Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil

From: Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 07:33:33 -0700 (PDT)

--- Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Apr 24, 2005, at 9:37 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Peak Oil exists for certain nations and certain oil companies,
> based on
> > who has the rights to certain oil fields and which fields are being
> > allowed to be developed by governments. The world is nowhere near
> any
> > sort of impending oil shortage. We have a minimum of 100 years of
> oil
> > available at todays market prices.
> 
> Produce your evidence or withdraw this claim.

It was clearly stated previously the years that the exploitable
reserves of different oil companies would peak out at. This isn't
something that is open to dispute. Peak Oil just doesn't count reserves
that are to date unexploited for other than economic reasons. The
Spratlys reserves were unexploited for reasons of international tension
between four nations. ANWR is unexploited purely for environmental
reason. California and Florida reserves (which are far larger than you
state) are closed of purely for the sake of tourists and waterfront
property owners not seeing oil derricks (much as Kerry and Kennedy got
the wind power project off Cape Cod cancelled).

> 
> >
> > The Canadian oil tar sands contain more oil (over 3,000 billion
> > barrels), as do Venezuelan tar sands, that the idea that we are
> running
> > out of oil is simply ludicrous.
> 
> Except for the unfortunate fact that we have no means to economically
> (today's prices) and environmentally sanely extract and refine such 
> oil.

Not true. Prior technology could safely and not so cleanly extract the
oil at $60.00/bbl. New technology does it cleanly with steam treatment
and water remediation at under $30/bbl. I happen to know of a company
that just built the pilot plant in Alberta.

> 
> > In the
> > shorter term, China, the Phillipines, Vietnam, and Indonesia are
> > sitting on 19 billion barrels under the Spratlys, while the US has
> an
> > equivalent amount sitting under ANWR, plus additional reserves
> > elsewhere. The oil and gas fields of Wyoming, I am hearing are
> seeing a
> > boom-time.
> 
> US oil production peaked in the 70s (as predicted by Hubbert).  Do
> you think we are dependent on Mideast oil just to amuse ourselves
> with the attendant complications and costs when we actually have
> everything we need right here?

Yes. Political forces want high oil prices for several reasons. One is
to get America off of its consumption economy, to depopulate the rural
area further and congregate in cities so as to be easier to control,
another is to trigger a recession in preparation for a Chinese dollar
bomb attack prior to their retaking Taiwan (and assisted by JP Morgan).
Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked
into. 

The resulting economic depression will force the US government to hand
over title to federal and state parks and forests to the UN's World
Biosphere Reserve program, so as to fully collateralize the World
Bank/IMF. The point of this is to enable the WB/IMF to fully monetize
the UN budget at low government bond rates independently of member
nations, turning the UN into a truly federal world government,
independently sovereign from its member nations, much as the US states
transitioned during the Civil War and Reconstruction period. Combined
with their measures to turn the high seas into UN territory, so they
can raise taxes from international commerce, and world government will
be inevitable if we let it happen.

> ANWR is not that impressive to the actual oil 
> companies. To put this in perspective, the world sucks down 77 mbd, 
> call it 100 mbd in round numbers (we expect to reach this level
> easily 
> with the next 5 - 10 years).  The 19 billion barrels satisfies world 
> demand for less than a year.  Not very impressive.  Also we are lucky
> to get as much as 70% of the oil out of the ground.

This is the typical lying with numbers that occurs. You are acting as
if ANWR would be the only oil supplier in the world. Gimme a break. If
ANWR only pumped 1 million bbl/day, it would quickly increase global
oil stocks to the point that prices would drop back to the mid $20's
range. At 1 million bbl/day, that would make ANWR last for at least 50
years.

Nor will we reach 100 mbbl/day any time soon. It will take till 2020
before China has even a fraction of the US number of autos. By then
they will be pumping the Spratlys fields for all the are worth.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Brent Neal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:49:50 -0400

>Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked

I recommend that you stop reading Tom Clancy novels. I think your view of reality is warping just a bit.

What is it about conspiracy theories that make them so attractive to people?

