Those Evil Koch Brothers! They MUST be stopped!

As some of you may have seen, our beloved taxpayer-funded ABC decided to do this “expose” of the evil Koch Brothers on The Hungry Beast last night:

Except I don’t think that this clip does justice to just how evil the Koch Brothers really are. So, this has been floating around the net for a few weeks now, but, in case you havn’t seen it, here are further reasons why The Evil Extremist Ultra-Conservative Kochs MUST be stopped at all costs:

The KOCH brothers must be stopped. They gave $40K to Scott Walker, the MAX allowed by state law. That’s small potatoes compared to the $100+ million they give to other organizations. These organizations will terrify you. If the anti-union thing weren’t enough, here are bigger and better reasons to stop the evil Kochs. They are trying to:

  1. decriminalize drugs,
  2. legalize gay marriage,
  3. repeal the Patriot Act,
  4. end the police state,
  5. cut defense spending.

Who hates the police? Only the criminals using drugs, amirite? We need the Patriot Act to allow government to go through our emails and tap our phones to catch people who smoke marijuana and put them in prison. Oh, it’s also good for terrorists.

Wikipedia shows Koch Family Foundations supporting causes like:

  1. CATO Institute
  2. Reason Foundation
  3. cancer research ($150 million to M.I.T. – STOP THEM! KEEP CANCER ALIVE!)
  4. ballet (because seriously: FUCK. THAT. SHIT.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Family_Foundations

The Kochs basically give a TON of money (millions of dollars) to the CATO Institute. Scott Walker, $40K? HAH! These CATO people are the REAL problem. They want to end the War on Drugs. Insane, right? We know that the War on Drugs keeps us SAFE from Mexicans and keeps all that violence on their side of the fence. More than 30,000 Mexicans killed as of December! Thank God Mexican lives don’t count as human lives. Our government is doing a good, no, a great job protecting us and seriously, who cares about brown people or should I say non-people? HAHAHA! Public unions are good, government is good, and government protects us from drugs and brown people. The Kochs want to end all that. Look, as far back as 1989 CATO has been trying to decriminalize drugs. Don’t worry, nobody listens to them because they are INSANE.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=981

CATO also rejects the Patriot Act. How can you hate the Patriot Act? Are you not American? They made it easy for you to understand by putting the word “Patriot” in the legislation. That means you should vote YES. Giving up our civil liberties is not a big deal. We need our government. Whether it’s Obama or Bush, we can all agree that the TSA is really good at what they do. God, those patdowns feel SOOOO good.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10599

The Kochs also support Reason Foundation. You don’t know about that? Let me tell you. Basically, REASON Foundation is a bunch of cop haters. Last month, they did a “news” (as if we wanna know!) story on three cops that beat up an unarmed black kid. In the aftermath, the cops were suspended, sat around doing nothing and got paid (like that’s a bad thing!). I don’t know about you, but that puts a smile on my face for four reasons:

  1. I hate black people,
  2. I love the police,
  3. I love it when police beat up black people for no reason,
  4. I love that it comes out of taxpayers’ money, because it’s not like it’s really my money.

The Kochs are trying to end this. The Kochs must be stopped.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/24/a-beating-in-pittsburgh

CATO trying to cut defense spending:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-to-cut-military-spending/

Gay marriage. YUCK. That’s just obvious. If the KOCH Brothers have their way, there will be homos getting married left and right. Here’s another scary thought: gays raising children.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379

Here are some videos from Glenn Greenwald, one of those “gays.” He writes for the liberal Salon.com, but don’t let that fool you. He’s in the Koch Brothers’ pocket. Here are some videos to prove my point:

Here’s Glenn Greenwald talking about drug-decriminalization at REASON:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjuvXdqKM0M&feature=related

Yeah, he’s that Glenn Greenwald that also defends WikiLeaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M

If there’s one thing I know about billionaires, it’s that they only care about money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros. They aren’t fooling me. Bill Gates isn’t fooling me with his vaccination campaign in Africa. He’s just trying to make African children live longer so they will buy more copies of Windows. Wow. Not even trying to hide it.

Now, I don’t know why the KOCH brothers want gay people to have the right to marry. Everybody knows marriage is for a man and a woman. Even Obama believes that. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve amirite? I haven’t figured out the angle, yet. Maybe it’s like this:

  1. legalize drugs
  2. legalize gay marriage
  3. sell drugs, oil and Koch napkins to gays at their weddings
  4. ????
  5. PROFIT$

I don’t know exactly how it would work, but we can all agree that they’re evil. Think about it. CATO and REASON are the only institutions OPENLY advocating these positions. Who would do such a thing? Have they no shame? Minority opinions MUST BE SILENCED.

Anyway, we must reject everything that the KOCH brothers do in Wisconsin and around the country. We will succeed as long as we stick to the GROUP-&-THINK.

YES WE CAN. The truth is always simple. You’re either with us or against us.
twitter @epistemicfail

Stop the Koch menace.

80 thoughts on “Those Evil Koch Brothers! They MUST be stopped!

  1. Tim – your famous now. No wonder you like the video. Besides the video is well crafted. Why can’t our side make great videos like that taking on the state.

  2. If homoes marry lesboes, they’ll have gay kids, all of whom will owe the Koch people for their existence! A captive ethnic group, spending money at your stores! What a masterstroke! Evil businessmen strike at society once again! This is why we need guns- so we can clean the streets of the rich and the queer!

  3. Well that is one view, Tim A, on the Koch Borthers. Here is part of another

    http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/buying-america-how-the-koch-brothers-bought-the-land-of-the-free/

    Unleashing the tea party religeous zealots on the political landscape will be what the Koch’s are remembered for.

