"We're drillin' three miles down in the Gulf of Mexico because of peak oil,"

Huh .. I thought it was because they were no longer allowed drilling permits on the mainland, or in Alaska.

What happened with that spill? A natural substance spilled, and it's now pretty well gone, all the hysteria must have got rid of it(?)

No mention of other fuels at all.

What do car companies know that these hysterics and doomsayer do not know?

If all this is true, why are they not shutting up now, to avoid the rush in 2015?

This is yet another hysterical and exaggerated attempt to curb people's progress.

Anyone who hands out forecasts and prophesies has got to wonder themselves what are they doing?

We'll survive and adapt, always have always will, be positive rather than negative about it.

I for one do not want to go the way of handing over to the current government total control of our future, they stuff up everything they touch so far (not that the other mob is better) but I don't want to go the way of the do gooders and eco whackos telling us what to do and when.

Sterling advice, rpg.
King Canute, facing the incoming tide in ancient Britain a thousand years ago, had much the same.

Good article Jennie but I fear that it will fall on deaf ears. I wonder why the major parties ignore it or they really do not know about it?

Oh Dear rpg.
Here we go again.
I have decided that you are either an agent provocateur or non-compos mentis.

SORRY...cant be reading...yet..ANOTHER..peak-oil..crisis
we havnt..EVEN..reached..PEAK_OIL

we invented...decades ago..the joe-fuel/cell
it can replace*...oil...ANYTIME

trouble..being..
it makes fuel;...FOR FREE

anything..that can run..on petro..chemical
can run..on the HH..gas..the joe-fuel call generates

[inside a stainless steel...fuel cell
costing 30 bucks to make]

trouble being..no more fuel sales
[thus..the powers to be suppress it]

but govt can RENT..THEM..out to us..direct
to cover..the shortfall..in fuel-tax..exise

and a small bonus..for corperate..welfare..for those..poor*..oil industry colluders..suppressing..this australian..invention

One under god. I don't wish to get off the subject here, although it's relevant, but I'm afraid you're extremely ignorant on the matter of the hoax of the water powered vehicles, which I assume you're alluding to here since the article states that "oil products power 95 per cent of land transport."

The most crucial fact of this rubbish is the 1st law of thermodynamics which states you can neither create energy of destroy energy. This means that the prospect of driving a vehicle more than a very short distance using the electrical energy of that vehicle is impossible.

For 'god's' sake! This nonsense has been debunked time and again, but the article linked below is one of the better explanations I've heard as to why a water-powered vehicle will never happen and I might add that the guy who wrote the article has studied basic Chemistry and Nuclear Physics and has an Honours Degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. See here......

http://www.warmdebate.com/water-car-hoax

OUG, do you hold credentials like that? If you do, then perhaps you can explain why you'd toss known laws of physics out the window to support your 'water-power' theory?

Reading this ladies thumbnail resume, I have to wonder just what she was doing at a conference half way around the world, on the danger of reaching peak oil.

Surely if she & the other attendees are so worried about peak oil, they would not want to be wasting the stuff, flitting around the globe to conferences that could be arranged by video. No didn’t think that would suit.

Meanwhile we have our pollies continually spruiking about some vast new export deal making us a fortune with natural gas, coal seam gas, or some other gas.

Perhaps Jenny & all those other experts have not realised that you can bottle the stuff. In fact that’s how we export it, just in very large bottles built into ships.

Jenny, if you look in some service stations you will find they have outlets that can pump the stuff into a tank, something like a petrol tank, in your car, & it will power your car for you. Wonders will never cease. We have enough of this stuff to power Oz for centaury or two, before we start on shale oil, & coal liquefaction.

Recently they have found enough of the stuff under just 3 of the states of the USA to power that quite large country for about a centaury or so.

Strangely Obama is resisting the extraction of this resource, just as he is preventing the extraction of much of the known US oil reserves.

Could there be some hidden agenda, that Obama, the peak oil folk, & you wish to push, but can only achieve your goal if you keep the full facts hidden from the public

"We're drillin' three miles down in the Gulf of Mexico because of peak oil,"

Huh .. I thought it was because they were no longer allowed drilling permits on the mainland, or in Alaska.

First.... Alaskan reserve figure have just been downgraded by... drum roll.... NINETY PERCENT! It's only a matter of time before the unrealistic and way over the top over optimistic reserve figures quoted all over the shop are found to be lies. Saudi Arabia may have already peaked out, they no longer seem to be able to reach even 10MB/day.

To Australia. We'll be importing 80 to 90% of all our fuels by the middle of 2012. That's of course, assuming the countries we import from will sell it to us, at least in the quantities we currently take for granted. Just two years ago, our biggest supplier was Viet Nam. They now sell us no oil at all, they refine their entire production and keep it at home to fuel their own domestic growth. Same thing happened with Indonesia just three or so years ago...

Buy one of those electric assist bicycle!

Sarnian, the subject of peak oil will always largely fall on deaf ears and yes, I'm sure various World Governments know all about the matter.

In 2005, Dr. Robert Hirsch wrote a peak oil report for the US Department of Energy. When they read through some of the report, they politely told him to shut up and go away. They also told him to do no more work on it.

Since then, several First World Governments have investigated the prospect of peak oil and the findings are dire. And why wouldn't these Governments make known their finding to the general population? Well, we must remember that Governments are anything but ethical. If they were then they'd warn their people (and anyone else who would listen) of the coming catastrophe that will follow PO, but since ethics doesn't enter into the equation, then it's all about the short electoral cycle. If the Gillard Government was to come out and tell us tomorrow that the lifestyle of Australians was about to be decimated within the next 10 years, what would be their chances at re-election be for another term? Same in reverse for the opposition. To admit PO will be a serious problem for which they have no answers, would they be elected in the first place? Of course the answer is no!

Peak oil will get little recognition until physical shortages make their presence felt and rationing is introduced, most like before 2020. The excellent articel linked below makes it all patently clear.....

http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

"Jenny, if you look in some service stations you will find they have outlets that can pump the stuff into a tank, something like a petrol tank, in your car, & it will power your car for you."

NO... wrong gas! The stuff for sale in garages today is LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS (LPG), and it comes out of oil fields.

NATURAL GAS is different enough that cars need to be modified to use it, even if they already run on LPG. There are no NatGas pumps ANYWHERE in Australia, an entirely new infrastructure needs to be built to accommodate such a change, and it will cost BILLIONS...

Regarding NatGas vs LPG, I should have also added that NatGas has an energy density of 10MJ/L, whilst LPG has over 25. So it's CLEARLY a much poorer cousin and able to do much less work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

Quote from Debora MacKenzie article in New Scientist (2010):

"Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics. All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism.

All denialists see themselves as underdogs fighting a corrupt elite. This common ground tells us a great deal about the underlying causes of denialism. The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases - diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work.

Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.

Many people see this as a threat to important aspects of their lives. In Texas last year, a member of a state committee who was trying to get creationism added to school science standards almost said as much when he proclaimed "somebody's got to stand up to experts".

It is this sense of loss of control that really matters. In such situations, many people prefer to reject expert evidence in favour of alternative explanations that promise to hand control back to them, even if those explanations are not supported by evidence.

All denialisms appear to be attempts like this to regain a sense of agency over uncaring nature: blaming autism on vaccines rather than an unknown natural cause, insisting that humans were made by divine plan, rejecting the idea that actions we thought were okay, such as smoking and burning coal, have turned out to be dangerous."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html

Jenny Goldie has a BSc. which means she has been trained to think, unlike some of the posters on OLO.

