vee jay

Oil Crisis? What oil crisis?
An Elephant in the Security Council Room.
Isn't ignorance blissful?

Double production by 2050? Yeah, right.
Jon Thompson as President of ExxonMobil Exploration Company stated world production is "declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year." That suggests less than 16% remaining by 2050.
Get a fuller picture at Policy Pete:

VeeJay says, "Who is Jon Thompson?"
Jon Thompson is President of ExxonMobil Exploration Company.
Jon Thompson as President of ExxonMobil Exploration Company stated world production is "declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year." That suggests less than 16% remaining by 2050. Cornucopian techno-optimists listen up. Jon Thompson, ExxonMobil said it.

September 4, 2003
"Jon Thompson, President of ExxonMobil Exploration Company,
"we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing fields is declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected demand in 2015, the industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a day of new production. That's equal to about 80 percent of today's production level. In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what industry is now spending." *The Lamp, Vol. 85 No. 1 p. 20."

Three World Oil Forecasts Predict Peak Oil Production, by Richard C Duncan, Oil and Gas Journal 5/26/2003
Forecast 1 by Colin Campbell - predicts oil rises at 2% per year until the swing producers control 30% of the world market... about 1998. When prices increase by factor of 2 or 3, demand is curbed, resulting in a plateau of production at about 67million barrels per day until 2008. Production starts decline from that point.
Forecast 1 by Campbell
2003-2008 peak 66.7 million barrels per day
2013 55.6 million barrels per day, decline rate -1.65% per year
2023 40.8 million barrels per day, decline rate -2.43% per year

Forecast 2 by Duncan - Monnin
2006 peak 79.6 million barrels per day
2016 73.5 million barrels per day, decline rate -0.7% per year
2026 55.4 million barrels per day, decline rate -1.7% per year

Forecast 3 by Smith - Douglas-Westwood
2016 peak 81 million barrels per day
2026 58 million barrels per day, decline rate -3.31% per year
2036 40 million barrels per day, decline rate -3.39% per year

Other mitigating factors would be, how much accuracy there is in OPEC reserve numbers, the status of mid-east oil fields, and how much oil there might actually be in Iraq, Kazahkstan, Russia and a few other places.

Who says so? The ones who found and produce the oil reserves we've been using. What are they saying? Oil and gas is going to run out in your lifetime. Slightly different depletion curves are predicted. What's the difference? A decade or two one way or the other.

Do the Bush-Blair Neo-Cons know this stuff? Of course they do. Then why are they urging everyone to jump on the fast track and burn it up as fast as possible? Is it greed? Is it stupidity? You wish.
Think about it. While you contemplate, consider the "unthinkable." The Neo-Cons are way ahead of you. Bush's historic opportunity. A one time chance to hand every member of humanity a non-refundable, one-way ticket on the Armageddon Express.
What about energy conservation? Population reduction? Now you've started dreaming again.
In case you're looking for better proof or if you're looking for a better way out. What message you are getting from the media? You might check with Ted Koppel on NightLine. He might come up with something more comforting.
By the way, where are you reading this information?? Buddycom?
Yeah, right. That's a hoot, isn't it?

What do these guys know about oil, anyway?

Where can you find out about Peak Oil? ABC News? CNN? CNBC? Ted Koppel? Yeah, right. These fellows know the story about Peak Oil, just check with them, click image.
These are the ASPO guys, from left: Rui Rosa, Portugal, Jean H. Laherrere, France, Pierre-Rene Bauquis, France, Peter Gerling, Germany, Colin Campbell, Ireland, Kjell Aleklett, Sweden, Roger W. Bentley, United Kingdom, Hans G. Jud, Switerland, Werner Zittel, Germany, Pertti Sarkomaa, Finland and Klaus Illum, Denmark
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Oil Depletion, Paris, France, May 26-27 2003, Edited by K. Aleklett, C. Campbell and J. Meyer,