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein

---

From: "Brian Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:59:26 -0400

>From: Brent Neal <[email-masked]>
>To: ExI chat list <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
>Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:49:50 -0400
>

I think conspiracy theories are attractive because they show a comforting 
worldview where someone/group is actually controlling the seemingly chaotic 
and irrational events. This meshes into the whole monotheistic mythos where 
God is in control.

Just my own crackpot theory to explain away crackpot theories.

BAL

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:22:10 +0100

>Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked
After the Chinese attack.
They will hold that in reserve as a threat.
BTW, you forgot to mention that oil companies like high oil prices.
1%  on a $100 barrel is better than 1% on a $30 one.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:23:45 +0100

Brian Lee wrote:

>
> I think conspiracy theories are attractive because they show a 
> comforting worldview where someone/group is actually controlling the 
> seemingly chaotic and irrational events. This meshes into the whole 
> monotheistic mythos where God is in control.
>
Actually, there are plenty of conspiracies all vying with each other.
A few are illegal but most are not.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-

---

From: Curtis Sandoval <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:53:44 -0400

I would take this a step further and suggest that every corporation or
corporate entity is a conspiracy, in that a conspiracy is merely an
attempt by a number of entities to act in concert toward a common end.
 Not every conspiracy has an illegal goal, and not every act of a
corporation is legal.  This crosses over into another thread then,
where "conspiracy theory" could merely mean "the study of
corporations", and this would be nearly synonymous with "game theory",
which tends to drive their actions.  This could be further extended to
consider conspiracies/corporations to be meta-organisms, merely
another life form made up of lower life forms (humans) as they behave.

On a simpler note, the abbreviation "Co." could just as easily stand
for "conspiracy" as "corporation".

---

From: "Brian Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:32:27 -0400

I was referring to the larger scale/ crazy conspiracy theories that involve 
secret societies, government plans to hand over parks to the UN, lizard 
aliens running the British royal families etc.

I don't think it's any conspiracy that corporations are in existence to 
maximize shareholder returns. It just becomes a conspiracy when the oil 
barons are in cahoots with the five jew bankers to drive oil into the 
$500/barrel level to allow for the return of Krishna or something similar.

BAL

>From: Curtis Sandoval <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked], ExI chat list <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Conspiracy Theory Theory [was peak oil theory]
>Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:53:44 -0400
>

---

From: Curtis Sandoval <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:28:03 -0400

I understand your reference, but a "conspiracy" is any two or more
entities that are working toward a common goal, it's a synonym for
"cooperation".  Conspiracy has a connotation that is not intrinsic to
its definition, that of a nefarious goal as you mention. It's just an
emotional tag that we apply to the word though, one that I believe is
fairly recent as I doubt that Felix Bernard had evil plans in mind
when he published "Winter Wonderland" in 1934.
   Corporations must conspire or they dissolve by the very definition,
and they behave like an organism whose goals are propagation and
shareholder equity among other things.  Price-fixing, etc, are some of
what I mentioned earlier, that not all corporations pursue legal means
to achieve their goals, but following the organism model they are just
practicing the law of survival and growth at any cost, game theory.
  The trick is keeping a safeguard to protect the greater organism
(the planet, humanity, etc) from the localised opportunism of its
subparts (corporations, bankers, petro-Krishnites, etc) not unlike
preventing the spread of cancer in a human body.  I agree with you,
that it is not "a conspiracy" that corporations exist to yield
shareholder returns, but individuals within the corporations must
conspire toward these ends as well as corporations that conspire
together for mutual benefit.
  One of my pet interests is semiotics, so maybe I think too much
about the difference between the meaning of a word and its
emotional/assumed meaning.  Ted Rall wrote an article recently about
how this is being used today, how certain people are calling Iraqis
who attack U.S. forces "Insurgents", while similar forces were called
"Freedom Fighters" when the U.S.S.R was in Afghanistan, and similar
forces were called "Rebels" and "Revolutionaries" during the American
and French revolutions.  Connotations are commonly used to colour the
image of what is being described, and as we all know the victors write
the history books.

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:28:50 +0100

Brian Lee wrote:

> I was referring to the larger scale/ crazy conspiracy theories that 
> involve secret societies, government plans to hand over parks to the 
> UN, lizard aliens running the British royal families etc.
>
Well, we know for a fact that such conspiracies have existed (and only 
come to light because of their failure and/or their incompetence)
P2 and MKULTRA to name but two. The latter only came to light because 
not quite all the files were destroyed when they should have been.