    Mind you, Americans…deserve….the twisted politicians that they are lumbered with if they are too lazy to get out and vote. The real issue that should concern everybody no matter what political persuasion they subscribe to is the spending of $19 spent per eligible voter, of $30 spent to buy every actual voter.

  4. No, “.”, the idiots are all in congress attempting to eliminate legislation through funding starvation to support their warped religious views on abortion and science. And the EPA attack is the payback for their Koch brother funders.

  5. Religious people do not have warped views on abortion. Neither do most pro choice people.

    Most people have very sensitive, well intentioned and compassionate views about this, either way and I refuse to criticise them – whatever their position.

    What is warped is voting against laws that prohibit “born alive” abortions. Only someone with a truly warped sense of religiosity (vis a vis far left liberalism as a religion) would vote for such a law.

    Abortion may be a right, but only pro abortion zealots would support BAIPA.

    Like Obama.

  6. “.”,

    This

    “Religious people do not have warped views on abortion”

    is a matter of opinion.

    When US Federal funding for family planning structures becomes a political football I am prepared to call that warped thinking. And here is another kind of religious zealot

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html

    who clearly lays out the extent of the lunacy. Mind you the other kind of lunacy is the kind that is prepared to build ever larger cars to consume ever larger quantities of fossil fuel while it is plainly obvious that the earths resources for everything except salt water are in permanent decline.

  7. “is a matter of opinion.”

    Jesus Christ you are being duplicitous. Now it is a matter of opinion. Before hand it was zealotry.

    “funding for family planning structures becomes a political football”

    As if it wouldn’t be.

    “the earths resources for everything except salt water are in permanent decline.”

    But which we’ll never run out of.

  8. Federal funding should never be used for abortions- or for anything else! Federal funding is taxes, and most people here oppose taxes in principle, never mind the religious arguments.
    As for the Earth’s resources running out, that seems unlikely- Canada is full of shale oil, for instance. It would certainly be better if we moved to renewables, but that should be for individuals to decide.

  9. Herein lies the problem

    “But which we’ll never run out of”

    you seriously believe this. This can only be true for people over 40 years of age now.

  10. As Charles Krauthammer would say, this is Whining Squared. Whom comprises most of the top 10 in political donations to the major parties in America? The Unions.

  11. “you seriously believe this. This can only be true for people over 40 years of age now.”

    We will NEVER run out of oil. This is just another millenarist scare story that gets recycled every five years. This crap was taught in the 1970s. Only people over 40 actually believe this. It is amazing that you assert otherwise.

    We’d move onto nuke way before it happened as prices determine uses.

  12. some bright people from the California Institute of Technology have found an affordable way to use rust from ovens as a fuel source! They use ceria, the rust in ovens, to strip oxygen from water and carbon dioxide, and use what’s left as a fuel. I’d read about this being possible some years ago, but now it seems to be cheap.
    So much for running out of fuel!

  13. “.” you really have to bring yourself up to speed on the fossil energy situation. The best way is to follow the industry players at The Oil Drum. A few hours spent reading the technology there and you should see how ridiculous your “NEVER” statement is.

    NukeG,

    I wouldn’t get too excited about

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1374915/How-oven-rust-key-unlimited-fuel-power-anything.html

    It requires a lot of energy to get the medium to its operating zone. Though it is very interesting. The hope will be that the new understanding drives further discoveries of lower temeperature catalysts. There is no real free ride here.

  14. Whilst not ‘free’, it will be available. Even oil has never been free- it had to be found, then drilled for, etc. My point is simply that we have many alternatives.
    I even came up with a whole new industry in my head recently! One of the industries of the future, in space, will be manufacturing hydrogen gas. I propose that we build single-purpose space-stations which syphon off some protons and electrons (the plasma in space), and use solar-power electricity to cool them down so they combine back into a manageable form- hydrogen gas! (Hydrogen is one proton and one electron, no hard-to-handle neutrons involved!) Sure, these Space Gas Stations would take a while to build up their stocks, but it could be done.
    So there need not be any fuel problems for spacecraft, for instance.

  15. “The best way is to follow the industry players at The Oil Drum. ”

    No it is not. These people are not “players”.

  16. I agree NukeG that there are huge possibilities for the future. The problem is that we have to be able to get there for those possibilities to be realised.

    The present reality is that there is a maximum of 20 years of (relative) business as usual before economies start to collapse from the lack of affordable oil. Populations increasing, fuel consumption increasing, oil supplies at the point of decreasing, energy prices increasing (even before the application of carbon pricing)….all mean that future energy availability is soon to become a luxury.

    The time frame to prepare for alternaitve energy is now very short. Government complacentcey has wasted valuable reaction time. It is now highly unlikely that there will be sufficient alternative energy sources (of all forms) in place by the time oil hits $200 per barrel, at which point economies collapse, all real estate is revalued, and most business moves to essential industry priority status.

    And all of this is completely independent of Climate Change which will randomly apply havoc to global communities. We’ve seen what can happen in Japan. It is time to understand that this will happen to all of us for a variety of reasons.

  17. BilB, sorry but I disagree. I have in my possession a few photos of an all-electric Rolls-Royce. If even RR are looking seriously at electric vehicles, then the future is electric. (And it’s a beautiful car- when I get rich from my invention, the self-hooking button, I’ll try to get one for myself!)
    Every day, private individuals come up with new solar inventions, for just one example why gloom and doom is not a good response. So even if you dislike nuclear power, the future should still be rosy.

  18. “The present reality is that there is a maximum of 20 years of (relative) business as usual before economies start to collapse from the lack of affordable oil. Populations increasing, fuel consumption increasing, oil supplies at the point of decreasing, energy prices increasing (even before the application of carbon pricing)….all mean that future energy availability is soon to become a luxury.”

    This utter shit has been professed since the early 1970s. Millenarian crap.

