World oil and gas to peak as soon as 2010.

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
There are much better articles then this, but since the right-wing nuts on this board tend to freak out, here ya go....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/index.html

World oil and gas 'running out'

By CNN's Graham Jones
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 8:45 AM EDT (1245 GMT)

Global oil supplies will peak soon after 2010, Swedish scientists say.


LONDON, England -- Global warming will never bring a "doomsday scenario" a team of scientists says -- because oil and gas are running out much faster than thought.

The world's oil reserves are up to 80 percent less than predicted, a team from Sweden's University of Uppsala says. Production levels will peak in about 10 years' time, they say.

"Non-fossil fuels must come in much stronger than it had been hoped," Professor Kjell Alekett told CNN.

Oil production levels will hit their maximum soon after 2010 with gas supplies peaking not long afterwards, the Swedish geologists say.

At that point prices for petrol and other fuels will reach disastrous levels. Earlier studies have predicted oil supplies will not start falling until 2050.

Alekett said that his team had examined data on oil and gas reserves from all over the world and we were "facing a very critical situation globally."

"The thing we are surprised of is that people in general are not aware of the decline in supplies and the extent to which it will affect production.

"The decline of oil and gas will affect the world population more than climate change."

According to the Uppsala team, nightmare predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures will never come to pass because the reserves of oil and gas just are not big enough to create that much carbon dioxide (CO2).

Alekett said that as well as there being inflated estimates, some countries in the Middle East had exaggerated the amount of reserves they had.

Coal-burning could easily make up the shortfall. But burning coal would be even worse for the planet, as it would create even more CO2, he said.

Predictions of global meltdown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sparked the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement obliging signatory nations to cut CO2 emissions.

The IPCC examined a range of future scenarios, from profligate burning of fossil-fuels to a fast transition towards greener energy sources.

The Uppsala team say the amount of oil and gas left is the equivalent of around 3,500 billion barrels of oil -- the IPCC say between 5,000 and 18,000 billion barrels.

Alekett said his team had now established what they called the "Uppsala Protocol" to initiate discussion on how the problems of declining reserves could be tackled -- protecting the world economy but also addressing the problem of climate change.

The conclusions of the Uppsala team were revealed in the magazine New Scientist Thursday, and Nebojsa Nakicenovic, of the University of Vienna who headed the IPCC team said it was standing by its figures.

He said they had factored in a much broader and internationally accepted range of oil and gas estimates then the "conservative" Swedes.

A conference in Russia this week heard a warning that global warming kills about 160,000 people through its effects every year. The numbers dying from "side-effects" of climate change, such as malaria and malnutrition, could almost double by 2020, the climate change conference in Moscow was told.

"We estimate that climate change may already be causing in the region of 160,000 deaths... a year," Andrew Haines of the UK's London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said. (Full story)

Most deaths would be in developing nations in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, says Haines. These regions would be worst hit by the spread of malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria as a result of warmer temperatures, droughts and floods.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
43
#2
The sooner the better. Check out what's on the way (pretty good resource for hydrogen power information). I wrote an "A" paper on it myself for one of my business classes, but this website is much more in depth. I think it was written by a college student as well.

"Hydrogen fuel can be implemented as a renewable energy medium with immense potential. When utilized properly, it has the potential to entirely replace fossil fuels altogether. Transforming our largely oil based economy, to a new hydrogen economy, which will provide sustainability throughout the 21st century, and beyond, for as long as the sun continues to shine."
http://www.geocities.com/hydrogenpower1/essays/main/hydrogen.html
 
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
41
#3
hmm.. I'm sure they got thousands of scientists trying to figure this shit out, but how can they know that theres no more oil in untapped regions of the world?

I mean, even in Alaska, its well known they got almost as much (untapped) oil as the mideast.. but nothings being done about it. Why?

Anyways... with all these hybrid cars coming out n shit, maybe the demand for oil will drastically decrease.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#4
Nitro the Guru said:
The sooner the better. Check out what's on the way (pretty good resource for hydrogen power information). I wrote an "A" paper on it myself for one of my business classes, but this website is much more in depth. I think it was written by a college student as well.
Well, I agree to a certain extent. The thing about it is that there already are several different alternatives to oil. We definately have the technology to this now. The problem is that it isn't really about oil...it's about money, power and control....Oil has been, and will be (for a little while longer anyways) a way for people to maintain the profits, power and control. When the oil runs out, you will see most of these same people jump into other energy sources...if they haven't already.
 
Apr 25, 2002
4,692
2,577
113
43
Houston
#6
We need to invade more countries and steal their oil. Iran sounds good.

Seriously, we need solar powered and electric cars. Then we can say "To hell with the Middle East". They don't want us there and then will realize how dependant they are on the Western world's oil consumption.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#7
AdolfOliverBush said:
We need to invade more countries and steal their oil. Iran sounds good.
LOL. i say lets take out Saudi Arabia first!!!LOL

AdolfOliverBush said:
Seriously, we need solar powered and electric cars. Then we can say "To hell with the Middle East". They don't want us there and then will realize how dependant they are on the Western world's oil consumption.
i think we are both dependant on each other but the one major difference is that we have the ability to produce alternative souces if we had to (and we should already be doing) and life would go on in the EVIL WESTERN WORLD!!!!!