David

coorangreeny "NATURAL GAS is different enough that cars need to be modified to use it, even if they already run on LPG. There are no NatGas pumps ANYWHERE in Australia, an entirely new infrastructure needs to be built to accommodate such a change, and it will cost BILLIONS..."

OMG OMG OMG oh no .. BILLIONS, OMG OMG PANIC PANIC, HYSTERICAL RUNNING IN CIRCLES! (Extreme sarcasm)

Oh wait, the ALP hoses that down the drain regularly .. and now wants to hose $43B on some stupid pie in the sky venture for fast internet (which I already have BTW)

So what if it costs BILLIONS!, fine, bring it on.

Sheesh you'd think money alone would inhibit our desire to drive to work!

Next!

Hasbeeen,

You seem to be a go-getter in your support of high-polluting industries.

You would be impressed by the following then - it's not shale oil, but tar sands.

(you'll probably get a kick out of it too, rpg)

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/294678

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-13-flying-over-the-alberta-tar-sands

OHH/dear...i gave up arguing
with petro industry shills...
and thus drinking their cool-aid..long ago

the law...is energy cant be created..nor destroyed
thus lets look at water...
[hydrogen...two/part...
oxigen...one/part

the energy..IS ALLREADY...CREATED*

...get it?

for those not fooled..by fools
http://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=joe%20fuel%20cell

and check it out...for ya-selves
were NOT creating ..energy
were releasing*...it

and its cheaper..than water..
to RE-LEASE..it

while..were at it*..

check out magnets...[magnetic moters]
that WILL...in time replace...coal

the mess-age...is comming to an end
pet-ro/chemical...is plenty-full...look at russia's ..big finds...lol

bah...lord why you make..so many ignorant people for?
[they cant be as dumb..as they pretend]

still
who..listens to a petro/shill

you lot cried the sky..is falling
too many times

we remember..your 70's scam
a two percent..fall in production..

and the price tripples

NO MORE..!

you lot... got too greedy

[where is the fall in petrol price
...as the us dollar..PLUMETS?

ya think were all ..as dumb as you?

Worry worry, What about a mention for all the practical research thats going on to replace the use of fossil fuels.

Here's a challenge for you OUG - I dare you to post a coherent, complete sentence. I wait with baited breath...

Don't greenies hate facts.

Melbourne Cup End of the World Race Call:

...and they're off, it's Peak Oil in front by a bowser, followed by Global Warming, Dying Fauna and Anti-Population... here they come around the straight ... and Dying Fauna, Dead Polar Bears and Too Many Immigrants are making a charge on the inside with Illogical Greenies and Forced Sterilisation using the whip but it's Too Late, Too Late, Too Late coming through the middle pushing We're all Doomed aside - One Thousand Inconsistent Arguments is ahead by a nose of Dying Fauna as we come in to the straight with Global Warming, We're all Doomed, Dead Polar Bears, Peak Oil and Illogical Greenies are neck and neck! But wait, coming up on the outside it's Too Late, Too Late, Too Late ridden by Whiney Voice, it's Too Late, Too Late, Too Late by a whisker!

Poor old OUG lives in a world inhabited by people who can't think outside the box.
This is a person who actually thinks of the components that comprise the words he is using - and he has a bit 'o fun with them...a bit of creative exposition in a real sense.
No doubt about it - if anyone has the temerity to step outside the circle they are immediately brought to book in the most candid(e) fashion.

Dear Hasbeen

I forgot to update my thumbnail resume. I was in Washington for three population conferences (in my capacity as a member of Sustainable Population Australia) and chose to stay on for the Peak Oil conference (in my capacity as vice-president of ACT Peak Oil). So that should have been in the resume, sorry.

I was at the same conference last year though it was in Denver. It is an annual conference organised by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. The people who speak at these conferences are all either in the oil industry itself - or recently retired from it - or in associated organisations like the guy from the World Bank who deals with aviation. But they all know what they are talking about! And this time there was agreement on the timing of a crisis (2-5 years) and the fact that unconventional oil (tar sands, Arctic, deep sea) will not be able to make up the shortfall after 2012-2015 as conventional oil production declines.

Take it or leave it. That's what the experts are saying.

Um, fellas, it has long been know that the problem with the oil industry is not peak oil but the OPEC nations declining to invest in production faciltiies. I won't get into that now but one of the results may well be very like the results from what the oil peakists think is happening - that is, there will be price increases, maybe price spikes and maybe some dislocation while they ramp up production in alternatives such as from Canadian sands, and the pre-salt rigs (the ocean wells drilling really deep). Production from those areas are comparatively small but can be ramped up.

LPG is certainly an alternative for the likes of taxi and truck fleets, and there are also a handful of trucks in Aus using compressed natural gas.

Will oil become scare enough and pricy enough to bring those other sources serious into play, and will thre be a disruption? The definite answer is maybe. Anyone who thinks they can forecast the oil market, and that includes oil peakists, have serious reality issues and I can't help them.

Just before the big oil price spike of a couple of years ago, none of the experienced oil pundits forecast it. Just before prices collapsed, analysts thought it would double. So if analysts or oil peakists say something will happen, then it might be a good idea to expect the exact opposite.

I believein Peak Oil, but suspect that the Doomsday is some way off. In Brisbane there is something called VIPER (I think) which is an overlay on the city to show what suburbs are most at risk from peak oil.

A townplanner friend and I have a friendly bet. He reckons we won't be driving cars in 10 years time. I reckon we will, and mostly using hydro-carbon products. Once the price of oil gets high enough we'll start using some of our coal reserves to produce synthetic fuels using Fischer Tropsch, or some version thereof.

UOG: Some basic chemistry might save you many wasted hours and bytes of bandwidth:

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/chemistryelectrolysis.html

When hydrogen joins up with oxygen to create water it releases 572kJ of energy. To split it apart again to get hydrogen you need to put in exactly the same amount of energy. When you "burn" the hydrogen as a fuel, guess how much energy you get out... Of course I doubt science will put a stop to magical solutions to our problems.

Curmudgeon, if oil is expensive enough to make alternatives viable, what do you think fuel will be costing us at the bowser? And if it's costing more at the bowser, everything else that relies on it costs more, including food, electricity, and yes, even alternative oil production...

This comment, posted by sarnian on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 at 9:09:55 AM, serves to highlight what I see as a conundrum with respect to 'peak oil' and projected subsequent decline in crude oil production, especially as it may relate to Australia:

"Good article Jennie but I fear that
it will fall on deaf ears. I wonder
why the major parties ignore it or
they really do not know about it?"

Sarnian's comment is seemingly supported from within the article itself, where it concludes:


"Australia imports 40 per cent of its oil.
We are not immune from the coming oil crunch.
Perhaps it was apocryphal, but the story goes
that Opposition leader Tony Abbott was
overheard saying to an adviser at the beginning
of the year: "Peak Oil? Do we know about Peak Oil?"

Let's hope our new Prime Minister does know
and acts accordingly."


The conundrum of which I speak is revealed by this quote from the Underground Coal Gasification - Gas to Liquids Information website home page, http://www.ucg-gtl.com/ , which inter alia states:

"The rapid roll out of UCG-GTL will see Australia
become a net oil exporter and a dominant, long term,
supplier of ultra clean, relatively cheap, liquid fuels
to Asia and pleasingly many of our Government's
senior ministers "get it"."

It is encouraging to see the article author, Jennie Goldie, engaging in this discussion under the OLO userID of 'popnperish'. Jennie, have you any explanation for what appears to have been the blanket of silence that has covered both the Linc Energy UCG-GTL production plans, and the arguably world-significance (a tripling of world reserves) of the central Australian Pedirka Basin deep coal seams revealed by Central Petroleum over the last couple of years?