  19. You don’t think too hard about this stuff do you, “.”? In 1900 the global population was 1 billion, cars were a novelty and oil was used in only small quantities by industry. In 1960 the population was 3 billion and 50% of families (in the west) had a car. 2011 the population is near 7 billion (in the west) most adults have a car and oil is used innearly every industry in huge quantities. Now every adult in India and China would like to have a car just as they see Westerners on their TV’s enjoying.

    It took 150 years of steadily accelerating consumption to use half of all of the oil on the planet. All of the easily accessed oil is gone. Now we are down to the very difficult oil to extract at a time when oil consumption is at its highest ever 87 billion barrels for 2011 and set to accelerate further.

    There are the facts. There is only one conclusion.

  20. NukeG @19,
    The future is indeed to be all electric, for both road transport and air travel. No-one believes that more than I do, and my technology group have the best solar energy system to make that a reality with our GenIIPV. 6 million of these units will provide up to 70% of all Australian electricity generation (for industry personal transport and domestic consumption), and absolutlely free.

    The point I am making is that when we look ahead to what has to be done to get to the point where this is a reality, there is not enough time left to achieve the objective. The oil will run out before the rebuild is half achieved.

  21. BilB, I still think you are being overly dramatic! Ready-to-use oil is getting harder to find and extract, but new shale-oil technology is predicted to turn Canada into the future version of Saudi Arabia! Which means we certainly have enough oil to last until we convert to renewables- even if it does become more expensive.

  22. By the way NukeG, I hope you do well with you button idea. A word of advice as one inventor to another, innovation is a process, not an event. I takes many ideas to achieve success so don’t hang all of your hopes on one inspiration, keep it up…keep thinking.

  23. Again NukeG I refer you to The Oil Drum where these subjects are discussed in detail and quantitatively, not rhetorically.

    Work the numbers and you will see how short the oil future is. It is not just volume, it is also price. As oil becomes harder to extract and compounded by ever increasing demand the price of that oil escalates. When energy cost hits certain levels then people are forced to restructure their finances to maintain their work style. The same goes for business.

  24. A word of advice on terms- Harvey Reese thinks that inventors should call themselves ‘product developers’. Companies tend to cringe when they hear ‘inventor’, but ‘product developer’ sounds solid! Mr. Reese is a ‘product developer’ who has written books on the subject, and has become self-supporting from his efforts.
    I’m still working on a better proto-type, but my latest models of the button are very close! And I think it will be a success because it has multiple other uses, as well as it’s main one. It can also be used as a small safety pin, though made from plastic- and the early safety pins were very successful and profitable!
    And think optimistically- if we do run out of oil before your device is available, you’ll be able to charge even more when you do sell them!!!

  25. On your button, when you are ready, you should look at manufacturing it yourself rather than expect to be able to sell the idea. It sounds simple enough to self manufacture. By that method you can better control the cash flow through the patenting period. For instance, it will cost about $200,000 for an international patent if you have the process done by an attorney. The initial part of that process will cost $20,000 , and any of the balance spent on a small manufacturing facility could well earn the balance of the patent cost before it falls due.

    The problem is, Nuke, that industry will have significantly collapsed part of the way through oil’s decline. You heard about the production cutbacks at Australian Toyota, and other plants around the world? A tiny taste of what is to come.

  26. “I refer you to The Oil Drum where these subjects are discussed in detail and quantitatively”

    No they are not.

    “You don’t think too hard about this stuff do you, “.””

    Yes I do.

    “It took 150 years of steadily accelerating consumption to use half of all of the oil on the planet.”

    The stock of oil has increased since we found the first well and it will continue to do so.

    It is with amazing arrogance you conclude that we know there is exactly so much oil and we’ll never find more. We haven’t even exploited one quarter of one per cent of the earths crust for minerals.

    Greenland, Bakken, Gulf of Mexico, NW Shelf and Alaskan Slope are all new plays which have never been really exploited.

    We will never, ever run out of oil.

    Oil is deeper. Whoopee do, we’ll get bigger wellheads etc. It will be very proiftable to begin with to produce these and then marginal. This is standard industry adjustment.

  27. “.” your opinion is at odds with pretty well all oil industry analysts.

    And this statment

    “We will never, ever run out of oil”

    is automatically false, unless “we” refers to you and a known number of individuals.

  28. ““.” your opinion is at odds with pretty well all oil industry analysts.”

    No.

    “is automatically false, unless “we” refers to you and a known number of individuals.”

    We will never run out.

    The end.

  29. It is more correct to say that there will never be no oil, there will always be some undiscovered or unrecoverable oil somewhere on Earth. However, will WE run out of oil, or more correctly, affordable oil? Yes.

    On the other hand is it possible for oil to be $10 per barrel? Only when few people want to buy it, at some time in the future, maybe.

    Can I predict when oil (affordable oil) will run out? I can make an educated guess based on the information blocks available on line.

    There are some indicators to suggest that the demand for oil will continue to strengthen despite efforts to reduce consumption. One is that engineers are proving that vehicles can be made to give more miles per gallon than ever before. The second is that India is now contracting to build a new 50,000 kilometres of roadways within their borders. The third is that India (again) is demonstrating that they can produce new 4 seater vehicles for as little as $2500, and VW a one seater for $600. In other words, as oil becomes more expensive the demand will still climb. This is going to make life difficult for the US as they are still unwilling to dispence with their SUV passion. So for them there will come a point where fuelling the big cars is just too expensive and there will be no other option as they have not begun building the small cars fast enough and the electric vehicles that they are producing so far have too short a range to be a fully effective replacement.

