24 Feb 2004 | Charbel said...

That doesn't really change much, and it may be for the better of the middle east if they run out of oil. I bet less than 5% of the middle east is rich from oil while everyone else suffers...If they run out of oil, everyone in the world will stop influencing them and stop trying to control their oil, and it would be for their best...

24 Feb 2004 | len said...

So perhaps everyone should buy as many H2's and Escalades and Hemi-equipped Durangos to run them dry? The future is one smooth and safe drive away.

24 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

It's not really the big SUVs you need to be focusing your concern over - but rather the massive demand that China will be putting on global demand over the next several decades.

24 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

The Oil-wealthy Saudis are independantly wealthy and quite diversified. I'm confident that they are going to be just fine when the oil runs out.

I think we'll have the bigger problem on our own turf if we don't start figuring out what to do to prepare for that day.

24 Feb 2004 | Paul said...

Last night's news cited "experts" stating that by this summer, gas would be near $2.50/gallon - and that's in Denver, which seems to be 20-30 cents cheaper than Chicago on average.

It made me want a Prius.

24 Feb 2004 | JF said...

93 octane premium is $2.27/gal down the street from my place. Yikes.

Thing is, gas prices 10 miles north (outside of Lake County) are about 20-30 cents cheaper per gallon. It's the taxes that push Chicago gas prices so high.

24 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

www.rmi.org.

'nuff said.

24 Feb 2004 | Dr_God said...

If anyone wants a really depressing and sobering read, check out what may happen when oil starts to get more expensive (which seems to may already be happening.)

24 Feb 2004 | Taylor Garries said...

Sometimes the future scares me.

I've been told that there is several times more oil in Alberta than in the middle east. The problem is that it's stuck in oil sands, making it too difficult (read expensive) to extract. Necessity being the mother of all invention, a way will be found.

That's when Canada is declared a terrorist state and gets itself invaded.

But that's 50 years away, so I may be dead by then anyways.

24 Feb 2004 | celing said...

I would like prices about $2.50 per gallon. Here in Germany gas is about $4.80/gal.

24 Feb 2004 | celing said...

I would like prices of about $2.50 per gallon. Here in Germany gas is about $4.80/gal.

24 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Chicago's gas is cheap right now, at least from my perspective. A gallon of regular is running about $2.15 here in southern California, which puts the 93 octane stuff at about $2.35.

Let's see, I've moved from Chicago to southern California, two of the three most expensive gas markets in the country. I need to go to North Dakota next, I think.

24 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Technology already exists to remove oil from sand and other porous materials. And we are close approaching the point where it's economically feasible to go after such oil.

Higher oil prices will soon *hurt* the countries of the middle east; we'll begin more aggressive drilling and extraction in our own sphere of influence, and they'll begin to lose market share faster than otherwise.

Oil's not the issue of the future. You know what is?

Drinking water.

That will make oil look like 19th-century coal.

24 Feb 2004 | ~bc said...

Heck with oil, you know things are bad when the Pentagon of all places is telling the President that the number one security risk to the United States is Global Climate Change.

I was floored by this. Of course, when the EPA told Bush this, the guy had to leave town, but would Bush do with out the Pentagon around to back him?

24 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Ya know, I hate to sound like a broken record (an aside: many of you are too young to have actually owned a broken record!), but this "global warming is a national defense issue" theme is exactly why I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich ... these types of ideas.

You see, many of us (many of you included) realized that the best defense is (don't laugh) world peace. And the best way to achieve peace is through social justice, playing fair, The Golden Rule, etc etc.

Preventing the destruction of the environment is part of being a good, moral nation. I heard Howard Dean (remember him?) say that the number one issue vis-a-vis national defense is the environment.

Republicans don't Get It. Neither does Kerry.

*I* can pick up and move to another nation; I have the means. But that's not the solution.

How about the United States LEAD rather than PUSH?

*sigh*

24 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

"realized that the best defense is (don't laugh) world peace."

But then Dick Cheney won't have a cash cow!

24 Feb 2004 | Toby said...

~bc

Global warming is real, don't get me wrong, but it looks like the Guardian/Observer has put too much credit into the doomier sides of GBN's speculation. The report was prepared by GBN for the Pentagon, to look at worse case scenarios. The Pentagon has a plan for when Canada invades, too, ya know. Grain of salt, people.

That said, I'm looking forward to SA running out of oil. It'll push the world toward a more stable & sustainable energy economy and take some money out of the pockets of the Saudi ruling class.

24 Feb 2004 | Toby said...

Don,

Again, not to be a pollyanna, but I recently heard a pretty nifty DOE proposition for a H2 (not the GM car) economy. My feeling is that, once the price of gas hits $2.50, Americans will be clamoring for it.

Anyone else catch the Secrets of the Dead on PBS last night. About the Hindenburg and why it wasn't hydrogen's fault. I don't know about the next house, but the last house that I buy will have solar panels on the roof to create hydrogen to power the fuel cell in the basement.

24 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

...global warming is a national defense issue...