I might add that I recall seeing projected GTL production costs of the order of $60/barrel crude oil equivalence for one of the UCG-GTL proposed central Australian developments, but have temporarily lost sight of the reference.

Am I correct in thinking the Australian public is being kept very much in the dark on this?

Forrest Gump, we had a coal to oil pilot plant at Morwell. As I understand it, when the research was finished, the plant was dismantled and the technology was taken overseas, if I remember rightly to somewhere in South America, so we don't own the technology any longer.

Just down the road from there we also once had a Lurgi gas plant. This technology can also be used to produce methanol, which with a bit of modification could be used to run motor cars. If you can produce methanol, I suspect you could also produce ethanol.

One needs to understand the laws of thermodynamics to appreciate the niceties of all this, as the production of portable energy sources from basic materials takes somewhat more energy than gets liberated in the machines in which it is used, so it isn't all beer and skittles.

The production of hydrogen from water is an interesting case,as it also produces half a molecular equivalent of oxygen which doesn't need to carried around as it is available free from the atmosphere, so that your oxygen can be used somewhere else. However, as has been pointed out previously, you still need to put energy in to get energy out, in fact somewhat more in than you get out due to inefficiencies.

David

The Rundle shale oil pilot plant near Gladstone was producing crude oil equivalent viably with crude prices at A$70 a barrel. The oil companies wouldn’t buy it, preferring to import refinery stock.

I never have been able to figure why they were allowed to refuse this local production, but I’m sure there was some perceived strategic reason. I hope it wasn’t fear of greenie reaction.

This process is proven, & could be in production in a very short time, when required.

I suppose the liquidation of coal could be brought on quite quickly. The technology is in economic production in South Africa.

Poirot, as a lover of the ocean, particularly of coral atolls & reefs, I will hate to see the day when we drill for the mountain of oil under the Great Barrier Reef. I would much prefer we use almost any other source for our fuel. However, don’t kid your self, if our urban structures are crumbling because of lack of transport fuel to supply city dwellers, it will be exploited.

I am not too sure of the current coal seam gas project however. The technology seems to be far from proven compatible with existing land use.

I spent a number of years in the Pacific, where my total fuel consumption was less than 4 Lbs of liquid petroleum gas & 2 gallons of petrol per week. When you can equal that, start lecturing.

geoffc
Quite right, everything will become more expensive. There is no possibility of oil running out however. Conventional oil may become more expensive, opening the way for the non-conventionals.

Hasbeen - I looked a that shale oil project briefly. It was a pilot plant which produced about a million something barrels before they shut it down, but it was just a pilot plant. A Canadian company, Suncor, I think, was investing in that area but advances in the tar sands technology resulted in it deciding to concentrate on the Canadian fields.

Abgain, I emphasise that there is no real chance of oil as such running out, although it may become more expensive.

However, that fields remains a good benchmark. If they seriously start to exploit it then you'll know oil prices really are high and going to stay that way.

The Joe/Energy_Cell...is..*NOT*..a hydrogen fuel cell.

It's an Orgone/Energy Accumulator..in which water
is acting as..the medium*

..which captures*the orgone
and allows it..to be transduced*..into*the engine

the Energy/Cell does*..not..deplete its*water..while in operation.

*The water is acting..in the role*..of a catalyst*..in the transference*..of a special form of energy..*from the surrounding atmosphere*..into the engine

and the*..water..itself is*..not consumed*..in the process.

From all outward appearances,an engine operating with this cell seems to be functioning on the Implosion principle,..

a phenomena explored in the writings and patents of inventors Viktor Schauberger,John Keeley,and others.

The following characteristics
have been observed with...the phenomena of*..Implosion*:

The energy..is manifested*..as a suction force,
not an explosion force.

In the presence of*..implosion,..the ambient temperature declines.. rather than expands,..to what is called..the Point*of Anomaly...

For water,..the Point of Anomaly..is 4 degrees Celsius.

There is an absence*..of resistance..and friction.
The power plant..can produce enough energy..to sustain itself
and can operate continuously. .

There are no exhaust by-products.

Dia-magnetic materials..are required..for implosion.
Diamagnetic materials..exhibit properties that are opposite that of magnetic materials...

For example,..a magnetic material..will align..in parallel to the magnetic lines of force..from a magnetic field,..while a diamagnetic metal..(E.g. copper)..will align..at right angles to the magnetic lines of force.

Some people..react with immediate disbelief..when first confronted with information..about the Joe Cell...Such individuals find skepticism..a comfortable refuge...It's easy to..be a skeptic.

There are always those..with flaccid minds..who delude themselves onto thinking..that scoffing at new ideas..or theories that run counter..to conventional wisdom..is an affirmation of intellectual maturity..and sophistication,

but these individuals..are too often..intellectually lazy,..hopelessly self satisfied..and arrogant.

Almost without exception,..a skeptic jumps to the simplistic conclusion..that if..*he hasn't heard about it..or if the new information opposes ideas..which he has been*taught in school,..then the concept being offered must*be invalid!

Of course,..a skeptic will never actually build..the cell..and determine..through observation..whether the cell functions*..as described.

Skeptical sermons..are usually delivered
from the ease of..an arm chair.

Rigidly obedient..to established dogma,..skeptics routinely dismiss new..or revolutionary concepts..out of hand...The refusal to examine empirical evidence..offered by hands-on experimentation..is seen most often..in skeptical professionals..of the pyrly"academic"..persuasion.

Most physics professors are solidly married..to their ego..and 'woe be'..to anyone..who attempts to question..their consecrated,..self-anointed..opinions of the universe.

Three Gases
Joe's cell is capable of producing..three different types of "gas", depending on the "alignment" (Joe's term) of the cell. Joe can change the cell's alignment in a number of ways.

Some alignment changes include: 1) reversing the polarity of the battery's connections; 2) changing the location of the battery connections to different plates; 3) raising or lowering the plate assembly within the charging vat, or 4) using different sources of water. Other possibilities exist as well.

In the videos,..Joe activates the Energy Cell by applying 12 DC voltage from a car battery. Bubbles quickly begin to come off the Energy Cell's plates within 30 seconds.

A Brown Scum or sludge begins to form on the top of the water to which some of the bubbles adhere and coalesce into larger bubbles. Joe then demonstrates the explosive effect of the gas produced by lighting a match to the bubbles adhering to the brown scum floating on top of the water cell.

Each different..type of gas produced..demonstrates a different reaction..when ignited with a match.

A description of the gases follows:

1. Hydrogen gas comes off the cell as very small bubbles and will produce a yellow flame when lit by a match. Igniting the hydrogen bubbles with a match will produce a moderate crack or snap, similar to the sound of a cap gun.

2. After adjusting the alignment, Joe produces a second type of gas (name unknown. Some have speculated that it's Brown's Gas, but I'm not sure )...Holding a match to this gas will produce a louder report (sound); a sharp crack,..but without the yellow flame or ringing in the ears.