While once they lost their oil revenues they are doomed, unless of course they find a genius way to market SAND!!!!!!!
 
Apr 6, 2003
85
0
0
49
home.earthlink.net
#9
first off...

Alaska is not an UNTAPPED resource...LMAO...the US has been and will continue to pump oil from Alaska...the only difference is that the oil from US soil goes into reserves, see the US knows the oil won't last forever, thats common sense, but unlike the middle east or the south american countries, which NEED money now, the US which is not in the greatest economic state, is far from 3rd world status...

once depleted, and for the countries who cannot or will be behind in the OTHER forms of energy, where do you think they will turn to?

lol

one of the oldest: supply = demand

the US knows what it's doing, as for the oil in the middle east, yes it's runnin low, this has been known, but we got the best oil now from the South American countries at this point anyway, have been for the last 20 years...

see the so called WAR in Iraq was not about oil, as per say...it was about oil, but that wasn't the driving force behind the effort that took place...

THINK back thru out US history, all the countries we have engaged combat with, what was the driving force behind it?

a corrupt government body with a ruthless leader...

nothing more, nothing less....the US plays the roll of passive aggresive in war time situations, let the other country make their defient stand against the US, let them make threats, and global attempts at fighting the US...then when the time is right, when the UN, NATO, and the leaders of the world are concerned, the US then and only then acts...

as for the Iraq situation, the OIL was the driving force, but not the ultimate reason, we want to keep open policy and trade with those countries, since we keep our oil in reserve, the Saddam issue, which was perfect for the timing of the war, was a perfect fit.

if the US really needed that oil, we could take it, but thats not the issue, it's just keeping the economic, and political lines open...

war in this age is 95% economic and political...

North Korea has nuclear weapons, they openly said so, so why no attack on the North Korea land?...no need at the present moment, it doesn't serve the US to attack or engage with North Korea at this time....now if the situation rises and gets to a point that the sanctity and welfare of the US is threatened, then perhaps we will look into war...

but the bottom line US policy is this: does this affect us?, how so?, and what should be done?

those measures have always been taken, think about it...the Germans under Hitler were wiping out all of europe, but the US sat back and chilled, why?...it didn't mean anything at the time...now once Germany was about to take england, and the possible invasion of Russia, see that caused concern at that point, at that point Germany would be in range to fire long range missles in that day that could hit US soil...

do the math, it's all there....
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#12
ViOl@ToR said:

those measures have always been taken, think about it...the Germans under Hitler were wiping out all of europe, but the US sat back and chilled, why?...it didn't mean anything at the time...now once Germany was about to take england, and the possible invasion of Russia, see that caused concern at that point, at that point Germany would be in range to fire long range missles in that day that could hit US soil...

explain this

in 1935 when mussolin's italy invaded ethiopia, US placed an embargo on munitions. But it still imported oil to italy, which was essential to the invasion

in 1936, Roosevelt administration sponsored an act that stop the the US from helping the spanish government, this cause a fascist rebellion to overthrow the democratic elected leader at the time. mussolini and hitler giving aid to the fascist rebellion.


in my view, the reason why US got into WWII was all economic reasons. It wasnt a fight against fascism, becuase the top two examples wouldnt have been so.
 
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
47
www.soundclick.com
#14
I found nothing, guess I'm gonna have to wait a few months.
But the good news is that there's gonna be a new DVD box set comin out later this year!


Voltron DVD Set For 2004
Toys, Comics, & a New Series

December 04, 2003
The TV Shows on DVD.com Web site is reporting that a DVD edition of the classic retro animated series, Voltron: Defender of the Universe, will be released in 2004 to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the cartoon series, which first aired on US TV in 1984. Retailers should have plenty of Voltron merchandise available by the end of next year including comic books from Devil's Due, a new series of toys from Toynami, as well as DVDs of the original Voltron cartoons. A new Voltron animated series is under development, and if aired, it should help revive the property. Other animated series from the 1980s including Transformers, GI Joe, and Battle of the Planets have spawned a string of successful comic book series, toys, and DVD compilations. It appears that Voltron wants to join the party.
 
Apr 6, 2003
85
0
0
49
home.earthlink.net
#16
MIG,

i don't know where mine came from, i think they were burned or something, but they are the cartoons series with the comercials and everything...so i think it was something that was recorded on VHS then dubbed to DVD...it's not the best quality but it is a start...as for the 2004 re releasse...i been fennin for that shit...

Nefar,

the US always wanted Africa...who didn't?...lmao man africa is rich in minerals diamonds, and other precious natural resaources...i aggree with you there...but i don't think the US would have went to war if Hitler did not take over as much of Europe as he did...once he had most of europe, it was clear he wasn't going to stop at that point...but africa was and always has been an economic issue, i whole heartedly agree...