See also the Buddycom Book Review:
C J Campbell, The Coming Oil Crisis, review

March 30, 2004
"Here is an interesting interview with Colin Campbell conducted by Michael Ruppert from From The Wilderness. Though already a few months old, it still shows very clearly the Bush administration's foreign policy aspirations - oil is the central factor, make no mistake about it."
"Colin Campbell on Oil Perhaps the World's Foremost Expert on Oil and the Oil Business Confirms the Ever More Apparent Reality of the Post-9-11 World
by Michael C. Ruppert, © COPYRIGHT 2002, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications,
all rights reserved. May be reprinted or distributed for non-profit purposes only.
Oct. 23, 2002, FTW
Colin Campbell is both an academic and a businessman.
Educated at Oxford and holding a Masters degree he has served as a geologist for Oxford University, Texaco, British Petroleum and Amoco (prior to the BP Amoco merger). He has served in executive positions with Shenandoah Oil, Amoco, Fina and was Chairman of the Nordic American Oil Company. He has served as a consultant on oil for the Bulgarian government as well as for Statoil, Mobil, Amerada, Total, Shell, Esso and for the firm Petroconsultants in Geneva. He is the Convener and Editor of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and a Trustee of the Oil Depletion Analysis Center in London.
As a member of The American Society of Petroleum Geologists, The Geological Society of London, and the Petroleum Institute of London he has delivered more than 35 lectures on oil depletion on three continents. His hosts have included universities, governments, and auto manufacturers. He has been published more than 150 times in the field including the 1997 book, The Coming Oil Crisis, Multi-Science Publishing Co. & Petroconsultants.
Before beginning this interview it is necessary for the reader to understand several critical factors about oil and oil production. All of these factors affect how much you or industry pays for oil, how much is available, and what this life-essential commodity can do. Almost every current human endeavor from transportation, to manufacturing, to plastics, and especially food production is inextricably intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies. Commercial food production is oil powered. All pesticides are petroleum based, and all commercial fertilizers are ammonia based. Ammonia is produced from natural gas.
All oil production follows a bell curve, whether in an individual field or on the planet as a whole. On the upslope of the curve production costs are significantly lower than on the downslope when extra effort (expense) is required to extract oil from reservoirs that are emptying out. The best and easiest to produce oil is always extracted first to maximize profits. In 100 years mankind has used half of all the oil on the planet, oil that took billions of years to produce and is the result of climactic conditions that have existed at only one time in the earth's 4.5 billion- year history. Oil is a non-renewable resource.
The key event in the Petroleum Era is not when the oil runs out, but when oil production peaks, especially as demand and population are rising. World per capita oil production peaked in 1979 and has been in decline since. The peak in volume of total world oil production is upon us right now, even as the demand or better said -- the need -- for oil is increasing rapidly.
Several things are a given. First the total remaining conventional oil on the planet is estimated to be around 1 trillion barrels. Second, at present rates (not those of five or 10 years from now), the world is using close to 80 million barrels per day. At the current rate there would be only enough oil to sustain the planet for another 35 years under the best of scenarios. But the oil that remains is going to be increasingly expensive to produce and it will tend to be of a lesser quality, necessitating higher refining costs, than what has already been used. All of those costs will have to be passed on in the form of price hikes or -- in some cases -- spikes. Oil price spikes invariably lead to recession. The world's economy is based upon the sale of products that are either made from oil or which need hydrocarbon energy (including natural gas) to operate, either via internal combustion or via electricity.
Different regions of the world peak in oil production at different times. The U.S. peaked in the early-1970s. Europe, Russia and the North Sea have also peaked. However the OPEC nations of the Middle East peak last. Within a few years they -- or whoever controls them -- will be in effective control of the world oil economy, and, in essence, of human civilization as a whole. Two of the nations that will peak last are Saudi Arabia and Iraq, both of which will not peak until the middle of the next decade. Saudi Arabia contains 25 percent of all the oil on the planet. Iraq contains 11 percent of all the oil on the planet.
Science and the oil industry have confirmed that there is very little oil left to be found, certainly not enough to make a difference in this grim picture, a picture which goes a long way toward explaining the events of 9-11 and since."

Click for 750 x 638 map
Troop deployment/ oil map of Mid-East region

Click map for 635 x 325 map image from CIA Factbook:

"Chinese have become increasingly edgy over their energy exposure." Asia Times, by Alan Boyd, September 6, 2003.

This war on terrorism is bogus. "The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination," by Michael Meacher, September 6, 2003, The Guardian
Michael Meacher MP, was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003.

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war, Ewen MacAskill, September 6, 2003, The Guardian
"From this it seems that the so-called 'war on terrorism' is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives." He adds: "Given this, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance." Mr Meacher, who was environment minister, says: "The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies." He is critical of Britain for allegedly colluding in propagating the myth of a global war of terrorism. He asks: "Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy?"

Undershaft's comment to a disinherited son, Stephen, could answer the last question above:
[with a touch of brutality] The government of your country! I am the government of your country: I, and Lazarus. Do you suppose that you and half a dozen amateurs like you, sitting in a row in that foolish gabble shop, can govern Undershaft and Lazarus? No, my friend: you will do what pays us. You will make war when it suits us, and peace when it doesn't. You will find out that trade requires certain measures when we have decided on those measures. When I want anything to keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a national need. When other people want something to keep my dividends down, you will call out the police and military. And in return you shall have the support and applause of my newspapers, and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman. Government of your country! Be off with you, my boy, and play with your caucuses and leading articles and historic parties and great leaders and burning questions and the rest of your toys. I am going back to my counting-house to pay the piper and call the tune.
Act lll, Major Barbara, George Bernard Shaw

"Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy?"
In practical terms? The answer for this rhetorical interrogative is quite simply, "Yes."

Hunt for 'new' oil
by Timothy Burn

VeeJay says, "'Could we take another look at nuclear fission energy?"