3. The third type of gas (again, name unknown) produces the largest energetic discharge of all. When Joe puts a match to this gas, he get a much louder report with heavy ringing in the ears.
This third type of gas is the gas that Joe uses to power the car's engine. Here we have a 'gas'..that has somehow captured a significant amount of Orgone Energy which is expendable within the confines of the engine

Hasbeen,

Too many cars - there are better ways to conserve fuel while transporting people. (no, I don't own a car)

It's nice that you care about the Great Barrier Reef and I also hope it is never drilled. However, if you've taken the trouble to check out my links to tar sands mining in Alberta, you'll realise what man is capable of, even in a country like Canada. This dirty, resource- intensive industry has left a toxic and apocalyptic landscape...very scary stuff.

peak oil is not about running out of oil

it is about the point where declines in production from the old fields cannot be offset by new discoveries

on an inflation adjusted basis oil has only twice been over $80; in the 1860's at the start of the oil age and the late 1970's during the Iranian revolution

i hope we keep on finding oil but the trends don't look good

Jim Rodger's advice to invest "things that are essential for human survival" is becoming increasingly prescient

*However, if you've taken the trouble to check out my links to tar sands mining in Alberta, you'll realise what man is capable of, even in a country like Canada. This dirty, resource- intensive industry has left a toxic and apocalyptic landscape...very scary stuff.*

What suprises me Poirot, is that you are surprised. We know from
many examples, for instance Easter Island, that man will chop down
the very last tree and even turn to canibalism, if it means
survival and the ultimate crunch comes. Laws of the jungle will
prevail!

I have long ago stopped worrying about the things that I cannot
change.

Yabby - just caught the Easter Island thing.. just a point on that.. you're quoting Diamond's theories on Easter Island. Subsequent archeological work has knocked those theories over.
Terry L. Hunt, a professor of archaeology at the University of Hawaii, has conducted several digs on the island. He says archaeological evidence clearly points to that the main cause of the demise of the island’s tree cover as rats, introduced by the islanders, eating the seeds of the palm trees before they could germinate. Further, at least a part of the island still had trees by the time of first European contact. (American Scientist, October 2006.)
He and others have concluded that the Easter Island collapse was due to Western contact, specifically disease and slave raids.

excellent, sensible article.

maybe those calling you crazy are oz tea party pre-cursors.

article in weekend australian about chinese elites said they are all getting their kids houses in the LA or Vancouver, and that they are fully aware that every new car on Chinese roads increases their dependency on imported oil. that complemented another article online about the coming clash between the US and China over oil, in about 6-8 years, just as Jen ny says.

Can I remind people that Jenny Goldie has been talking about population issues for so many years I forget how long, and that only now has it become pc to raise this issue. Jenny, you are still ahead of the pack.

Unquestionably, Rapa Nui has been devoid of large trees for quite some time. Pollen analysis has shown that palm trees once existed on the island and made up part of its flora. Despite this general agreement, research into both the causes and timing of deforestation remains contentious. Nunn (1999) has pointed out that there are numerous methodological problems involved in any attempt to reconstruct prehistoric human impact on the environment. Above all, natural events frequently generate changes that are sometimes similar if not identical to those produced by human impact. Numerous researchers (Finney, 1994; Hunter Anderson, 1998; Nunn, 1999; 2003; Orliac and Orliac, 1998) suggest that the climatic downturn caused by the Little Ice Age may have exacerbated the problem of resource stress and could have contributed to the disappearance of the palm tree from Easter Island. There is little agreement on when exactly the island's palms became extinct.

*Terry L. Hunt, a professor of archaeology at the University of Hawaii, has conducted several digs on the island. He says archaeological evidence clearly points to that the main cause of the demise of the island’s tree cover as rats,*

Diamond also theorizes about this.
Not long after 1400 the palm finally became extinct, not only as a result of being chopped down but also because the now ubiquitous rats prevented its regeneration: of the dozens of preserved palm nuts discovered in caves on Easter, all had been chewed by rats and could no longer germinate." (Diamond, 1995).

sarnian - sorry but you can't take Diamond as an authorative source at all. Hunt says there were still trees when the Europeans arrived, as do others (or at least they say its equivocal because the evidence is mixed) and he trumps Diamond. Diamond is alone is his theories about the Easter Islanders destroying the environment. Or rather its him and Thor Heyderdahl, who he got it from. Everyone else says the civilisation collapsed through western contact - obvious when you think about it. Read the Hunt article.
As for completely disregarding him as a source, read the chapter on Australia in his book on Collapses. Its full of the most collosal blunders. Amongst other problems he confuses the West Australian State constitution (which specifically mentions farmers) with the Federal constitution (which doesn't). Most amusing. You should read it. He can't be used.

Joe Cell Construction
Two Types of Energy Cells:..Acid and Alkaline
Alex Schiffer indicates that you can make the Joe Cell as either an Acid Cell or an Alkaline Cell. He says that a lot of people can't get their cell to work because they have mixed materials from both types of cells.

In his Experimenter's Guide to The Joe Cell, Alex lists which properties and materials match the acid or the alkaline cell. Alex prefers to only build acid cells. The glass test cell described here is based on Alex's notes for an acid cell. .

Early Prototypes
The videos cover many of Joe's early cell prototypes from 1991 onward. Rather than spend the time here describing earlier flawed designs, I feel it's more productive to concentrate on Joe's most recent and successful Joe Cell configurations.

Interested investigators can review Joe's earlier prototypes both on the videos and in Barry's book,The Joe Phenomenon.

Joe discovered that constructing two different Energy Cells produced the best results.A smaller Energy Cell is used in the car itself and another larger cell (located in his shop)..is used for charging the water

The following is a general description of the smaller energy cell and larger energy cell which we shall refer to as the Car Cell, and the Charging Vat respectively, but bear in mind that they are both Joe Cells working on the same principle.

One is simply larger and the other smaller. To get a better understanding of how the Joe Cell works, Alex Schiffer suggests that one should first build a glass test cell and gain some experience.

Then, you can build the charging vat and car cell with greater confidence and fewer mistakes.

We'll describe all three starting with the car cell.

The Car Cell
The Joe Cell that is placed in the car is much smaller than the Charging Vat. The dimensions are not critical,but a Car Cell container of four to five inches inside diameter for stainless steel is sufficient

(six inch diameter for a glass or plastic container ).
Larger diameters are possible,..but probably unnecessary.

The container itself can be made of stainless steel (S/S) glass, or clear acrylic plastic, but we'll concentrate on describing the stainless steel container since the strength and rigidity of this material offers practical advantages for car use.

Checking For Magnetism
Every piece of stainless steel (including nuts and washers) that is used in this cell must have as little magnetic attraction as possible by checking with a neodymium, rare earth magnet (Radio Shack: Rare Earth Magnet ,Cat. # 64-1895).

This magnet is no larger than a pea, but it will serve our purpose. Use Super Glue to attach 12" of strong thread or thin fishing line to the magnet.

Take the magnet with you when you go hunting for your food grade stainless steel (type 316L is most common).

Select stainless steel in which the magnetic attraction is so low that it will not support the weight of the magnet itself. Next, swing or hold the magnet on the string right next to the steel and notice how much of an attractive deflection occurs.

Pick stainless with the lowest level of attraction (there will usually be some attraction).

Making the Plate Assembly
The S/S container is also referred to as the Anode or anode container (the positive terminal of the car's battery is connected to the anode).

The Car Cell uses either 3 or 4 stainless steel cylinders (pipes) which Joe refers to as plates of approximately 1'', 2" , 3", and 4" diameter respectively that are placed concentrically, one inside the other and placed within the anode (housing) container.

These S/S pipes are insulated from each another by a "Y" arrangement of three rubber insulators (Alex Schiffer uses Ebonite or Teflon) that are separated at 120 degree intervals around the pipe and are fitted at the bottom and top between adjacent pipes of the pipe assembly.

These rubber spacers act both as an insulator between the plates and a mechanical means of holding the plate/pipe assembly together (a friction/pressure fit).