Is it feasible to think that the point of the Pentagon is to assess the risk of all types of catostrophic scenarios?

I've read somewhere that the Pentagon has a scenario for what will happen if earth is attacked by little green men.

If you consider the statistical odds of an invasion of UFOs, being pounded by meteors or any of the other sceanrios (..."would you like to play a game of chess?...) , then "global climate change" is the number one danger as compared to the likelihood of the other scenarios they consider.

Possible?

24 Feb 2004 | Dr_God said...

A few people have stated that it will be good when we run out of oil because it will force us to create and use better forms of fuel. Let's not forget that oil is responsible for everything in the world right now: water, food, electricity. It is ironically enough essential in the development of alternative fuels. Gotta have oil to create the plastic and run the machines that create solar panels, etc. Oil essentially runs the planet. If we ran out of oil tomorrow, it would create the hugest economic (and thus humanity) crash the world has ever seen. Water couldn't be purified, food couldn't be created. So unless you're Ted Nugent living in his own forest with a bow and arrow, your life would kinda suck. The world needs to wake up and start spending massive amounts of money developing alternative fuel technology, or one day this crack addict we call Planet Earth is going to wake up one day, realize there's no more crack, and have to go through a pretty heavy detox.

Speaking of Ted Nugent, you gotta love this book. :)

24 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

...If we ran out of oil tomorrow, it would create the hugest economic (and thus humanity) crash the world has ever seen...

Perhaps this is why the IEA is looking to invest 16 trillion into energy over the next 30 years.

24 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

Fortunately, our fine leaders are putting this at the top of their priority list.

Oh wait...my mistake...apparently Bush's main priority is to push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

*sigh*

We're a stupid lot of creatures, aren't we?

24 Feb 2004 | didisaythat? said...

When will the world wake up and realize that dead gays make great motor oil?

24 Feb 2004 | Toby said...

Dr. God,

That's why I'm astounded we burn this oil stuff -- we need it for plastics and pharmaceuticals. We likely won't 'run out' of oil anytime soon (we only get 20% of our oil from the mid-east, anyway, so it is more SA & Europe's loss than our own).

24 Feb 2004 | Erin said...

Rather than feed our oil dependency, why not start looking into alternative fuel sources? How about starting with those fuel-efficient, environment-friendly hybrid cars ( Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid) that have been getting lots of good reviews?

Oh, wait, that's right... when you've got an oil man running the country...

24 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I was at a trade show with Ted Nugent last week, but rats I missed him. He's a trip.

SHOT Show

Nader is right; this country is run by "corporatists".

24 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

...why not start looking into alternative fuel sources?...

Actually "we" are. The Texas Energy Center (a combined public / private funded center) - which is actually proposing to build a reseach center within walking distance of my home is doing precisely that.

From the site -

"Even though hydrocarbons can and do provide the vast majority of world energy demands, the perception that hydrocarbons have led to a global warming effect, right or wrong, has provoked intense scrutiny of hydrocarbon-based fuels. We must ensure that mankind can continue to thrive without destroying the environment."

24 Feb 2004 | Dr_God said...

How about starting with those fuel-efficient, environment-friendly hybrid cars ( Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid) that have been getting lots of good reviews?

My wife's lease runs out this fall, and she's determined to get a Prius. I just hope that the waiting list isn't so long by then. I hear there's a 6 month wait in a few states. Yikes!

24 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

Maybe you could get this hybrid-hybrid instead.

24 Feb 2004 | adnan said...

while oil is their major export, they have been working for the last few decades to create other industries to offset their dependence on oil.

for example, the uae where i lived for 19 years, is also known now for tourism, entreport activities including tax free zones hence acting like another hong kong, and refining aluminium. they've been quite successful so far.

25 Feb 2004 | freejoe76 said...

All I gotta say is that life after the oil crash site scared the poop outta me. Let's take a vote: is the US a modern Roman Empire?

25 Feb 2004 | August said...

Toby:

I'm the TA for a course called Engineering Technology and Society (a course the Canadian government requires all graduating engineers to take in order to educate them about environmental issues), and we've been discussing the issues the Guardian article brought up for months now. The required readings for the course have been making the exact same claims, and many of them are five years old or more.

A couple of years ago 102 Nobel prize winners released a similar statement that was completely ignored by conventional news media. I have parts of it sitting on my desk at this very moment.

The Guardian and similar news sources are coming late in the game; the prof I work for (who used to work for the oil industry in the US) has said that no credible scientist treats the more moderate predictions as anything but "if all of humanity changes its ways right now" scenarios; the doom and gloom bits are much more likely.

25 Feb 2004 | Diana said...

is the US a modern Roman Empire?
More so than you think. TV is the Circus Maximus of our empire - and nightly people watch the gladiators battle it out - whether it's reality programming, talk shows, what have you. We stopped being a true Republic long ago especially in light of this Constitutional amendment to bypass state rights in determining whether or not gays can get married. Friends, our country is fucked as much as I love it and care for it. People have forgotten what this place is supposed to be like. I could go on, but I think most people who read this board feel the same way about things...