    So the calculation is a bit of a complex one at first glance. But I think that it will just come down to a steadily increasing oil demand right to the point where the Saudies make the decision that they want to retain the remainder of their oil reserves for their own internal consumption. At that point the house of stacked empty oil drums comes crashing down, and the status that each country will find itself in will be a function of their own oil production plus their bio fuel production plus their alternative energy production plus their ability to produce oil from coal balanced aginst their essential internal demand.

    In other words there is no one answer. Tere are a variety of answers plus options.

  30. “It is more correct to say that there will never be no oil, there will always be some undiscovered or unrecoverable oil somewhere on Earth. However, will WE run out of oil, or more correctly, affordable oil? Yes.”

    Why do you think there will be no industry adjustment?

    “On the other hand is it possible for oil to be $10 per barrel?”

    Look out the long term trend without the noise of war other political dramas.

    We have coal and we can’t get cheap fuel?

    Synthetic oil is cheaper than crude right now. If that’s what we switch to, why won’t there be an industry adjustment? Do you know it is physically impossible or there is some economic constraint I don’t know about?

    Shale oil can get to $35-$40 bbl if economies of scale are operational.

  31. I’m afraid that there is a little problem with your maths “.” . With the combined reserves of sloshy oil (1.7 trillion barrels) plus rocky oil shale (3 trillion barrels) at a total 4.7 trillion barrels of oil, and that is if it all could in fact be extracted (which it cannot), the maximum life of all of the worlds total oil reserves at the projected 2011 oil consumption rate of 87 billion per annum, is 54 years (13.5 presidential terms).

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_res-energy-oil-reserves

    So even with concerted efforts to curb fossil fuel consumption the increasing global population will ensure that annual oil consumption continues to increase further above this years projected oil consumption at 87 billion barrels.

    It does not matter how you look at it we are screwed.

  32. It seems “.” that I have made an error. The annual global consumption is 30 billion barrels not 87. However this only changes the total life of known reserves 2.7 fold. Not enough to great comfort. Based on pumpable oil reserves the future is dire. it will indeed require the tapping of oil shales to maintain the worlds present standard of living for any significant period forward, and that is not taking into account the future population expanded to 10 billion by 2050 (let’s hope that that projection is wrong).

    I stick to my 20 years business as usual projection before the worlds economies dramatically decline. The US’s oil shale deposits will be a massively important strategic energy asset. Australia’s is its solar capacity.

  33. So our coal and nuclear mean nothing?

    Known oil reserves of “pumpable” oil will last 145 years.

    Next.

  34. Pumpable oil according to your own reference will last for less than fifty years, “.” . Oil is used for a huge variety of purposes. transport is only part of its significance. Unfortunately for us conversion to oil based industrial feed stock has been extremely successful, so unravelling that conversion to bio sourced carbon feedstock is going to be a complex process and take a long time. The longer people believe that “oil will last forever” the greater the danger they put themselves in.

  35. You are ignoring too many facts BilB. You have made up your mind on misinformation and don’t want to change because you have emotionally invested too much in this losing position.

    We will never run out of oil. You have completely ignored new discoveries such as Greenland. You have ignored the economics and reserves of shale oil and coal synfuels. Scaled up, they are many times cheaper than pumpable oil at today’s spot prices.

    The numbers are stacked against you but you choose to ignore them.

  36. Your JD looks a little ham fisted at a glance “.”, but I will have a more thorough look tonight.

    And no I have not ignored shale oil. I included that into the calculation you should have noticed. I don’t know whether Greenland is included in the general body of information, but even if it is not, the optimistically reported 110 billion barrels estimated reserves would extend the life of oil at todays consumption rate by 3 years. Not enough to talk about a new future for oil.

    Oil from Coal has more potential, but this is CO2 intensive and lurches heavily into exacerbating Global Warming. Shell is gearing up to convert natural gas to diesel. This also bodes poorly for the environment.

    By far the greatest life extender for oil is to reduce dependence upon it. And this is exactly what Europe has just announced. Brilliant.

  37. “Oil from Coal has more potential, but this is CO2 intensive and lurches heavily into exacerbating Global Warming. Shell is gearing up to convert natural gas to diesel. This also bodes poorly for the environment.”

    This has nothing to do with supply.

    Concede.

  38. “.”,

    Have a listen to the second of the “over the Barrel” interviews here

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsyy

    Here the Shell Oil executive is projecting that oil demand will double or triple by 2050. Now feed that notion back into your belief that there is an endless supply of oil and I think that you should start to understand that oil will be aggressively exploited until there is non left. This is the Easter Island experience, only on a global scale. The greater the population, the greater the demand the steeper the falloff will be at the end of supply.

    There is a fairly comprehensive assessment of oil shale gas at the TOD right now, you might like to read that.

  39. ” Now feed that notion back into your belief that there is an endless supply of oil”

    I never said that. I said that we’d never run out.

    “This is the Easter Island experience, only on a global scale.”

    No, Easter Island was caused by breaking down the hydrology by removing forests. Finding more oil is not the same.

    “There is a fairly comprehensive assessment of oil shale gas at the TOD”

    No there isn’t.

  40. Oh for goodness sake, “.”

    Maybe it is time that you qualified

    “we’ll never run out of oil”

    Easter Island was about the over exploitation (mostly for transport) of an essential resource causing the collapse of their civilisation.

    and

    Yes there is!

  41. We will never run out of oil.

    You haven’t shown anything that isn’t totally annihilated with three minutes of research.

    Our coal can supply global demand for thousands of years. It is economical when scaled up at $30-$40 bbl.

    Don’t be scared.

  42. Where is your research results “.” ? You have to a) demonstrate the reserves b) demonstrate the effciency c) demonstrate the conversion technology d) demonstrate the scaleablity e) demonstrate the global atmospheric CO2 rise profile in conjunction with global temepratures f) demonstrate the time line of events.