It's important that the tops of the pipes are perfectly even (level) with each other

If one pipe is slightly higher or lower than its neighbor, the cell won't work correctly.

Keep it Clean
After obtaining your stainless steel and cutting everything to the correct size, all S/S must be thoroughly cleaned with acetic acid (vinegar) mixed with juvenile water before assembly.

Always work with clean hands. Use no other cleaner on the stainless steel except acetic acid and juvenile water.

Polish the stainless before cleaning it. Don't use commercial abrasives. Keeping everything clean is an absolute requirement for the cell to work.

The Stainless Steel Bolt
The Car Cell has a S/S bolt that is press driven into the bottom of the center 1" pipe. You want to find a stainless steel bolt (check for magnetism) with a hexagonal head that will give you a tight force- fit into the one inch pipe (use a stainless steel (316L if possible) one half inch bolt of 3-4 inch length).

The bolt and the 1" pipe together constitute the Cathode of the Car Cell to which the negative terminal of the battery will connect via the chassis of the car.

The Car Cell container has a hole drilled in the bottom which allows the bolt connected to the 1 " pipe to pass through it. This hole is fitted with a large rubber grommet (or another type of insulator such as a stepped teflon washer) in order to prevent the metal of the bolt from touching the metal of the Energy Cell container.

S/S nuts are secured on the inside and the outside of the bolt to firmly hold it in place. The nuts are also touching the flanges of the large rubber or teflon grommet through which the bolt passes in order to prevent the nut from making a metal to metal contact with the anode container.

The portion of the bolt protruding from the bottom of the container is then bolted to the chassis of the car.

A rubber pad must be placed between the bottom of the positive anode container and the negative car chassis in order to prevent metal to metal contact

The length of the S/S pipe assembly within the Car Cell container is dependent upon the total number of cylinders used for plates..Alex Schiffer found..that the length of the pipe assembly..could be optimized by matching it to the "seed diameter"of the cell.

Alex includes a complete table in his Guide, but a handy rule of thumb is to use 7" long cylinders (pipes).for a 3 plate Car Cell and 8" long cylinders for a 4 plate Car Cell(the anode container should be about 2 inches longer than the interior cylinder plates).

It's important that the length of each cylinder be approximately the same, regardless of the design length chosen. The 2", 3" and 4" plates(pipes)are left electrically unconnected to the battery or to other plates, but they play a critical function in the operation of the Energy Cell.

Joe calls them Neutral Plates. Remember, the negative side of the battery is connected to the center one inch pipe via the S/S bolt (cathode)which is connected to the chassis of the car.

The positive terminal of the battery will be connected to the Car Cell stainless steel anode container via the one inch aluminum tubing will be attached to the cone top of the Car Cell

The Anode Container
The plate assembly is placed within the S/S anode container. The plates are held suspended off the bottom of the container by the S/S bolt passing up through the hole that was drilled in the bottom of the container.

The anode container needs to be capped with a cone shaped top.

edited
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/fejoewatercell.shtml

You weld a 1" compression angle fitting to the reducer's 1" hole at the top in order to receive the 1" aluminum tubing that will carry the orgone to the engine manifold.

The one inch aluminum tubing should be polished on the inside since orgone behaves like an optical wave.

Ideally, you want the aluminum tubing angle rising until it reaches the carb connection, but horizontal runs of the tubing are OK. Don't, however, direct the tubing downwards.

Orgone wants to rise, it does not want to go downhill..*

Mate, I have read the paper on the Joe cell and it is unbelievable that in this day and age, people still believe in fairies.

David

Once again I have to agree with David ..

The Joe-cell defies the laws of physic .. uh huh.

The skeptic in me just screams out for an explanation, which in the various pages is not forthcoming.

For a while people get sucked in by the conjurers tricks, but eventually people realize.

Hoping and wishing something is true, does not make it so.

The desire to find renewable or "free" energy sources is always going to bring out charlatans.

(I only read the post because of David's comments, and it reinforced what I thought some time ago about these posts of oug. I knew guys when I was young who got into interesting substances, who sounded like and raved in a like manner.)

The good oil on Easter Island: “archaeological evidence clearly points to that the main cause of the demise of the island’s tree cover as rats”
Quite so, humans were incidental to the presence of rats - just as the Anopheles mosquito is incidental to the presence of the Plasmodium parasite which is the malarial infection.
And so it is with oils - the number of humans depending upon cheap oil for energy and fertiliser is just incidental to the development of a shortage of readily-exploited oil reserves.

colinsett
yes, I can agree to that. People brought the rats so they must take some of the blame for the eventual distruction of Easter Island's tree cover - just so Diamond's stuff vanishes into the history of nutty theories..

It is strange that a nutter like Diamond manages to get published in Science, probably one of the two most respected peer-reviewed science journals in the world. I (and almost certainly Diamond) don't dispute that there are errors in "Collapse", as there would be in any book of similar length. Here is what Diamond has to say to his critics on Eater Island

"Thus, major changes unfolded on Easter Island before European arrival. Those changes included deforestation; the loss of palm sap as a food and water source; switching from wood to grasses and sedges as fuel; establishing stone mulching; ceasing to carve statues, because deforestation meant no more big logs and fiber rope for transport; abandoning upland plantations, probably used to feed workers transporting statues; and (as described in oral traditions) increases in warfare, statue destruction by rival clans, and use of refuge caves. However, alternative views have been proposed.

One view is a version of Rousseau's noble savage myth: the claim that bad things began happening on Easter only after European arrival (13-15). Undoubtedly, Europeans on Easter, as elsewhere in the Pacific, did serious harm through slave raids, worsened erosion, and introduced diseases, grazing animals, and plants. But this view ignores or dismisses the abundant evidence, summarized above, for pre-European impacts.

Another view recognizes pre-European deforestation but blames it on hypothesized droughts (2). However, there is no direct information about climate change on Easter between A.D. 1000 and 1700. Easter's forests had already survived tens of thousands of years of climate fluctuations (1), and it seems unlikely that a drought in the 1600s (if there was one) destroyed the forests just coincidently soon after human arrival."

Cont'd

Cont'd

Rest of quote from Diamond:

"According to a third view, deforestation was caused by introduced rats, as suggested by rat gnaw marks on many nuts of the extinct palm (15). This hypothesis does not account for all those palm stumps cut off at the ground and burned, nor for the larger number of palm nuts burned rather than gnawed, nor for the disappearance of the long-lived palm trees themselves (with an estimated life span of up to 2000 years) (16). If rats were responsible, they were unusual ones, equipped with fire and hatchets. Thousands of other Pacific islands overrun by introduced rats were not deforested, and many other tree species that survived on other rat-infested islands disappeared on Easter (16)."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5845/1692

diamond is absolutely correct

collapse is always caused by a combination of events

overpopulation however is the common thread

" If, for whatever reason, humans fail to stop population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, Nature will stop these growths."

ie Easter Island and the viking settlements on Greenland

western europe delayed collapse by exporting surplus people to north america, australia, india etc

She's right, you know. I've done my bit.

David

One more point. The journal of Jacob Roggeveen, the Dutch sea captain and first European to discover Easter Island (in 1722), says that the island was "destitute of trees". Of course, it is possible that a few trees were still hanging on in some isolated spot, so weren't technically extinct, but this is pretty good evidence that the island was already substantially deforested before Europeans ever got there.

