Oil reserves 'exaggerated by one third'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alpha Dude
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 37
  • Views Views 5K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dagless said:
It tells you on their site:
It wouldn't be difficult to classify a load of kills as "combatants" without evidence.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the 100,000 are non combatants. So they were not fighting the Americans.

They were instead, Shia and Sunni blowing each other up!

-
 
Wind turbines can be used to generate electricity.

But first you must manufacture the wind turbines - and the machines to do that need oil.

No oil = no manufacturing of anything.

-
 
Joe98 said:
So you are saying that the 100,000 are non combatants. So they were not fighting the Americans.

They were instead, Shia and Sunni blowing each other up!

-
Click to expand...

The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.



-----------------------------

More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict started by the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to a new survey by a UK polling group.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/01/200852513393674736.html

-------------------------------

The Americans learned one lesson from Vietnam: don't count the civilian dead. As a result, no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the five years since the invasion. Estimates put the toll at between 100,000 and one million, and now a bitter war of numbers is raging. Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

-----------------------------------

According to a new study, 1.2 million Iraqis have met violent deaths since the 2003 invasion, the highest estimate of war-related fatalities yet.

http://www.alternet.org/world/62728/

------------------------------------

March 20, 2009 marks the 6th anniversary of the illegal, utterly unjustified, war criminal invasion of Iraq by US, UK and Australian forces. Post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths total 2.3 million and refugees total 6 million in a continuing Iraqi Holocaust and Genocide.

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya210309.htm

----------------------

Today is march 2010, so you can add few hundred thousand to that and its well over 2.5 million. Now go take your fake numbers given by your terrorist regimes and stop derailing the topic.
 
Great :( most likely going to a fuel price rise soon then i guess :(, already at 114p a litre
 
Joe98 said:
So you are saying that the 100,000 are non combatants. So they were not fighting the Americans.

They were instead, Shia and Sunni blowing each other up!

-
Click to expand...

No, they were civilians killed by troops (the ones admitted to).

Joe98 said:
Wind turbines can be used to generate electricity.

But first you must manufacture the wind turbines - and the machines to do that need oil.

No oil = no manufacturing of anything.

-
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. People have been using coal and gas for hundreds of years.
 
Last edited:
Joe98 said:
Wind turbines can be used to generate electricity.

But first you must manufacture the wind turbines - and the machines to do that need oil.

No oil = no manufacturing of anything.

-
Click to expand...

That is true. Which is what makes it all the more important to use current petroleum to develop non-petroleum based energy sources. Keep in mind while we have become dependent on petroleum for energy, it is a very recent phenomena and short term.

Mankind has lived many millennium with out petroleum dependent energy. Petroleum is not the only energy source, it is simply the current lowest cost one and that is ending.
 
Time has come for all of us to stop and face reality. Oil will be gone durinjg the lifetime of nearly every person reading this.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Oil has benefited the world and people. But it has also polluted and damaged much of the environment. It has also been behind the bloodiest and most ignorant conflicts in world history.

It has served it's purpose, now we need to wake up and learn how to develop better, cleaner and safer sources of low cost energy. Oil is not the issue, the energy produced from oil is the issue. Our goal needs to be the development of safer, more friendly energy sources.
 
Woodrow said:
Time has come for all of us to stop and face reality. Oil will be gone durinjg the lifetime of nearly every person reading this.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Oil has benefited the world and people. But it has also polluted and damaged much of the environment. It has also been behind the bloodiest and most ignorant conflicts in world history.

.
Click to expand...

and the sand diggers will go back to being sand n*i*gg*a*s, taking their nationalist and western a$$ kissing w/them...
 
islamirama said:
and the sand diggers will go back to being sand n*i*gg*a*s, taking their nationalist and western a$$ kissing w/them...
Click to expand...

Although I disagree with your wording I think you have a point in your message.

Oil was not a blessing to the people of the Mideast. It corrupted the people, brought war to the land and ruined the land so that when the wells are gone and oil is no longer a source of life, the majority will be left with no means of income. This was fast, short term wealth and only benefited a few.

If a message is to be learned, the lesson is not to place reliance on the material world. Material things only lead to fitnah, weaken the people and after the damage leave shattered lives.

Oil property is a cruel master to serve. People on oil reserves do not control it, it becomes a chain that either controls or destroys them, In my life time I saw it destroy the lives of the Choctaw, Commanche and Cherokee in Oklahoma, ruin the Gulf Coast fishing, and now threatening the Lakotah Sioux up here on the Brakken Oil Pool.

The next oil war will most likely be here within the center of the USA as the Big 7 oil companies attempt to exploit the land and get the oil deposits the Republic of Lakotah sits on top of.
 
