fayfreethinkers.com

Greetings friends of freethought. We'll be getting together for our
Fayetteville Freethinker meeting this Saturday at the well air-conditioned Fayetteville library.

Dr. Parker will follow up on his interesting lecture about the brain
with a presentation showing how specific brain problems can cause
unique thought patterns and behaviors. Do you find yourself
experiencing "unique thought patterns and behaviors?" Well of course
you do, you hang out with us. Better bring your brain along and have
the good doctor make sure it's running up to speed.

Darrel will have a presentation that may scare the hell out of us.
He was raised a Jehovah's Witness so he was always taught the end was
near, but for all the wrong reasons. Turns out they may not have been
far off (but for entirely different reasons). Worse than global
warming? Armageddon? High gas prices? Maybe. The reference to "gas
prices" is a hint, and no they are not really "high." In the interest
of drawing attention to important life changing information that is
not getting enough attention elsewhere we will watch the documentary "A
Crude Awakening - The Oil Crash" 80 mins (2006). Discussion to follow.

If anyone has some good skeptical information rebutting the concerns
raised by the "peak oil" issue please drop us a note.

Funny bits, video clips, our little Freethinker loaner library and free
table too. We have it all and at very reasonable prices (still free).

***
The Meeting...

When: Saturday July 28.

Where: The Blair Municipal Library. 401 W. Mountain
St. (two blocks west of the town square). The library
phone number is 571-2222.

Time: 2:00pm.

Room: The Board Room. Walk in the front door, through
the lobby and go to your LEFT. Just to the left of the
audio/video section is the Board Room. We'll be in
there. Grab a snack and coffee from Arsaga's in the
lobby if you like.

Questions? Call Darrel (ph. 442-6738)
------------------
"My grandfather rode a camel. My father rode in a car. I fly a jet
airplane. My grandson will ride a camel." --Saudi saying

DAR
We had good attendance for this July meeting. I counted 34 people. Dr. Parker's presentation on specific brain injuries and how they affect our perceptions was well received.

The movie on Peak Oil entitled "A Crude Awakening" was powerful, if a little depressing. Perhaps we will try to play something a little more cheery at the end of the meeting. I had a hand out to go along with the presentation but several people had left before I could get them to everyone. Others asked that I email a copy so they could easily pass it on to others. I'll post a copy of the handout below.

Also, you can watch the trailer for the movie here

***
Peak Oil Primer

Giant Oil Fields and their Importance
for Future Oil Production

“A giant oil field contains at least 500 million
barrels of recoverable oil. Only 507, or 1 % of
the total number of fields, are giants. Their
contribution is striking: over 60 % of the 2005
production and about 65 % of the global ultimate
recoverable reserve (URR).

However, giant fields are something of the past
since a majority of the largest giant fields are
over 50 years old and the discovery trend of less
giant fields with smaller volumes is clear. A
large number of the largest giant fields are
found in the countries surrounding the Persian
Gulf.... In all scenarios, peak oil occurs at about the
same time as the giant fields peak. The
worst-case scenario sees a peak in 2008 and the
best-case scenario, following a 1.4 % demand
growth, peaks in 2018.”
--Robelius, Fredrik, Doctoral thesis

http://tinyurl.com/2hcy33

"…the world's three largest oilfields have now peaked and are in decline. The world's third largest oilfield, Burgan in Kuwait , which at 1.7 million barrels a day accounts for 68% of Kuwait's total output and has been in production for over 50 years, has now peaked and is in irreversible decline. The same is true of the world's second largest oilfield, Cantarell in Mexico, which at 2 million barrels a day accounts for 60% of Mexico's total output and is expected to decline at a rate of over 50% this year and then another decline of over 50% again next year. The oilfields of Alaska and the North Sea have been declining at over 10% a year for several years now. Then of course there is the world's largest oilfield, Gharwar in Saudi Arabia, which at 4.5 million barrels a day accounts for 40% of Saudi Arabia's total output and has been in production for over 60 years. Gharwar is believed by most serious analysts to now be in decline; it has an enormous water cut with the Saudis pumping in 7 million barrels a day of seawater in an uphill struggle and sagging effort to try to maintain the pressure of the oil in the field, for only 4.5 million barrels a day of oil that they're getting out.” --Charles Whalen