Are there no others existing today?

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:30:26 +0100

>another life form made up of lower life forms (humans) as they behave.
I agree, which is why I find ouija such a fascinating thing conceptually.
The unconscious conspiracies are the most powerful eg 'glass ceiling' etc

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-

---

From: The Avantguardian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:19:47 -0700 (PDT)

> Just my own crackpot theory to explain away crackpot

     If you had read "Focault's Pendulum" then you
would entertain that the possibility that "conspiracy
theorists" amongst the ruling class are themselves the
"conspiracy". i.e. A regular schmoe that can imagine
ways that a small group of very powerful people could
influence the course of world events will be labelled
a "crack pot". But a small group of very powerful
people that can imagine  ways that a small group of
very powerful people can influence the course of world
events in their favor, are probably doing so. They may
be "crack pots" too, but that doesn't change the fact
that they are indeed running things.

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:55:09 +0100

>that they are indeed running things.
Moreso when the number of people who do have massive influence in the 
world, let alone one nation, probably number no more than a few hundred. 
And they all know each other.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-

---

From: "Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:41:17 -0500

Dirk Bruere wrote:

>>> I think conspiracy theories are attractive because
>>> they show a comforting worldview where someone/group is actually
>>> controlling the seemingly chaotic and irrational events. This meshes 
>>> into the whole
> world, let alone one nation, probably number no more than a few 
> hundred. And they all know each other.

So which is preferred... a few hundred key govt persons manipulating  
from a position of  irresponsibility or
a few hundred persons  whose livlihood hangs on their decisions.  We 
know who most of them are
and as we saw with Martha Stewart they are not untouchable if they mess 
around with things.

I'd rather see Kurzweil, Gates and a a dozen others like them conspiring 
to live longer , knowing that they
are likely to commercialize this for others than a similar size bunch 
living in a fool's paradise wondering if
there was a consensus that people really approve of this and deciding to 
study the subject and do nothing
in the however long meantime.

---

From: Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:50:03 -0700

On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:33 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> that are to date unexploited for other than economic reasons.

Not to my knowledge.  Where does this come from?

> The
> reason.

The amount of reserves there is barely worth the hassle.   Even 19 
billion barrels (many including many working for oil companies expect 
half of that) is not a whole lot of oil and thus has negligible effect 
on when we reach the Peak.   We don't have any really large untapped 
known fields of easily economically exploitable crude.

> California and Florida reserves (which are far larger than you

It is not that clean and easy.  If it was I would be totally invested 
in the relevant companies.  Are you?   I do have some Canada plays 
actually for precisely the hope that these projects will pay off.  but 
they certainly are not in production at such a low price and in good 
quantity today.   Your insinuation that they are is not useful.

> Luddite goals which extropians should not let themselves get sucked

I can't do anything with conspiracy theory stuff of this kind.

> be inevitable if we let it happen.

Are you aware of how much US debt is owned by foreign governments that 
dhave been converting it to hard assets in the US for quite some time 
now?  Our creditors want to be left holding something more than a lot 
of Federal IOUs by the time we finish imploding our economy.   Real 
nefarious of them huh?

Can we drop the conspiracy theory krap and get the discussion back on 
track?

> range. At 1 million bbl/day, that would make ANWR last for at least 50

No.  I am taking fields you suggest make Peak Oil a lie and showing 
they are inadequate for the job.   Bring the others on and we'll tally 
them up.   ANWR will not pump 1 mbd.  The expectation is for half of 
that.  So less than 1% of daily global consumption today much less by 
the time it comes online.   How is this going to make such a 
difference?   How much current in production sources decline will we 
have suffered before it and the others come online?

> they will be pumping the Spratlys fields for all the are worth.

We are at 77 mbd now.  We are expected to hit 130 within 25 years if we 
get the same percent of our energy usage from oil.  As extropians and 
good hearted people who would like many parts of the world to advance I 
don't think we can find the energy projections that hard to believe.

- samantha