Fresh views on Peak Oil?
Hopefully I’ll provide one or two new things to think about in this short post about Peak oil.
Personally, I don’t buy the biotic theory of oil, i.e. that it is (continually) being made by bacteria in the ground. Oil is toxic to life forms – is it not? Because of the nature of oil, it is reasonable to think that what makes it toxic to large creatures makes it toxic to smaller creatures too. And if I am wrong, you’d think an extract and analysis of a sample of oil would reveal the presence of this bacteria and as far as I know, there aint no bacteria there. If there was you just know what people would be trying to make that bacteria do now! Also, I think radiocarbon dating suggests much of the worlds oil came from a couple of periods millions of years ago abou 150 million years ago and about 60 million years ago), i.e. not last November.
Having said that, when I began to think about the ‘official’ explanation of how oil came about, I became shocked at what had come to believe on the matter. Now I am forced to keep that explanation at arms length! Of course, if you, likeI did, just accept what you are told on the matter, the oddities of oil simply wouldn’t have occurred to you. So lets explor that: Just how a few dead fish could sink the bottom of the ocean (without being eaten by other fish or rotting in the process, having its flesh disperse in the sea) and then accumulate in such quantity over such huge periods of time without being washed away, or have it’s fats/oils from rising to the top of the sea as its body decayed or have their abundance kept in check by predation forces – remember the foxes and rabbits simulation?) and then that the dead fish found it’s way into the middle of an outer casing of impermeable/impervious rock followed by oxygen and nitrogen stripping reactions and to then become subject to huge pressures and temperatures in the thin crust to form oil, *breathe*, simply defies any leniency I can give such a set of circumstances.
So I can’t settle on its origin, but I’m pretty sure it’s quantity/availability is finite and that’s where the problem starts.
I know there’s a flood of ‘peak oil-ers’ and I’ve watched many of the documentaries relating to peak oil. Many people who appear on them are ‘suddeners’ i.e. peak oil gets talked about as though the ‘end’ of oil will happen in a few months having rapid and serious consequences which will leave people stranded. When I first started being exposed to peak oil discussion, I kind of bought into that, but now I don’t. I’ve changed into a ‘slower’ and it’s a hardening opinion within my, catalysed by a documentary I saw recently called The end of Suburbia, which actually made me impatient and irritated at some of the stuff being said. I believed I spotted many holes/flaws in that documentary and ‘suddener’ thinking.
Peak oil is often talked about as demand outstripping supply. And I’m sure I’ve seen charts showing demand going up and up and up while supply goes down and down and down. The way I see it, is that if someone/something – say a business – can’t get their demand fulfilled, then it will go bust. Meaning it will be removed from the demand equation. So I don’t think the up up up depiction is particularly valid.
As demand increases, the price will increase. This will, over time, simply mean that the poor won’t be able to afford (much of) it. That will again take demand out of the system. Additionally as production of crude diminishes, recycling, conservation and preservation will do a bit to offset demand too. Wind, geothermal, tide, solar and wind will necessarily come online while McDonalds (a corporation known to fund Zionism) for example, will simply stop dishing out those rubbishy plastic toys with it’s happy meals. Poorer people in the developed and developing nations who can’t afford £5 a litre for petrol, will simply be forced to car pool or use public transport or move house to be located very close to their place of work. Bicycles will become more popular and likely greater provision will be made for that. The energy intense / resource intense consumers will have to make adjustments too, like not buying as many cars or TV sets as before. They will take cloth shopping bags with them and glass bottles to refill. They will be forced to sort out their rubbish (as already happens in the UK and Germany) into efficient piles of glass, metal, specific plastics etc. Companies too will shift manufacture towards smarter more efficient and innovative designs. They will no longer be able to get away with designing their products to fail after a certain period of time as they currently do. GM based food will skyrocket. The people behind GM food simply don’t give a crap about any potential poisoning. They just want to make money and the people eating GM will want it because they believe it will be ‘cheaper’ (not thinking of the health issues and costs of course).
Tragically, the writing’s on the wall that Nuclear energy (p.s. nuke heads also don’t really give a crap about nuclear pollution/waste either) will be used to generate hydrogen gas , freeing oil/hydrocarbons from sources of combustion to increasingly exclusive use as chemical feedstock’s (e.g. fertilisers) and tyres, road stuffs, general and specialist polymers etc etc. Indeed, I predict with little hesitation that a largely recyclable solvent and energy efficient system/s (e.g. ionic liquids) will become useable in the near future and recycle much of the polymers already in use. I’d expect a gradual revitalisation of the rubber forestry industry. I also expect ordinary people to slowly begin to growing their own foods in gardens, nearby public land or in pots, window boxes etc. More people will stick a set of solar panels on their roof too (I used to think solar panels were an energy sink, but doubt that now). I feel the population will eventually start to decline simply due to real global pollution; Note: that’s nuclear waste pollution and chemical pollution, not this CO2 hoax pollution thing. Actually, there are a variety of ways that could come about and many of them are not very savoury – just ask prince Philip.
As the oil begins to run out, life will change, I think there’s no dispute about that. Those 600 million out of the approx 6,800 million that are well off should be OK. It’ll be the poor who suffer and/or have to make the greatest adjustment.
And of course, as the oil begins to run out, more and more of it will begin to earmarked for military use, to attempt to assert control over the dwindling supplies. When peak oil really does begin to bite (LONG into the future if what I’ve said above makes sense) the elite will probably populate to luxurious locations in minimally polluted tropical lands with tankers offshore filled with supplies of fuel guarded by a private army. Tankers with cables leading to shore, or simply tap into previously stored capped reserves or those deliberately pumped into the ground. You can bet your life that the elite will be virtually unaffected by the end of oil, and while the rest of us are living lives unfamiliar to us today, their life will be the life of riley. They will also seek to control biofuel resources throughout the world.
In conclusion: Post peak oil is expected to be a slow, long drawn out affair. If you’re wealthy, you’ll not get hit all that bad. If you’re poor, life may become harder – all those above you (in monetary terms, i.e. socially and politically) will simply stand on you to keep their heads above water. Life will change, but not coallspe. Suburbia will become gardens of agriculture. The mass multinational ‘DEVELOPED WORLD’ will face little if any starvation (but there WILL be starvation in the 3rd World – absolutely). There will not be ‘shoot-out’s over a tin of beans’ type scenarios either. These instant ‘just add water’ peak oil disaster scenarios are simply unsustainable in my view.