http://tinyurl.com/8eo36


SO WE'LL JUST FIND MORE OIL,... Right?
The last large discovery of oil on the planet occurred more than 30 years ago, and virtually the entire globe has been searched to find additional deposits. 80% of oil being produced today is from fields discovered prior to 1973. These fields are now in terminal decline. In the 1990's oil discoveries averaged about seven billion barrels of oil a year, only one third of what was being consumed. The discovery rate of multi-billion barrel fields has been declining since the 1940's, and that of large (500-million barrel) fields since the 1960's. In 1938, fields with more than 10 million barrels made up 19% of all new discoveries, but by 1948 the proportion had dropped to only 3%. The average reserves of oil field discoveries today is less than ten million barrels of recoverable oil; and ten million barrels will meet less than half a day's oil demand for the United States alone. So to just fulfill U.S. oil consumption the world would need to discover more than 750 of these new fields, each year, to replenish what was consumed in the previous year, not to mention still more discoveries to compensate for existing wells that become exhausted, and to fulfill the anticipated 2-3% increase in demand each year.
The ratio of oil consumed to oil discovered each year is now about six to one: 30 billion barrels consumed, to only five billion barrels discovered.”

ASPO-USA says, "The returns are coming in on how well exploration for new oil and gas fields fared in 2005. Overall the picture is disappointing despite the expenditure of some $15 billion by publicly traded companies alone. There were no significant (billion barrel or more) discoveries announced in 2005. Worldwide, total new oil discovered during the year comes to 4.5 billion barrels -- a 53-day supply at current rates of consumption. New discoveries in 2004 and 2005 were the lowest recorded since World War II."

http://www.crudeawakening.org/AboutPeakOil.htm

***
“Given the ongoing runup in global petroleum prices, the notion of peak oil hardly needs defending these days. We are seeing the phenomenon unfold before our eyes as one nation after another moves from the column of "oil exporters" to that of "oil importers" (Great Britain made the leap this year). At some point in the very near future the remaining nations in column A will simply be unable to supply all of the nations in column B.”
--http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm
--Richard Heinberg, Core Faculty member of New College of California in Santa Rosa.

See Heinberg’s summary of Peak Oil, video (10 min):

http://tinyurl.com/29yjx7

“The oil producing areas of UAE, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia form a triangle whose area about equals the state of Oklahoma. That triangle contains 75% of the world's oil.”

***
Oil and Gas May Run Short by 2015, say Industry Experts

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 22 July 2007

Humanity is approaching an unprecedented crisis when not enough oil and gas will be produced to keep industrial civilisation running, the world's top oilmen warned last week.

The warning – which is being hailed as a "tipping point" on both sides of the Atlantic – marks the first time that the industry has accepted that it may soon no longer be able to meet demand for its products. In Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, it gives authoritative support to concern about impending shortages, following a similar alert by the International Energy Agency less than two weeks ago.

The 420-page report, the most comprehensive study ever carried out into the industry, has been produced by the National Petroleum Council, a body of 175 authorities that reports to the US government. It includes the heads of the world's big oil companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum, Shell and BP.

It is also remarkable for the conversion of its chairman, Lee Raymond, the recently retired chief executive of ExxonMobil, who led opposition against action to tackle global warming, and became environmentalists' most prominent bogeyman. The report argues for "an effective global framework" to manage emissions of carbon dioxide – "incorporating all major emitters" – and urges the US to cut the pollution that causes climate change.

The report concludes that "the global supply of oil and natural gas from the conventional sources ... is unlikely to meet ... growth in demand over the next 25 years". It says that "many observers think that 80 per cent of existing oil production will need to be replaced by 2030" to keep up present supplies "in addition to volumes required to meet existing demand." But, it adds, there are "accumulating risks to replacing current production and increasing supplies".

Though vast amounts of oil and gas remain underground, "complex challenges" and "global uncertainties" are likely to put an end to "the sufficient, reliable and economic energy supplies upon which people depend". And the crunch could come sooner, with oil production becoming "a significant challenge as early as 2015". This chimes with the International Energy Agency's prediction that oil supplies could become "extremely tight" in five years.

The predictions should send a shiver down humanity's collective spine as a shortage of oil and gas has been predicted to cause industrial collapse, market crashes, resource wars and a rise in poverty. Some forecast that fascist regimes will rise out of the chaos.

Chris Skrebowski, editor of the Energy Institute's Petroleum Review, said the report's publication showed the industry "'fessing up that it really has a problem on its hands". Until now, he said, "companies, full of share options, have been terrified of frightening the markets" by revealing the truth.