25 Feb 2004 | ~bc said...

Humanity: Going to hell for 5,000 years and counting!

And this time we're taking everything with us! Hey, Don, care start a community in the woods, after the world goes to hell, and put us all up? Can you make sure it has solar-powered WiFi? If so, I'm in!

25 Feb 2004 | ~bc again said...

Forgot to add, I found a more balanced outlook on that Pentagon report here.

I also appended my entry on my weblog. I'm Fair and Balanced

25 Feb 2004 | Pat said...

I have a new Prius...zippy, fuel efficient, loaded with amenties and it doesn't stink. The US corporations expend all their efforts playing politics to get around fuel, air and other standards while the Japanese, Europeans, Koreans, etc. are busy developing energy saving devices that are putting US companies out of business. It's a crack to see the US car companies rushing their so-called hybrids into production to compete with Toyota and Honda and some European gas sippers.

25 Feb 2004 | SU said...

Mother Jones Magazine has a good piece on choosing between hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol-powered hybrids:

A better alternative exists, one that can achieve the same environmental and national security benefits decades sooner, and at a fraction of the cost. The strategy relies on hybrid vehicles and biofuels like ethanol rather than fuel cells and hydrogen. Even the National Research Council, the arm of the National Academies charged with advising Washington on scientific matters, advocates investing more immediate effort and energy in developing a system based on hybrids and biofuels. Unfortunately, that alternative is being obscured by the scene-stealing hydrogen vision being peddled in Washington and Sacramento.

I feel like we need to keep pushing for hydrogen (especially if it doesn't come from fossil fuel sources!), but we can't expect it to be an immediate panacea. The Bush administration's call for a hydrogen economy is a pie-in-the-sky ploy to sidestep any current need to curtail fuel consumption. A smarter way to move forward would be to continue hydrogen research while simultaneously pushing the limits of current technology.

25 Feb 2004 | racer x said...

This may be a stupid question, but do they make a hybrid vehicle with a manual transmission? That's one thing I don't think I can live without.

25 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

This may be a stupid question, but do they make a hybrid vehicle with a manual transmission? That's one thing I don't think I can live without.

The Honda Insight is available with a manual.

25 Feb 2004 | Pat said...

I can't speak for the Honda Civic, but the Prius has a variable transmission -- no specific gears. Acceleration provides the push and the gas engine is used (for the most part) to maintain the speed. The computer constantly balances the electric and the gas power to achieve the best fuel efficiency.

It's difficult to get a Prius right now. Most people who are ordering now will probably be first on the list for the 2005 models, since there is about a six-month lead time. I suspect the 2005 model will be even more fuel efficient.

Later this year Toyota will have a hybrid SUV on the market as well as a hybrid Lexus. Once those two vehicles are on the streets, I think it will change the image of gas sippers. They will not get the fuel savings of the mid-size Prius -- but fuel savings should still be significant compared to other vehicles in their class.

Every little bit helps.

29 Feb 2004 | SimbaV said...

"Without oil, the Middle East is another Africa a poverty stricken region that the world barely cares about."

... but they could already be paying your salary checks without you even realizing it... right now...

Don't make the mistake that everybody except the US is stupid out there.

Example: has anyone ever visited a place called Dubai in the Emirates lately? These guys know and remember very well what the oil did for them, and are fully aware what they have to do to get their future covered. And believe me, this has nothing to do with oil revenues...

Next time you comment about these things make sure you do some homework so that at least you give the impression to know what you're talking about.

01 Mar 2004 | james said...

I once heard this quote from some unnamed Saudi oil baron, mostly likely on NPR.

"The Stone Age did not end for a lack of stone, and the Oil Age will not end for a lack of oil."

How's that? Because we've gotten so scared 50 years ahead of time that, however slowly, we're moving towards less oil-needy transportation and other processes. And when the ball drops in 2050, the supply we are still using (chiefly for plastics, I presume) is going to stretch on for quite a while. Meanwhile, the former OPEC folks will be controlling markets with higher demand.

Say, drugs and guns. Oh wait, those are both already bigger than the oil, natural gas, and automobile industries. Perhaps some of them are already involved?

01 Mar 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Been to Dubai. Lovely place.

07 Mar 2004 | Clifford Ishii said...

As the world starts to run out of oil and a crisis develops,it will be a good time to proselytize Conservative Christianity and encourage everyone to become a Christian . Then maybe we will depend on God more and ourselves less.

08 Mar 2004 | Mark said...

encourage everyone to become a Christian . Then maybe we will depend on God more and ourselves less.

Please, please tell me you were being sarcastic. The last thing the world needs is more supersitious nut jobs thinking some none existant god has a plan for them.

08 Mar 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Cool ... I'm a superstitious nut job!

Who can spell s-u-p-e-r-s-t-i-t-i-o-u-s ! :-)

Thanks!

09 Mar 2004 | gonzo said...

Er, might I suggest you comes to the United Kingdom (an oil-producing country (just).... and pay 0.78 Pounds per litre.
That's why we drive small cars!