and restricting the flow of Iraqi oil into global markets.

Now ponder this article:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/1010oilpriceeuro.htm

I am by no means done with this boondoggle; however, here are the next points to consider:

* The US has invaded Iraq, purportedly to end once and for all Saddam’s challenge to Dollar oil-pricing and to curtail the unrestrained flow of Iraqi oil onto world markets

* The Russians have proven abiotic oil production and have become the world’s largest oil producer/exporter

* The Russians are threatening to price Russian oil in Euros

* Influence-peddlers in the US have begun to promote the idea of Peak Oil, an idea the natural extension of which is global conflict, resource wars, and high oil prices

* Quite possibly, the entire notion of Peak Oil is a hoax

So, what is really going on?

* US government debt stands at $8 trillion dollars
* US consumer debt (credit cards, mortgages, etc.) stands at nearly $10 trillion dollars
* Total us debt stands at $34 trillion dollars
* Approximately 25% of US debt is held by foreign purchasers
* More than 50% of the US currency supply of Dollars is held outside the US
* In other words, more that 75% of the value of the US Dollar exists outside the US


What would happen if world oil sales were priced in Euros instead of dollars?

In this light, Peak Oil becomes the premise for a continuous war between the United States and other nations for ever dwindling resources. However, rather than fighting to keep oil available at a low price (thus sustaining an oil-based American way of life), the US is fighting to sustain our debt bubble economy by keeping oil expensive and priced in Dollars. Joe Vialls claims in one of the articles above, “Peak Oil has been fabricated to disguise America's increasing need for crude oil, and its imminent inability to pay hard cash for the product. Put simply, America is going broke fast, and Wall Street wishes to blame someone else before the angry Militias appear with their locked and loaded weapons.”

More importantly, Peak Oil becomes a smoke screen for a variety of economic national security objectives:

* dampening of Chinese economy
* funding of next phase of US domestic oil production (based on ultra-deep drilling)
* propping up of US dollar and US national credit

[Mojorabbit]

42. So you are saying

this has been planned from the fifties when hubbert came up with the peak oil theory and it was only a coincidence that he was correct on when the us peaked?
Though this is from a peak oil site it certainly made me think that abiotic oil is unlikely.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml

[gdub]

44. Look at it differently

I see a valid scientific debate between the biotics and the abiotics. Not a conspiracy. In turn, interests with political objectives are using a valid scientific debate (or rather one position or the other) to support their interests.

FTW is a rabib Peaker site. As for the article reference, thank you. It is a good example piece. However, two things make me suspect it. First, its vehemence. Second, its actual lack of real supporting evidence.

If the Peakers don't have a political agenda, why are their voices so loud? The main Peak proponents certainly aren't voices of sunstainability and gradualism. They seem intent on whipping up hysteria and then claiming the mainstream media won't touch the issue.

Throughout history, scientific theory, like religious dogma, has been used continuously to support political and ultimately economic goals.

And through the FTW the piece are statements like "The hydrocarbons of the Dneiper-Donetsk basin have been firmly established to be of organic origin" without actually providing any proof. In every case, "proof" comes in the form of another of Campbell's Hubbert Curves showing the peak coming within a decade. It would be interesting to see a waterfall analysis of Campbell's various curves over time. He has been continuously adjusting them to the right for some time!

[Dogmudgeon]

45. Those "continuously adjusting" curves

This is a common "debunking" of oil depletion calculations -- that since the numbers can not be established with precision, there is some kind of fraud or incompetence going on.

Since the 1970s, when I first saw figures given predicting peak oil production, they have seldom strayed from 1995-2015. That 20-year window is not exactly a loose parameter in the context of "western civilization". It is not even a big part of a human lifetime. It's roughly the time it takes from conception to college.

The rightward (futureward) shifts have largely been the effects of the two OPEC "boycotts" in the 1970s, and the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Demand fell, giving the oil industry a few more years.

Individual figures, theories, and observations on energy availability, development, and marketing are prone to imprecision and failure. The issue of "Peak Oil" is actually an issue of managing and developing resources in a transitional era of history. And so far, we have handled the planning end of this poorly.