GALENA: Small reactor promises much, but it's never been built.
By Joel Gay, Ron Engstrom, Anchorage Daily News, published: October 21, 2003
"The Toshiba design looks safe on paper, according to Hermann Grunder, director of Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago, a federal research facility that has investigated the new generation of reactors. Liquid sodium eliminates corrosion, which is a primary cause of nuclear power plant accidents, Grunder wrote to the Daily News in an e-mail. 'The probability of radioactive material leakage for this system would be extremely low,' he wrote. Toshiba's design is based largely on existing reactor technology and appears technically feasible, Grunder wrote. 'The main roadblock, if any, would be the cost.' Rosinski agreed. The biggest hurdle is winning approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, he said, which will require Toshiba to finish its design, then build a prototype. He estimated the work would cost $600 million or more and take six to eight years. The Galena plant could be online by 2010, he said. Once the first one is complete, Toshiba believes it can build additional plants for about $20 million each, he said."

The Solar Fraud-Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World
by physicist Dr. Howard Hayden.
To order the book go to:
Dr. Howard Hayden advocates nuclear power. Got your slide rule handy? Excerpts from the book:
"The Energy Advocate is a cross between an educational blurb and a bottle of salsa. We make no apologies for being pro-science, pro-technology, pro-energy --- and especially, pro-nuclear.
We encourage conservation, but do not regard it as a source of energy. Is dieting a source of nutrition?
We are pro-environment. Solar projects almost unfailingly have enormous environmental impact.
There is no such thing as 'safe energy.' To ask for it is to ask for gasoline that doesn't burn. We only request that the safety of energy sources be judged on the basis of the same output.
Perhaps there is global warming, and perhaps there is a human influence, and perhaps that is bad. But we are not on the global-warming bandwagon."energyadvocate.com/we_are.htm

VeeJay says, "How about
Energy Saving Now?"


An Interview with Andrew Weissman
by Bill Powers, Editor Canadian Energy Viewpoint, January 4, 2004
At this point, Bill, I believe there is beginning to be a consensus on the U.S. side of the border that there is not likely to be any meaningful increase in supplies at any point in the foreseeable future. This is perhaps best documented in the Study completed for Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham this fall by the National Petroleum Council ("NPC") - the most comprehensive study of North American supply and demand undertaken in many years. This Study, the Executive Summary for which can be found on the Council's web site at www.npc.org, takes a bleak view of likely future production from what the Council describes as 'traditional North American sources of supply' (a term which the Council defines to include every source, south of the Arctic Circle), concluding that production from these sources has hit a plateau and is not likely increase materially under any of the scenarios considered by the Council. This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the Council's last prior assessment of North American supply, issued in December of 1999 (the '1999 Study'), which reached significantly more optimistic conclusions (now effectively revoked) regarding the ability to increase supplies from the lower 48 States and Canada over the next 20 years. This Study - the conclusions of which have now been explicitly found to be incorrect - in turn was an important factor supporting the decision to build our massive new fleet of gas-fired generating units - many of which were started during the 24 month period immediately after the 1999 Study was issued. The Council's new Study reduces the Council's estimate of long-term North American supply by a staggering 6.0 TCf per year by 2010 (a decrease of almost 20% relative to the Council's last estimate, published less than 4 years ago). Even larger reductions are projected for subsequent years. The effect of these reductions is to create a massive hole in expected North American supplies of natural gas -- which in BTU equivalent terms is equivalent to the sudden loss of all of the oil being imported into the North American market from the Middle East. Between now and 2015, the cumulative deficit, compared to the Council's 1999 assessment, is on the order of 50 TCf. This is comparable to 50% of total U.S. energy consumption in every sector, excluding only mobile sources, in any one year. I believe that if the public better understood the dimensions of this shortfall there would be - and in fact should be - an outburst of concern. Modern economies cannot function without adequate energy supplies and feedstock for key manufacturing processing. From the evidence now available, it is apparent that over the remainder of this decade, we are likely to run desperately short of supplies of natural gas - which currently accounts for 24% of total U.S. energy supply, which had been expected to be the fuel experiencing the most growth and for which, in the short to mid-term, for the most part, no substitutes are available. Further, my own concern, personally, is that there ultimately could be a continuing deterioration in supplies - beyond the levels projected in the National Petroleum Council Study or any Department of Energy Report. The trend is certainly in that direction and I see no apparent reason to be optimistic that it will soon be reversed."

VeeJay says, "'Let us be grateful to people who make us happy: they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom.'
- Marcel Proust"

Carnation Milk
A little old lady from New Orleans had worked in and around family dairy farms since she was old enough to walk...with hours of hardwork and little compensation. When canned Carnation Milk became available in grocery stores(1940's or 50's???) she read an advertisement offering $5,000 for the best slogan or rhyme beginning with "Carnation Milk is best of all....". She said, I know all about milk and dairy farms...I can do this!!!! She sent in her entry and about a week later a black limo drove up in front of her house. A man got out and said "Carnation LOVED your entry so much, we are here to award you $1000, even though we will not be able to use it". Here is her entry: Carnation milk is best of all, no tits to pull, no shit to haul, no buckets to wash, no hay to pitch, just poke a hole in the son-of-a-bitch!

I'd rather be fishing


VeeJay Buddycom