Divergence - actually Diamond's errors in the collapse book are legion. As I said before, read the chapter on Australia. For anyone who know something about Aus his remarks on our constitutiona dn history are a hoot. The man didn't bother to research it at all. As for the rats, sorry but Hunt's work would trump his. He may well have simply invented the bit about burnt stumps.. and there are all the other problems with the supposed evidence about a collapse in the middle ages..
As I said before he's in the nutter category.. if Science has put him in, that Science's problem, not ours..

The most interesting development in electric vehicles at present is with motorcycles. e.g.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/10/brammo-enertia-plus.html

The lighter weight means that batteries are currently good enough to make them a viable alternative. Currently the main risk to lighter vehicles is the heavier vehicles on the road. Up the petrol price enough and the reduction in tanks on the road will make it safer.

jared diamond is a Prof. of Physiology and a Prof. of geography and of Environmental Health Sciences

he has also written some books including; The Third Chimpanzee,Why is sex fun and Gun,Germs and Steel

he also has a Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction and is the ONLY two-time winner of the Science Book Prize

the broad range of the disciplines he covers - linguistics,genetics,animal behaviour,molecular biology and others - caused a reviewer to write, '"Jared Diamond" is suspected of actually being the pseudonym for a committee of experts'

he also speaks 12 languages

obviously a nutter

Don't worry about it kiwichick, curmudgeon (Mark Lawson) is quite often apt to describe anyone who he doesn't agree with in terms of mental illness.

Jared Diamond, well published scientist, author and winner of numerous medals and awards such as the Archie Carr Medal, the Skeptics Society Randi Award, National Medal of Science and Dickson Prize in Science just to name a few....writes one book Mark doesn't agree with (because it crosses his politics) => nutter

Professor Zhou Qiulin of the Third Institute of Oceanography of State Oceanic Administration (China), makes a statement about sea levels in a lecture at Peking university....=> ‘a right, raving nutter’ who ‘deserves to be locked up’.

And pretty much anyone who believes the IPCC is a ‘lunatic’, it's in the title of his book: A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy.

I observe that it is now over four days since the last post to the comments thread to this article, and nigh on six days since the last clearly 'on topic' post.


I make this observation by way of providing background to what I hope will be encouragement to the article author, Jenny Goldie; the news that her article was topping the 'This week's most popular' display on the Forum main page as at around 8:00 AM Tuesday 9 November 2010. See this Twitpic recording that event: http://bit.ly/caJP3L

I note Jenny Goldie's earlier participation in this discussion. (My apologies, BTW, for mis-spelling your name as 'Jennie': I was guilty of repeating the error of another poster from a copy-and-paste quote I had made. Perhaps my alter-ego was to blame.)



I particularly note that there has been no comment in relation to the apparent conundrum I raised in my earlier post to this thread on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 at 2:04:25 PM (here: http://bit.ly/dmzLYG ), that the development of the UCG-GTL technology of Linc Energy (see: http://bit.ly/arOiJc ) applied to stranded and/or deep central Australian coal deposits would see Australia becoming a nett exporter of refined high grade liquid fuels.



Against the background of the following occurrences, I am hoping the article author (or any other informed poster) can make some illuminating comment with respect to the conundrum I presented:


The utterly unexpected deposing of Australia's former PM, Kevin Rudd, just after his proposing of a new resource rental tax;

the subsequent very public immediate abandonment of that intention by the new PM, Julia Gillard;

the timing, electoral events surrounding, and outcome, of the 21 August Federal elections;

the claimed intended commitment of not less than $43 billion of borrowings to a highly questionable NBN;

the recent 'corporate image' TV advertising campaign of Chevron corporation, despite lack of recognised 'domestic' presence in Australia;

the proposed ASX takeover by Singapore;

and the recent visit of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

Forest,
I have been away since the 4th otherwise I would no doubt have
made more comment and I have not read all the comments here.
Your comments seem largely off thread anyway.
The crux of he whole problem is the lack of acknowledgement by the
politicians that we have a problem. Quote Tony Abbot
"We know about peak oil do we ?" to an an aid when asked about it in a press conference.
Oh yes said the aid and then then waffled on about petrol price Hmmmmm.

The problem is really serious and made worse by political avoidance.
We could be elbowed out of the international market and have to rely
on our 40 to 50 percent of our usage from our own depleting supplies.
If anyone thinks even the remote possibility of that is a no worries
situation they have another think coming.

Visualise a PM getting up one day in parliament and having to announce
that petrol rationing will be introduced tomorrow.
No preparation having been done and the best idea that they have is
an odds and evens scheme.
No preparation of priority for food supplies, no legislation to force
freight onto rail and shipping.

At present the best outlook is that the price will rise so high that
the number of people to stop buying the fuel will make enough
available for essential services.
But what price will that be ? $5 a litre ? They pay nearly that in
Europe now. So perhaps $10 a litre, or $15 ?
Fuels prices are said to be inelastic, ie people will pay uneconomic
prices for fuel.
What then happens to the economy ?

Hasbeen,
Trying to catch up;

You said;I am not too sure of the current coal seam gas project however.
Linc Energy has a pilot underground coal gasification plant in
Queensland that then produces diesel fuel. They are also going to trial
a fuel cell to produce electricity.
The pilot plant is a success and they are going to build a full scale
plant in South Australia.
It actually burns the coal in situ so they can work at very great depths.

Curmudgeon said;
Just before the big oil price spike of a couple of years ago, none of the experienced oil pundits forecast it.
Just before prices collapsed, analysts thought it would double. So if analysts or oil peakists say something will happen,
then it might be a good idea to expect the exact opposite.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 1:05:52 PM

Sorry but they did forecast it !
The Canadian economist Jeff Rubin did and a number of others with
varying accuracy.
One, Kenneth Defreys predicted that oil production would stop increasing in late 2004 and it did in early 2005.
A number of experts had been concerned at the demand/supply situation
in 2007 and were concerned about 2008 prices.
Sadly it came to pass in July 2008 just two months before the Great
Financial Crash. Four of the previous five recessions were preceded by
spikes in oil prices.
It is not that the situation was not prdicted, it is just that no one was listening !

More
Curmudgeon,
Crude oil peaked in early 2005.
Crude oil plus all liquids peaked in July 2008.
In July 2008 oil reached $147 a barrel.
In September the GFC happened and oil dropped to $35 a barrel.
This cycle will repeat as predicted by Colin Campbell one of the
retired oil company engineers and others.

In August oil was around $70, yesterday $85, tomorrow ?

OLO userID 'Bazz', who has posted in many discussions on OLO in relation to what could be described as 'energy security' matters, (See Bazz's OLO user history: http://bit.ly/bJsVae ) in his post of Tuesday, 9 November 2010 at 3:37:34 PM, said:

"I have been away since the 4th otherwise
I would no doubt have made more comment
and I have not read all the comments here.
Your comments seem largely off thread anyway.
The crux of he whole problem is the lack of
acknowledgement by the politicians that we
have a problem."

Bazz, we are not in dispute as to anything in this thread, except perhaps as to your aside that my (more recent) comments "seem largely off thread ...". I can understand your thinking that with your admission that you had not, as of posting, yet read all the comments. Reading my post of Tuesday, 2 November 2010 at 2:04:25 PM (See: http://bit.ly/dmzLYG ) will make clear the conundrum I see with respect to the article's claims and this debate.

It is not me contesting the thrust of Jenny Goldie's article and the implications she as a consequence sees for Australia, but the evidently not widely disseminated online literature of those following the leading-edge Australian players in UCG-GTL and central Australian coal exploration, Linc Energy and Central Petroleum respectively, to name but two. It is to but a small part of that online literature that I have linked (no pun intended) in my earlier post.