    That is a lot for 3 minutes. You’re just making this up as you go along and using the typical Libertarian one line refutal technique, an attempt to bluff the impression of superior knowledge, to disguise the fact that you are too lazy to actually do any real research.

    What I expect now is another one liner reference to the crass JD with his superficial “research” “debunking” attempt of everything scientific.

  43. Where is your research results “.” ?

    Johnson, Harry R.; Crawford, Peter M.; Bunger, James W. (2004) (PDF). Strategic significance of America’s oil shale resource. Volume II: Oil shale resources, technology and economics. Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Petroleum Reserves; Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves; United States Department of Energy. pp. 13–16; A2; B3–B5.

    Schmidt, S. J. (2003). “New directions for shale oil:path to a secure new oil supply well into this century: on the example of Australia” (PDF). Oil Shale. A Scientific-Technical Journal (Estonian Academy Publishers) 20 (3): 333–346. ISSN 0208-189X.

    “e) demonstrate the global atmospheric CO2 rise profile in conjunction with global temepratures”

    Bullshit. This has nothing to do with supply.

    “You’re just making this up as you go along and using the typical Libertarian”

    No. You are believing any doomsday crap put in front of you without looking at any real research. Get a grip.

    Explain why your predictions of doom in 20 years are correct and why they different to 1970s predictions that we’d run out of oil by 2000.

    If you can do this well you might win me over.

  44. I,m not doubting that Australia has oil shales. I’ve been to Glen Davis where oil shales were mined during the second world war.

    Australia it has about 24 billion barrels of oil in shales. This sounds like a lot until you divide it by todays oil consumption of just under 1 million barrels per day, which gives an oil supply life of 66 years. No silver bullet, and Australia would have to nationalise the energy asset to ensure that all of tha oil remeained in Australia. And further that is before the population expands 50% to over the projected 30? million people. The numbers all sound large until you look at the rate with which we are consuming oil. And that is after cut backs. In the 60’s when oil was $2 per barrel we all had oil heaters to keep us warm in winter. Well that lasted until the mid seventies when oil rose to over 5$ per barrel. Slowly the oil heaters were replaced with gas heaters. I use a log fire which is both cheaper and greener (some smoke asided).

    I draw my own conclusion from the science. I was debating the life of our oils supplies at high school in the 60’s when the story was that oil would last for hundreds and hundreds of years.

    Here we are just 50 years later and we can see the bottom of the barrel. What happened? Go back to comment 34, it is all there.

    I don’t want to convert you to anything “.”, I just hope that you do the whole calculation for your self, then construct a plan that ensures that your grandchildren will be able to enjoy life to the same degree, or better, as you are able to today.

    My aim also is to point that there is a risk that we may not have sufficient time to rebuild in a sustainable way if we in Australia procrastinate for another 10 or 15 years. For goodness sakes we haven’t even begun to plan what is necessary, let alone get on with asigning the resources.

    Liberty is a great thing, but it can be ripped from your grasp if you do not recognise that it is a privilege to be protected, not a right.

  45. I was talking about coal as well, to which we have 500 years worth on current consumption alone for brown coal in Australia.

    “No silver bullet, and Australia would have to nationalise the energy asset to ensure that all of tha oil remeained in Australia.”

    My God this is stupid. Does Singapore ever run out of food?

    “I was debating the life of our oils supplies at high school in the 60′s when the story was that oil would last for hundreds and hundreds of years.”

    Which it will.

    “I draw my own conclusion from the science.”

    No you don’t. You trim the information set to suit your doomer mindset. You ignore peer reviewed commercial and bureaucratic research.

    “Here we are just 50 years later and we can see the bottom of the barrel”

    What “BOTTOM”? We have 500 years of brown coal based on current use as electricity alone. Add in shale, gas and oil and we’ve got hundreds of years of supplies left.

    ” I just hope that you do the whole calculation for your self, then construct a plan that ensures that your grandchildren will be able to enjoy life to the same degree, or better, as you are able to today.”

    Researchers for BP and US DOE have calculated it is cheap when scaled up and the sheer volume of shale and coal is bigger than what we need to care. You’ve just ignored those studies. Who do you think knows better? Cranks at the Oil Drum with perennially incorrect “forecasts” of oil peaking every year for the last seven years.

    “My aim also is to point that there is a risk that we may not have sufficient time to rebuild in a sustainable way if we in Australia procrastinate for another 10 or 15 years”

    We won’t even have the NBN built in ten years time.

  46. This is amazing. BilB reckons we’ve got oil shale resources to last 44 years but is worried that we’re going to run out of oil in 20 years.

    Previously, we’ve been told that:

    “I’m afraid that there is a little problem with your maths “.””

    The problem is that it blows the doomer mindset out of the water.

  47. On KNOWN reserves of black coal, we have 100 years left at current consumption.

    Coal derived synfuels cost $30-$40 bbl when scalability is achieved.

    We have hundreds of years of fossil fuel left and we’ll never run out of it, it will also be historically cheap.

  48. Here, “.”, is an extract from the home page of the Australian Cola Association (not out to minimise the story

    “Economic resources of black coal occur in most Australian States, but are particularly abundant in Queensland and New South Wales, with 58 % and 38 % respectively of economic demonstrated resources (EDR). At the end of 2009 recoverable EDR in Australia increased by 11.5 % over the previous year to 43.8 gigatonnes (Gt), implying a resource life of around 100 years at current rates of production”

    Did you read that bit? “implying a resource life of 100 years at current rates of extraction”. Now that is before you start converting significant quanitites of coal to become oil feedstock. So there is a large degree of double counting going on in your argument. For starters Australia supplies two thirds of the world’s coking coal, and that is set to expand, reducing the life of the resource, and then compounded by expanding global population the resource is reduced further. So the simplistic “there is a pile of coal that has gotta last forever” thinking is flawed in the same way as lottery winners who have a bundle of money but in 2 years are broke. Having an apparent abundance of anything leads to excessive consumption, then bust. It is not a new story. It has happened over and again continuously thoughout history.