I don't think there is any unitary "reason" for Peak Oil. It is a problem which emerges from a long, long history of short-sightedness, and includes much more than simply oil. Schemers and power-seekers are certain to exploit it the way(s) they are best able to. Our ability to deal with it will depend on our creativity, resolve, and honesty. Which is why I am more pessimistic than optimistic.

--p!

[gdub]

47. Good points!

I am inclined to think you correct on the rationale for shifting curves.

The "reasons" for Peak Oil advocacy are quite mixed. I have found the following:

- justification for ultra-conservative eugenics
- justification for war/invasion
- means of depressing Chinese/Indian economic development through artificially high prices
- means of maintaining Dollar hegemony through increasing Dollar-priced demand
- means of generating windfall profits for "Big Oil" in order to fund next generation of exploration and development

At the same time, conservationists and other "greenies" see Peak Oil as an imperative-based rationale for the following:

- conservation
- alternative fuels
- global cooperation as an alternative to conflict/war
- proof that the world is out of balance and we were right all along

[trekbiker]

49. A WORD ABOUT ABIOTIC OIL

There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless. All unrefined oil carries microscopic evidence of the organisms from which it was formed. These organisms can be traced through the fossil record to specific time periods when quantities of oil were formed.

Likewise, there are two primal energy forces operating on this planet, and all forms of energy descend from one of these two. The first is the internal form of energy heating the Earth's interior. This primal energy comes from radioactive decay and from the heat energy originally generated during accretion of the planet some 4.6 billion years ago. There are no known mechanisms for transferring this internal energy into any secondary energy source. And the chemistry of magma does not compare to the chemistry of hydrocarbons. Magma is lacking in carbon compounds, and hydrocarbons are lacking in silicates. If hydrocarbons were generated from magma, then you would expect to see some closer kinship in their chemistry.

The second primal energy source is light and heat generated by our sun. It is the sun's energy that powers all energy processes on the Earth's surface, and which provides the very energy for life itself. Photosynthesis is the miraculous process by which the sun's energy is converted into forms available to the life processes of living matter. Following biological, geological and chemical processes, a line can be drawn from photosynthesis to the formation of hydrocarbon deposits. Likewise, both living matter and hydrocarbons are carbon based.

Finally, because oil generation is in part a geological process, it proceeds at an extremely slow rate from our human perspective. Geological processes take place over a different frame of time than human events. It is for this reason that when geologists say that the San Andreas fault is due for a powerful earthquake, they mean any time in the next million years -- probably less. Geological processes move exceedingly slow.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

[4dsc]

52. The Jiminy Cricket syndrome

I believe those wishing upon a star about abiotic oil are indeed not looking at the reality of the situation. Peak oil is here and its about to take a bite out of our sorry assed.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

51. Here's something for your consideration...

New Society catalog description – Available June 2005

Petrodollar Warfare
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
William Clark

The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far from being a response to 9-11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar Warfare argues that the invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the euro currency.

Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about to peak, after which there will be a steady decline in supplies of oil. Iraq, possessing the world's second largest oil reserves, was therefore already a target of U.S. geostrategic interests. Together with the fact that Iraq had switched its oil currency trade to euros — rather than U.S. dollars — the Bush administration's unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard.

Meticulously researched, Petrodollar Warfare examines U.S. dollar hegemony and the unsustainable macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling,' pointing out that the issues underlying the Iraq war also apply to geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and other countries including the member states of the European Union (EU), Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. The author warns that without changing course, the American Experiment will end the way all empires end - with military over-extension and subsequent economic decline. He recommends the multilateral pursuit of both energy and monetary reforms within a United Nations framework to create a more balanced global energy and monetary system - thereby reducing the possibility of future oil-depletion and oil currency-related warfare.

A sober call for an end to aggressive U.S. unilateralism, Petrodollar Warfare is a unique contribution to the debate about the future global political economy.

(If interested, it can be pre-ordered off Amazon.com)

[KingOfLostSouls]

43. "Fascism is capitalism in decline..."

I think that was the Vladimir Lenin quote...

not that i'm a leninist or a commie, its interesting though that the so called "anti commies" and "capitalists" in the GOP believe that they can actually escape the tides of history.

America may be an empire, but all empires have a tendency to end

and end badly

[villager]

48. brings us back to that opening line...

"No country gets 200 years anymore..."

[lala_rawraw]

53. Okay, can we just say Impeach yet?