Petroleum-Based Products Shape Our Lives: Does that Mean We Are Irreversibly Dependent on Oil?
by Adam Williams on August 8, 2008

in Energy & Fuel, Sustainability

If oil is so ingrained in the modern world we all know — ubiquitous in the manufacturing and transporting of countless consumer products — does that mean we are hopelessly dependent upon it?

The question came to mind after receiving a comment from Morris (no last name given) on a previous post of mine here at sustainablog.org, World Naked Bike Ride: Is Anything Gained by Protesting Oil Dependency in the Buff?

Not to put words in Morris’s mouth, but he seems to suggest that oil cannot be escaped. Is he right? Even if he is, does that mean we should abandon efforts to break our addiction to crude?

Sure, he makes a valid point in reminding us that oil has been used to make the very bicycles naked riders use in their World Naked Bike Ride protests around the world.

To quote a portion of his comment:

“If it weren’t for oil they wouldn’t be riding those bikes, they’d be walking, barefoot, naked with no glasses! Not to mention the streets would be dirt, not paved. There would be no electric lights, no drinks at the end of the ride, no music. Should I go on?”


Yes, let’s go just a little further. I did a quick Internet search for more oil-based products. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge publishes a list of oil uses on its Web site.

Here is a brief excerpt:

Guitar strings
Pantyhose
Golf bags
Dentures
Candles
Hair coloring
Aspirin
Footballs
Food preservatives
Shampoo
Lipstick
Electric blankets
Ammonia
Pillows
Okay, Morris. You’re right. I’m laying my head on a partially petroleum-based product to sleep every night. And I wash my hair with a product that also is partially petroleum-based. And I eat petroleum-laced foods.


Okay. Sure, that’s a tad discomforting to think the oil we ship over from the Middle East is ending up in my food, but does that solve the question about giving in to the dependency? We should just quit worrying about our addiction?

Alcoholics are not told, “Go ahead, drink yourself into self-destruction. After all, there’s tiny amounts of alcohol in hygiene products and seemingly countless food items. You’ll never escape it, so why try?”

Of course not. Alcoholics are coaxed off of the habit and, hopefully, back into productive, healthy lifestyles.

So let’s keep our eyes on the ball, huh? This topic, as most things in life, lands somewhere in the gray area between the extremes of opposing perspectives. No one is riding bikes sans clothing because of a notion that they are calling an end to all uses of oil.

It’s not either you are for oil or against it, an all or nothing, polarizing situation of ultimate right or wrong.

The call is for some reasonable re-assessments of where we stand with 21st Century environmental conditions, and the 21st Century technology we have to cope with the related problems. These issues didn’t exist on this scale a hundred years ago when the car was invented. Cars have evolved, so why shouldn’t fuel evolve, too?

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly 35 gallons of every 42-gallon barrel of crude oil (shown in the graphic above) is used for one type of transportation fuel or another. The rest, in various other forms, is what goes into the consumer products we use on a daily basis.

A call for alternative energies that reduce our addiction to foreign oil, and a call to lessen our willingness to accept unnecessarily low fuel economy from automakers and the mileage standards set by the government does not mean we all have to give up modern conveniences, overall hygiene or sleeping with sheets, mattresses and pillows.

Speaking out for improvements in energy policies, even if riding in the buff to do it, is not a lost cause. The only lost cause in the debate about energy is to give up and assume our oil habit is irreversible.

Related posts:

Gas Hole the Movie: History of Oil Prices and Alternative Energy

Addressing Peak Oil at the Local Level

Biofuels Part I: Corn Ethanol Isn’t the Solution

Graphic Source: U.S. Department of Energy


Source: http://blog.sustainablog.org/petroleum-based-products-shape-our-lives-does-that-mean-we-are-irreversibly-dependent-on-oil/
 
At the moment it may seem we are eternally dependent upon petroleum. Remember this is fairly new to us. For most of human existance oil was no more than a wasted product that was capable of ruining farm land. Except for about these past 3 generation we as a people had no need of petroleum. we did not need it in the past and can adjust to not having it in the future.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply
The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.

Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.

But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.

Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.

"It's surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on," he said.

"The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?"

The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," it points out.​
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply
 
Alpha Dude said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply
The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.

Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.

But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.

Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.

"It's surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on," he said.

"The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?"

The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," it points out.​
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply
Click to expand...

:sl: Nephew,

I hope that will impress the urgency upon the average American Our daily petroleum usage in 2007 was "United States: 20,680,000 bbl/day 2007" SOURCE: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

A 10 million barrel per day drop would reduce the petroleum supply to about half of the current daily needs.

The Alarm clock just rang, time to wake up and stop wasting petroleum on idiotic junk like wars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top