    And don’t loose sight of the fact that once the population gets to 9 or 10 billion in 2050, those people do not just disappear, they stick around and continue consuming resources at the same rate.

    Yes we will run out of fossil fuels and all too soon.

  49. By the way “.” if you imagine that we will just keep on finding coal and oil forever, the strata (geological time) in which the coal seams and oil deposits were laid are well known, and the Earths rocks have been reasonably well studied. There are surprises, but fewer every year. A high school buddy is a geologist and was part of a government team tasked with mapping NSW’s coal reserves. Where the coal is is now well known. How to extract it is a variable.

  50. “implying a resource life of 100 years at current rates of extraction”

    I made note of that, that is black coal alone.

    Add that in with brown coal, shale, gas and oil. You’ve already noted shale has 44 years worth of reserves given population and per capita income growth, despite your “20 years to doom” claim.

    Synfuels are cheap when they can be scaled. You ask for research and then ignore it.

    We have over 100 years worth of cheap oil left, and we’ll never run out.

    “Having an apparent abundance of anything leads to excessive consumption, then bust. It is not a new story. It has happened over and again continuously thoughout history.”

    Since when in the 128 years of the internal combustion engine have we ever looked like having a bust? Every prediction of “peak oil has been dead wrong – but you’re too sensitive to discuss the failure of the peak oil forecasts.

    “By the way “.” if you imagine that we will just keep on finding coal and oil forever, the strata (geological time) in which the coal seams and oil deposits were laid are well known, and the Earths rocks have been reasonably well studied. ”

    This is ridiculous. Greenland was not considered as part of the oil reserve until recently.

    “Where the coal is is now well known. How to extract it is a variable”

    This is absurd. New discoveries are found all of the time. At times they are absolutely massive.

  51. That is a good find, “.”, lets hope like hell that it actually works. Here is some more

    It has some credibility based on research on ultra small gas turbines where the compressor efficiency has been able to be dramatically increased using pulsed (shock wave) compression and expansion. Fingers crossed on that one, and it would make a significant difference to the life of fuel distillates. Not enough to say that we will never run out of oil, but a good improvement.

    (caution here is that the wave disk engine concept is at least 3 years old now and the inventor is displaying a prototype, and I have not heard about it till now. So it is not exactly setting the innovation world on fire as I would hope that it would. I am going to do my best to contact the lab to find out what their expectations of success are, as it would suit me very well to have such a device work).

    But this

    “Since when in the 128 years of the internal combustion engine have we ever looked like having a bust? Every prediction of “peak oil has been dead wrong – but you’re too sensitive to discuss the failure of the peak oil forecasts”

    is nonsensical gamblers talk. Every year since the conception of the interanl combustion engine the world has used more oil in more ways, displacing huge quantities of other natural materials with synthetics at every turn.

    Surely you understand that exponential consumption of any nonrecyclable finite resource is unsustainable!

  52. “Surely you understand that exponential consumption of any nonrecyclable finite resource is unsustainable!”

    You are just conjecturing it is nonsense contrary to the facts, which I’ve backed up with research. You have made the concession yourself that on shale oil alone. Australia has enough oil for 44 years, whereas you keep on predicting doom in another 20.

    Don’t be scared.

  53. Well, “.”, if we were talking about Australia in isolation from the rest of the world then the situation would not be anywhere near dire. But the fact is, for the time being, we are we are part of a global free trade world in which we share resources, which means that everyone else wants their share of our resources. Right next to Australia is a group of islands with 200 million people aboard. Further North is a country with 1200 million people who appreciate using our resources to enable their country to move rapidly towards our western life style. In other words plenty of other countries without our wealth of resources are entitled to their global share of Australia’s wealth. This means that it is not at all possible to predict the decay rate of those resources of especially coal, oil, gas, iron ore, uranium, copper, lead, gold, farm land, etc.

    It is not about fear, “.”, it is about rational assessment.

  54. So you’ve accepted we have a lot of oil but everyone else will run out?

    Just how did you calculate that, “rationally”?

  55. BilB,

    One glaring omission you have made is that oil reserves have a trend of increasing as we have consumed more and more oil. Conventional oil is only 30% of “oil” reserves. On the most important oil reserves alone, this infers 180 years of oil supply at current consumption. With no further discoveries.

    The peak oil story looks very weak when this is considered.

  56. We’ll never run out of uranium either. It’s only from wiki but it is an excellent point:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#Optimistic_predictions_for_peak_uranium

    “The OECD estimates that with 2002 world nuclear electricity generating rates, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources and 270 years using known and as of yet undiscovered resources. With breeders, this is extended to 8,500 years.[115]

    If one is willing to pay $300/KgU uranium, there is a vast quantity available in the ocean.[116] It is worth noting that since fuel cost only amounts to a small fraction of nuclear energy total cost per kWh, and raw uranium price also constitutes a small fraction of total fuel costs, such an increase on uranium prices wouldn’t involve a very significant increase in the total cost per kWh produced.”

    “In 1983, physicist Bernard Cohen proposed that uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a renewable source of energy.[4] He claims that fast breeder reactors, fueled by naturally replenished uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun’s expected remaining lifespan of five billion years.[4] While uranium is a finite mineral resource within the earth, the hydrogen in the sun is finite too – thus, if the resource of nuclear fuel can last over such time scales, as Cohen contends, then nuclear energy is every bit as sustainable as solar power or any other source of energy, in terms of sustainability over the time scale of life surviving on this planet.
    We thus conclude that all the world’s energy requirements for the remaining 5×109 yr of existence of life on Earth could be provided by breeder reactors without the cost of electricity rising by as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This is consistent with the definition of a “renewable” energy source in the sense in which that term is generally used.
    His paper assumes extraction of uranium from seawater at the rate of 16 kilotonnes (35×106 lb) per year of uranium.[4] The current demand for uranium is near 70 kilotonnes (150×106 lb) per year; however, the use of breeder reactors means that uranium would be used at least 60 times more efficiently than today.”