Your experience, and that of the Australian public at large, is that our politicians either do not know, or are pretending to not want to know, about the implications of 'peak oil' (or perhaps more immediately and correctly, 'gap oil') for the AUSTRALIANS they are supposed to represent. The linked reference ( http://bit.ly/arOiJc ) expressly contradicts our seemingly shared experience that our politicians, across the board (with the possible exception of Wyatt Roy), do not know/seem not to want to know about this foreseen problem. That reference claims our present government(?) "gets it".

Who is being 'snowed' by whom?

I beg to differ to the below statement

The linked reference ( http://bit.ly/arOiJc ) expressly contradicts our seemingly shared experience that our politicians, across the board (with the possible exception of Wyatt Roy), do not know/seem not to want to know about this foreseen problem.

Christne Milne has spoken about peak oil and tried to kickstart a discussian about it in the Senate.

As I understand it, the "authorities are about to ban underground burning of coal seams, because of the threat of contaminating water.
The farmers are dead set against it.
It would be a moot point, that there would be sufficient infrastructure to provide enough fuel from underground coal seams, for Australian local use, let alone exporting it

Posted by sarnian, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 9:04:13 AM:

"Christine Milne has spoken about peak oil and tried
to kickstart a discussion about it in the Senate."

Sarnian, could you quote a specific reference, preferably with a link?

Meanwhile, here is a link to the term 'gap oil', which is, IMO, what this article is really about: http://bit.ly/9IwzAn

forrest; peak or gap call it what you like, the forecasts for production decline of 3-6 % annually means finding a replacement for 2.25 million to 4.5 million barrels of oil per day EACH YEAR!

for comparison the USA produces approx 5.5 million bpd

KSA produces 9 - 10 millionbpd so in effect we need another KSA every second to third year...

HELLO!

Peak oil plan needed to avoid default to coal
Media Release | Spokesperson Christine Milne Wednesday 18th November 2009, 6:21pm
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/peak-oil-plan-needed-avoid-default-coal
National Transport Strategy - climate change impacts, greenhouse emissions and peak oil
Estimates Transcripts | Spokesperson Christine Milne Tuesday 21st October 2008, 12:00am
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/transcript/national-transport-strategy-climate-change-impacts-greenhouse-emissions-and-peak-
ABARE’s projections of peak oil and solar power’s growth
Estimates Transcripts | Spokesperson Christine Milne Monday 24th May 2010, 12:00am
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/transcript/abares-projections-peak-oil-and-solar-powers-growth

Senator «MILNE» -Can you tell me whether ABARE believes that oil has peaked or whether we are still anticipating peak oil from ABARE's point of view? Just keeping a monitoring eye on ABARE and oil-
Ms Melanie -We are certainly-
Senator «MILNE» -Perhaps, Mr Glyde, you would be able to tell me that?
Mr Glyde -I am very happy for Ms Melanie to continue. I would be very interested in the answer.
Senator «MILNE» -Wouldn't we all?
Ms Melanie -ABARE is certainly constantly doing the same-keeping an eye on what is happening in oil markets. On the basis of that we are constantly reviewing our long-term assumptions. But we are still of the view that in the longer term oil prices will be determined by the cost of alternative fuels. That is certainly where we see the ceiling, I suppose, in the longer term.
Senator «MILNE» -Yes, but you must be making some judgment about peak oil. In ABARE's view have we reached peak oil or not?
Ms Melanie -We do not tend to look at the issue from that perspective. Basically, underlying our forecast is the notion that markets-demand and supply-will determine the price of oil and will determine when alternatives come in. The point is not so much whether we will be running out of oil; it is more when and whether the alternatives will become economically viable.

Those of you following this thread may find this url of interest.

http://www.countercurrents.org/alexander051110.htm

The interviewee has some interesting comments on depletion and finance.
She also comments on the silence of politicians.

Sarnian,
I read one of the urls you provided.
ABARES answer to Senator Milne's peak oil question shows that ABARE
still believes as their previous evidence;
"If the price of eggs is high enough, roosters will start laying."

how often do economists get it right?

how many predicted the latest financial picnic?

tenth law of sustainability;" Growth in the rate of consumption of a non-renewable resource, such as a fossil fuel, causes a dramatic decrease in the life expectancy of the resource."

Dr. A Bartlett

Bazz,
The point I was making was that Christine Milne is and has been aware of peak oil and has been trying to do something about it, since at least 2005.

Sarnian,
Yes, I was aware that Senator Milne was awake.
Barnaby Joyce is another that spoke on it in the senate.
It is said that Martin Ferguson is a closet peak oiler.

There was the Minister for Sustainability in Queensland who tried to
get the governments moving, but he lost his seat in the last election.

Perhaps the others took note !

Thank you, sarnian, for those links, and for what could well be a key extract therefrom, in your post of Thursday, 11 November 2010 at 10:08:10 AM. I have read them all. My apologies for not responding earlier, but I was away for the day.

Before commenting on that key extract I would like to make a key extract of my own from the first link supplied, by way of settimg some background in place. Senator Milne said:

"The Government and Opposition today
[Wednesday 18th November 2009] voted
against a Greens motion calling on the
Government to plan for peak oil in the
light of the most recent global figures
showing that a shift from oil power to
coal power is increasing global
greenhouse emissions."

To me, the response to Senator Milne's question asked in Committee on 24 May 2010 of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) spokesperson, Jane Melanie, as to whether in ABARE's view peak oil had been reached, was revealing. That response was:

"[ABARE] do not tend to look at the issue
from that perspective. Basically, underlying
our forecast is the notion that markets-demand
and supply-will determine the price of oil and
will determine when alternatives come in. The
point is not so much whether we will be running
out of oil; it is more when and whether the
alternatives will become economically viable."




My own translation of that response is "Yes ABARE knows about peak oil, we consider there is a solution, but we do not want to talk about it."




If my translation of that response is broadly accurate, given that ABARE is a government instrumentality, and given that BOTH major parties voted against the Greens' motion of which Senator Milne has spoken, then Australians at large have a problem. In the immediate sense, that problem is that they are being kept in the dark.

I am trying to have some light shed as to WHY it is thought necessary that Australians at large be kept in the dark about liquid fuel supply security.

TBC

Continued

Before continuing, however, I feel I must draw attention to a seeming 'situating of the appreciation' implicit in the words of Senator Milne quoted by way of background in my previous post. That 'situating of the appreciation' subsists in the words:

"... a shift from oil power to
coal power is increasing global
greenhouse emissions."

Whilst that statement may be arguably true as it stands in splendid isolation, there are other factors at play, and other PRIORITIES that should determine when and how such other factors are brought to bear upon this to-all-accounts immediate problem of an impending Australian liquid fuel supply crisis. My concern is that those priorities should be AUSTRALIAN priorities, rather than those of trans-national corporatism or 'the rest of the world', the dis-United Nations.




Solving this liquid fuels problem in and for Australia may well mean it can be solved for the world.




Big Oil and its fellow-travellers is visibly running out of product to sell, at viable prices, to us its heavily dependent customers. I see no reason why Australia in particular should not immediately commence to build a business structure of its own to provide a (better quality) substitute, to its own timetable, around its own very abundant coal resources. I see no reason why Australia and Australians should not own such a business lock, stock, and barrel. Why wait for 'Big Oil' and its entourage to move into this field at its own convenience?

Sadly, it seems as if just such delay is what Australia's political parties, including the Greens, have so far been facilitating. Nothing, to me, highlights this more than the near-total absence from public discussion of the world significance of the recent Pedirka Basin coal discoveries.