The report says the fuel efficiency of cars should be increased "at the maximum rate possible" and there should be a crackdown on 4x4s. It calls for "aggressive energy efficiency standards for buildings, and measures to "set an effective cost for emitting carbon dioxide" to combat global warming.

http://tinyurl.com/242sac

Further reading:

http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

http://www.richardheinberg.com/

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/de/lecture.html

DAR
There is an interesting thread on crooksandliars.com regarding the movie A Crude Awakening. Even the director of the movie has made a comment in the thread (#194). Some are complaining that some comments are too dismissive of alternative sources of energy. I wrote this response:

***

Dilapidus @ 195
Just because an option can't be used in all circumstances or won't solve the whole problem, it gets dismissed out of hand.

DAR
They certainly shouldn't be dismissed but I think it is right to point out the common misconceptions people have of how much energy we can squeeze out of these alternatives relative to what we get out of cheap oil. An example:

I have a friend who purchased a 100 watt solar panel for about $400. That's a very good deal. He has also spent about two thousand on a big bank of top quality marine batteries (certainly more than he needed for one panel). Also, he spent additional money on the controller and inverters etc. Now, how long would he have to put his solar panel in direct sunlight for it to generate the amount of energy contained in just ONE of the 21 million barrels of oil Americans burn every day? A barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1,700 Kwh. A 100 watt solar panel has to have 10 hours of optimal sunlight in order to generate a single Kwh (value = about ten cents). So his panel needs to have 17,000 hours of perfect sunlight in order to generate the energy contained in one barrel of oil. And he needs to store this electricity in expensive batteries (and lose maybe 1/3 in the conversion). So, if he gets 200 days of excellent (10 hours a day) sunlight a year his panel will generate the energy a barrel contains, in 8.5 years. $400 investment, plus battery investment, plus babysitting (aim at the sun) and maintenance, plus lots of loss in conversion (the barrel has losses here too) just to get what we are used to getting from one barrel of oil sitting in the ground. Solar has it's place but it is VERY expensive right now, dependent on a sunny sky, and has a lot more expense and limitation in the storage of the energy.

Darrel.

Darrel - it's true that your friend's system will take a long time to replace one barrel of oil's energy. I hope his setup will permit adding additional panels, which will shorten the "payback" time - since the really expensive parts of his system are the converter and batteries. However, nobody who has been paying attention has said solar is THE way to go. Solar is A part of the solution. Solar, once set up, needs minor maintenance and no further energy/dollar inputs. From what I've read/studied/heard from experts, the best thing to do is a combination of small, local energy production with the national grid system, with ultility companies being responsible for maintaining the grid. Solar feeds into the grid when the sun is shining - and on a national grid system you've got sun from when it comes up on the Atlantic coast to when it goes down on the Pacific coast. Wind feeds into the grid when the wind is blowing - and it always is someplace. Bioconversion like the BRI Energy process feeds electricity generated by waste heat into the grid continually - and its feedstock is garbage, dewatered sewage, chicken litter and other agri wastes, etc. Varying other processes do the same. A multiplicity of point-system sources to feed into the grid and balance the flow. This system, usually called inter-tie, dispenses with the need for batteries (unless you want a backup system - but people have battery backup systems now). Combine these multiple less-dense energy sources with each other and with more efficient end use (be it vehicles, refrigerators, or whatever) and we can replace oil without loss of comfort. (Note I did not say without changing our lifestyles. I have heard too many people snot about how we'd have to go "back to horse and buggy days" without oil - we don't. IF we start now to build/install these alternative sources and make more efficient appliances, we will be no more discommoded by the "end of oil" than we were by Y2K.)

Your example shows costs of setting up a very small, standalone, solar system. You didn't go into the costs (dollars or energy) of finding, building the drill/pump system, drilling, pumping, transporting to refinery, cracking/processing, and transporting to retail usage point that "one barrel of oil sitting in the ground". Oil looks cheap due to subsidies, tax breaks, and royalty reprieves - it is getting more and more expensive to find that barrel of oil and get it out of the ground and to the consumer (much less clean up the mess of doing so). A "cradle to grave" audit would show total input and output to be much closer than your post suggests.

DAR
I agree Barbara. I love solar and plan to make my shop partly solar ASAP (we move to our new house in three weeks). It would be real nice of some of these new higher efficiency solar panels would become available. I agree that on site generation with grid tie in is the way to go.
I still think the difference between that barrel of oil and that $400 solar panel is incredible. In full sun that poor little $400 panel only generating 10 cents a day (at todays rates). Four thousand days of full sun before break even? Aside from the fun of playing with solar, that's not a very good investment. It's a bit of a wealthy persons hobby right now.

D.