    Since we’ve got 180 years worth of oil, stop worrying BilB.

  57. “.”, you think that we have 180 years of oil, which as I have pointed out repeatedly is only true if all of known resources can be extracted, if demand does not increase, and if all of the known fossil fuel resources (oil, oil shale, coal) are directed to the production of oil, leaving coal fired electricity out of the picture. But when considering straight oil, the problem is that there has to be new finds every year to match the growing consumptiom. The “new find” rate has dropped to less than a third of the consumption rate.
    Find rate..declining, consumption rate ..increasing, spells exhaustion in a short period of time.

    Nuclear power does not come in to this equation, because a) it is not available, and b) for it to have any bearing then everything that we use oil for must be converted to electricity, in which case the argument is mute c) solar energy is the optimal energy source for which the same prerequisite condition of electrical conversion is necessary.

    You are doing a lot of double counting in your argument to make your point, and at the end you have tried to bridge the gap by suggesting that nuclear fission powered fast breeder reactors, a technology concept that has been around longer than fusion power and still cannot be made to work safely.

    What you fail to appreciate is that I am not denying that there is a lot of fossil fuel still available. There are 2 issues. One is that we cannot afford to use the fossil fuel at the rate that we have in the past because of the CO2 accumulation, and the second is that the fossil oil supply is not keeping pace with the demand and this will cause massive economic and industrial disruption some 20 years from now.

    And the evidence is right before your eyes. The per barrel oil price is $100. If what you are saying is true then it should be $20. Explain the difference.

  58. “You are doing a lot of double counting in your argument to make your point”

    Come off it, you are reducing the life of known resources by 1/9th and then ignoring the role of new discoveries and the fact that reserves have increased as consumption has.

    “Nuclear power does not come in to this equation, because a) it is not available, and b) for it to have any bearing then everything that we use oil for must be converted to electricity, in which case the argument is mute”

    WTF?

    “solar energy is the optimal energy source for which the same prerequisite condition of electrical conversion is necessary.”

    Are you kidding me? Solar is around 300 USD/MW.

    “You are doing a lot of double counting in your argument to make your point, and at the end you have tried to bridge the gap by suggesting that nuclear fission powered fast breeder reactors, a technology concept that has been around longer than fusion power and still cannot be made to work safely.”

    This is actually bullshit. Several have been sold lately to China. They work and they are safe.

    “One is that we cannot afford to use the fossil fuel at the rate that we have in the past because of the CO2 accumulation”

    Yes we can. You then say I’m double counting!

    “the second is that the fossil oil supply is not keeping pace with the demand and this will cause massive economic and industrial disruption some 20 years from now”

    Yes and as prices are high there is a continuing investment cycle and the profits will eventually shift from exploration to processing technologies…as it has every other damned time.

    “And the evidence is right before your eyes. The per barrel oil price is $100. If what you are saying is true then it should be $20. Explain the difference.”

    Noise from war and conflict. The long term trend is $10 bbl.

    The price of oil and some other commodities are not like normal goods since short term demand and supply are so inelastic. You can have craploads of oil and sky high prices if there is a small downturn in production.

    People want an uninterrupted supply of petrol, not gazillions of barrels of excess oil capacity.

  59. “.” 68, that is a total of about half a billion barrels of oil equivalent, or 5 days supply for the whole world at todays consumption rate.

  60. The thing is you just keep on dismissing each and every discovery, but the facts are against you – supplies and stockpiles and have risen during the 20th and 21st centuries as consumption has risen.

  61. 20th century yes, 21st century no. If each new find was an Al-Ghawar then we could all breath a sigh of relief, and more importantly my daughters could be confident that they would be able to enjoy the same life style that we have. But they are not. These are smaller finds harder to reach and in more extreme locations, except forthe one you point to…20 feet of water is very accessible.

    The fact is that if we are able to convert to all electric as Europe is proposing in their latest white paper then there is some hope that our grand children will have a good life and have access to oil based products where needed, and at a lower living cost than we are experiencing. And that is totally possible if we do not run out of oil half way through the conversion process. That is the point. The solar energy system that I am involved with developing provides that promise…free energy. Free energy for all household useage, heating and cooling, and personal transport. What oil there is then becomes the fuel of industry. Coal becomes the carbon feedstock for the building of everything carbonaceous ie resins fibres textiles etc.

    The dangers are either or both of running out of oil in a way that causes industry to collapse, destructive climate change global temperature rise making our cities useless for their location. It does not bother me that you do not believe in either possibility, because what happens happens. It is a wait and see exercise.

  62. We have 44 years of oil left on shale alone (by your own admission) and you keep on saying we have only 20 years left without any qualification except for debunked forecasts and then you start saying nuclear power, which we will eventually move to “doesn’t work”.

    “These are smaller finds harder to reach and in more extreme locations, except forthe one you point to…20 feet of water is very accessible.”

    They don’t give a crap. Wells don’t have emotions. They can go deeper and deeper. This is the industry adjustment you keep on pretending doesn’t exist. They don’t care about fixed costs, they care about costs per bbl.

    “The fact is that if we are able to convert to all electric as Europe is proposing in their latest white paper then there is some hope that our grand children will have a good life and have access to oil based products where needed, and at a lower living cost than we are experiencing”

    That doesn’t make a lick of sense – look at transmission losses etc.

    “The solar energy system that I am involved with developing provides that promise…free energy. ”

    No.