UCG-GTL looks very like it could be a large part of a solution, buying time for Australia at least, if not the world, to get off the oil tiger's back without being eaten, without our society imploding - which is what we otherwise all face without cheap available energy, particularly in the form of liquid fuels

I agree with Forest Gump, the situation is serious and we are being let
down badly by our politicians.
The 2010 report of the International Energy Authority has this year for
the first time used the words "Peak Oil" in its report.
A graph shows crude oil starting to decline in 2006.
The graph also shows natural gas liquids making up the difference plus
the output of yet to be developed oil fields and, get this, yet to be
discovered oil fields !

While the optimists at the IEA have surrended, they are still wanting
to count what has not yet been found.

The government should be at present designing a rationing scheme,
writing the programs to administer it, and preparing the cards for
the Australian government Access card. This card could be used for
Medicare, petrol and diesel rationing, medical records and a multitude
of other functions.
As in Iran the pumps will need to be fitted with card readers to
control supply. To avoid hacking the reader will need to communicate
with the government computer for a decision to supply.
All this is a big system design and programming job and will take
quite some time to do.
Isn't this what we pay politicians to do ?

The government should have legislation prepared to administer the
rationing including taking over the control of import fuel buying.
We cannot trust the overseas owned oil companies to have our interest
front and foremost when bidding for fuel in the international market.
It would be too easy for the oil companies HQs to tell the locals to
put in a lower bid than the HQs. It will be dog eat dog when it hits
the fan.

*The government should be at present designing a rationing scheme,
writing the programs to administer it, and preparing the cards for
the Australian government Access card*

No need Bazz. When the price goes up 100%, people will stop
wasting fuel as they do now and demand will drop substantially.

Problem solved.

ucg-gtl is a stupid solution, and is unlikely to be adopted. Burning coal seams underground leaves a contaminated waste in geologically unstable subterranean hollows. This has the potential to poison groundwater supplies.

Quite a few years ago on what I vaguely remember was the Peak oil Sydney forum but could have been elsewhere, there was a report about a presentation put on at the request of a group of back bench Senators in Canberra on the subject of peak oil.
It was apparently a well-done lecture with a power point display and had been put on at various venues around the country.
At the end of the “show” the speaker asked for any questions.
Instead of a question, one of the senators said, “This is terrible, why has the government not done something about this?”
It was gently pointed out to him, that he was part of the Government.
Unfortunately I have not been able to find this report, it having been lost in non backed up computer crash.
It does however expose the caliber of our political leaders.

Yabby.
You are partly right, but price rationing is the solution for the
rich boys. Who would have the best need, a trady on the way to a job
in his ute with a load of tools or a $16 Million man who did not want
to mix it with the public on public transport ?
Hmmm or to put it into your situation, a farmer needing a part for his header ?

Bazz, it would be far too complex and open to corruption for
Govts to ever sort that out, but the market in fact will.

The 16 million $ man can buy his fuel anyhow, even if on the
black market, from the pensioner who does not need his allocation,
according to your method.

Farmers will simply grow canola and produce their own fuel.
Rather then export it, they can drive their machines with it.
That includes 4wds to pick up parts :)

The first thing that will happen, logistics will become a huge
business. Moving a roadtrain of 50-60 tonnes of freight, is
incredibly efficient, compared to couriers and small trucks etc.

If all freight was put on one truck, to say our town, fuel used
would drop 70%. At the moment you have couriers, bread trucks,
paper delivery, small loads, the list is endless.

How many people drive to the shops every day? Heaps. Americans
are even too lazy to make their own coffee, they drive to the
closest drive through coffee place. Imagine the fuel used for
all those trivial trips.

But I see another solution for Australia. People already have
gas piped to their houses, or many do. Cars can in fact be converted
to run on that gas, they could fill up at home. Just the govt won't
be happy, they will miss out on their tax.

So there will be a number of solutions, market driven. Gas in
various forms, electric cars, expensive petrol, diesel, ethanol.

There is no one holy grail, but a combination of solutions,
combined with a huge reduction in wastage. A high fuel price
will bring it all on.

I grant all your objections are true, but, I can see no alternative.
Part of my plan into which I did not expand would be a market for spare
fuel ration. This could be done through the rationing computer.
Someone like me that uses a quite small amount of fuel a year could
place my excess litres onto the rationing market for the highest bidder.

Of course there will be fiddles, people buying wrecks just to get the
owners entitlement etc. However comparison with the states car
registory could stop a lot of that.
Nothing will be perfect but it might stop or reduce armed holdups for
petrol. The crux of the matter is the economy cannot survive with the
cost of fuel being allowed to reach astronomic levels.
The crude price rise will be bad enough without having on top of that
rises caused by a scramble to corner the petrol diesel market.
Re farmers, if they can grow their own good luck to them.
So long as they don't have to put more energy in than they can take out.

Imagine walking past a service station and see the $6M man filling his Rolls Royce.
You would not be a happy camper would you ?
That is what the government will have to face.
The public will demand a ration, just like we had in war time.

It is a bit like banning tobacco, sure some people will grow it but
the health of the community would be better anyway.

The problem is that the ration would gradually diminish to zero any way, even if you could afford to buy it.
Face it unless “they” come up with a brilliant new source of fuel to replace common old petrol, we will all be on bikes or horses.
But do not despair, with the latest report from the International Energy Agency that global temps will rise by 3.5C by the year 2050. There will not be enough of us left to use up what we have.

*Part of my plan into which I did not expand would be a market for spare
fuel ration.*

Ah Bazz, but that would mean that money being taxed. I betcha that
the cash fuel market would boom! All those on pensions etc, able
to make a bit on the side. Ration things, a black market will
develop.

*Nothing will be perfect but it might stop or reduce armed holdups for
petrol.*

Bazz, that happens now for money. I can't see it being any different,
wether petrol is rationed or not.

*The crux of the matter is the economy cannot survive with the
cost of fuel being allowed to reach astronomic levels.*

Ah, but high prices drive innovation and efficient use! So the
economy will change and adapt. My wheat might be used to generate
ethanol or it might be exported for food. Only the market can sort
that out.

*Imagine walking past a service station and see the $6M man filling his Rolls Royce.*

Well he might want to buy the black market ethanol that I have
just produced from my wheat :)

*It is a bit like banning tobacco*

No its not Bazz, cause right now people can freely buy tobacco.
If they banned it, like dope, the illegal market would become
enormous. Dope is one of the largest cash crops in many American
states.

Bazz, look at it this way:

The 6 million $ man can right now as we speak, write out a cheque
for a Tesla sports car. He can fill it up at home off the
electricity grid and drive around all he wants, without ever
worrying about your rationing system.

Will that upset you too? There are just so many variables in
the energy game, that it is impossible to ration and regulate.
So market regulation will make perfect sense.

Well Yabby, ultimately we are all dead.
There is already legislation to control supplies of fuel, but it is
only designed for short term disruptions. It also does not get down to
the final user of the fuel.

I just don't see how we can let say a Meals on Wheels driver go without
fuel so that someone with plenty of money drive.
I just don't believe that the government has no social responsibility
in such an emergency and can just leave it to the market.

After all the roll of the "market" in a time of zero growth or indeed
contraction is ending.
Everything is being turned on its head, most of the old principles
will be modified to their very local versions and will need
different approaches.
After all, it is quite different to take advantage of someone who
lives on the other side of a city to someone who lives at the other
end of your street.

Whatever the problems with rationing it will be needed and it did work
during the war despite the black market as people horded their
entitlements.
There was no way my father would have sold his ration coupons.