The current price for solar is estimated at $9/watt installed. That's expensive in a lump - but with minor maintenance (hose the dust off periodically) solar systems last 20-30 years (and counting for some of them). The problem with solar, wind, or any "non-utility" system is that the costs are all up front. When you consider that solar estimated at $9-/watt installed 20 years ago, the price has been coming down (considering inflation) - but it's still expensive in a lump. That's why in some states they just wrap the solar system into the mortgage. Of course, that mostly works on new houses. You can refinance to include the solar "upgrade" in some states as well. I won't go into the "tax breaks" for solar, because not all states have them, the fed is "Up and down" on them, and they are - as you might guess - for folks who have enough income for another deduction to make a difference.

According to my son, you can get broken panels cheap (he didn't say how big a box, but he said something like $100 a box) and then make your own by soldering together the unbroken cells. I'm not that "handy" but it works for the DIYer to seriously reduce the cost of the panels themselves.

That 100-watt panel is about 4'x2'x1.5" - and it's the gift that keeps on giving (as long as the sun continues to "rise"). That barrel of oil is 4 cu. ft. (approximately the volume of 32 of those solar panels) and once it's burned, it's gone. The wholesale on that barrel is about $70 right now, but that's not what you pay for it at the pump. I really don't know how many gallons of gas are refined out of a barrel of crude - but without federal subsidies the price at the pump would be about double. Even at that it seems that oil is "cheaper" than solar - of course part of that is because not only is oil subsidized, most of the environmental problems are not included in the cost of oil - and none of the military costs are included.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote: I really don't know how many gallons of gas are refined out of a barrel of crude

DAR
19.5 gallons.

DAR
Judging by the Crooksandliars.com thread on above movie, it seems some lefties, who haven't the time to do any checking themselves, dismiss Peak Oil because of the bombastic comments Greg Palast has made about it in a chapter in his book "Armed Madhouse." If you have bought into his claims it is instructive to read the following for two reasons. It completely and utterly (and very politely) dismantles Palast's claims and, it does it so thoroughly that it demonstrates Mr. Palast to be a very sloppy investigative reporter at best (supposedly his strong point). I really can't take the guy seriously after reading this.

Simply amazing:

An Open Letter to Greg Palast
by Richard Heinberg

http://www.energybulletin.net/17914.html

DAR
Palast has a completely nonsensical pseudo-rebuttal backtrack, of a sort, here:
Why Palast Is Wrong.

The comment section is particularly instructive (his fans debunk him).

I am on Greg Palast's email list and just this evening I got a post from him desperately asking for money for his small investigative fund. He writes: "Friday was also the day I was informed that the Palast Investigative Fund was dead broke, technically bankrupt, with way less than zero in the account." I think I see why.

Palast is good on politics, but I see what you mean about him on science. The 2010 "peak" is the more optimistic. The one I've seen more often is 2000, but there will always be a range on this kind of thing. Not knowing the difference between new fields and "increased" reserves is why the honest but ignorant (as opposed to the greedy and short-sighted) RWs approve of drilling in the Arctic. (I leave you to decide which kind of RW Boozman is.) That's not a new field. That's sinking more wells in the same field already being worked. Expanded drilling up there is just spending billions to drain the field faster. (Upfront money that won't see a return any sooner than putting up solar panels - it will take 5-10 years, minimum, to get the equipment up there and online.)

People who buy the schtick about peak=total oil don't get it - oil shale and tar sands production didn't, couldn't, become financially viable until after peak. It's too expensive in both dollars and energy to produce. The minute you start depending on "all that oil" locked up in shale, you've admitted we're passed peak (even if you don't realize what you've admitted). The price going up can only expand the "reserves" so far. There will come a time when it will take more energy to retrieve whatever is still in the ground than the payback. Hopefully we will be totally off fossil fuels before we hit that point.

Two quotes the August "Peak Oil Review":

Quote of the Week:

"Supply is going no place, and demand is rising 2.5% to 3% a year.”
-- Economist Philip Verleger Jr. of Aspen, Colo.

Statistic of the Week:

“US natural gas production is declining despite a large increase in the number of producing wells . The US natural gas peak was at 22 Tcf/a in 1973 with about 100,000 wells; 2005 production was at 19 Tcf/a with 400,000 wells.”
-- Jean LaHerrere, ASPO-France

Your quotes speak to what I was saying earlier - adding new wells to already producing fields does nothing but drain the field faster. We have to decrease demand as we switch to renewables. Increasing demand is partly a factor of increasing population, but in America especially, it is more a factor of "conspicuous consumption = wealth". We really have to get over the "my car guzzles more than your car" mentality to solve the crisis we're moving into.