    “It does not bother me that you do not believe in either possibility, because what happens happens. It is a wait and see exercise.”

    Yet you predict imminent collapse and otherwise runaway warming. You are making no sense at all.

  63. 44 years at todays consumption rate and if all of the resource is extractable and if other uses are not found for the resource

    yes they are doing some pretty amazing things to get to deeper oil. We’ll see how successful Brazil is at getting to their’s. But I don’t think that you read the caviets on the Greenland oil.

    look at transmission losses etc.
    what transmission losses? Your talking about electricity transmission losses? I don’t think that you understand the relative efficiencies, or what Europe has had in planning for over a decade now.

    And our solar energy system does provide free energy.

    Yes I do, as I think that the methane genie has escaped the bottle in the Russian and Canadian steppes and there is sweet fa that can be done about it other than to try and limit the damage. With so many people taking your position on Global Warming the probability of achieving global concensus is nil, so the game plan is to develop the best method of coping with the climate change and try to pick the most survivable location (not so much for myself, but for my kids and theirs).

  64. “44 years at todays consumption rate and if all of the resource is extractable and if other uses are not found for the resource”

    No, this is bullshit, you said 66 years before, I discounted it for consumption growth.

    Yet you have the gall to say I double count.

    “We’ll see how successful Brazil is at getting to their’s.”

    Cut the BS and short them if you think it won’t succeed.

    “what transmission losses? Your talking about electricity transmission losses?”

    Yes, you came up with the topic.

    ” I don’t think that you understand the relative efficiencies”

    No, you don’t. It is more efficient and less polluting to burn petrol than it is to burn coal and send it down the line.

    “And our solar energy system does provide free energy.”

    …and the solar panels, distribution and transmission is going to be free? Why does it have a higher unit cost?

    “With so many people taking your position on Global Warming the probability of achieving global concensus is nil”

    My position is to go nuclear through deregulation and as the best competitive choice. It would be the default option. It is demonstrably infinite because it can be replenished at a commodity cost which is irrelevant to generation costs.

    Since we’re going to have 20-60 cm of sea level rises – who cares? it is cheaper simply to build higher levees and recoup 89 years of unhindered economic growth.

    But you somehow think that relates to oil supply. it doesn’t.

  65. Rob,

    Now that if you put it that way

    “75.Algae fuel could be an alternative to oil. We won’t run out of oil”

    then I agree completely. There are limitations though. I cannot see algal oil providing bunker oil for shipping. I am projecting that the largest ships will move to nuclear power over a 30 year period (asuming we do not run out of oil to get to that point, the longer it takes to start the transition the greater the risk).

    “.” I did see that discount which I assumed was for extraction losses.

    Brazil’s oil is deeper again than the gulf, and any spills will not necessarily come ashore so they may accept the risks of blowouts as being a necessary cost.

    When you bring algal oil oil into the picture, it being the key alternative fuel that can grow even in the midst of economic collapse, then the “we will never run out of oil” argument has validity. Algal oil does have its problems but NASA’s Omega project is the most realistic project promising scaleability. Having said that NZ’s algal oil project has taken an interesting turn, I believe. Algal oil does have a credibility gap at present as the volumes so far are minute compared to the fossil oil, but it has to be realised that once the systems are developed algal oil can be produced everywhere around the globe. Where there are people there is water and sewerage, and there can be algal oil as well.

    There is still a timing risk. If action to build alternative energy infrastructure fails to get underway in real volume then the energy opportunity that fossil fuel provides can be lost. Think of it in terms of US debt which now sits higher than one full years GDP. Americans insisted on having low taxes but at the same time demanded that the government provide cheap all sorts of things (including oil), so now their debt is so high that it may be impossible for them to recover, particularly if climate change increasingly disrupts economic performance and provides an escalating annual rebuilding bill (winter cold snaps, katrina, more severe tornados, crop destroying deluges, etc).

  66. “I cannot see algal oil providing bunker oil for shipping.”

    You can’t see. You couldn’t see peak oil being wrong for the last fifty years. You just kept on pushing out the millenarian due date.

    After fifty plus years of being wrong, you’d think you’d learn a bloody lesson. What is the matter with you BilB?

    “I did see that discount which I assumed was for extraction losses.”

    Extraction losses are 33%? Jes-us you’re crutching at straws now.

    ““we will never run out of oil” argument has validity”

    It always has validity.

    “Algal oil does have a credibility gap at present as the volumes so far are minute compared to the fossil oil, but it has to be realised that once the systems are developed algal oil can be produced everywhere around the globe.”

    So what? It is a matter of scale, which then drives lower prices.

    ” If action to build alternative energy infrastructure fails to get underway in real volume then the energy opportunity that fossil fuel provides can be lost. Think of it in terms of US debt which now sits higher than one full years GDP. ”

    There’s NO “debt” of oil, supplies and reserves are greater than they have ever been and continue to expand as so does consumption.

    Don’t be scared.

  67. Well lets face it “.” . Your theory has a $99 per barrel credibility gap. That takes no research or calculation.

  68. ???

    LONG TERM TREND

    in spite of WARS and OTHER CONFLICTS

    and HIGH INELASTICITY OF SHORT RUN SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF OIL DERIVED PRODUCT

    You do know how to read, don’t you?

    Don’t be scared.

  69. Scared, “.” ? We have free energy for all of our personal needs and transport from our system under development so there is nothing to be fearful for, other than that a collapse of industry induced by oil supply failure would make life in the future very difficult. And whereas I am very positive for the future of algal oil which would mean that I can fly my plane in the abscence of fossil fuel, the growth of algal oil cannot provide a smooth transition in the time frame that I am anticipating.

    So no, I am not scared,…and you are comfortable in your paradise. So every one here is happy.

Comments are closed.