ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 149 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

A new energy world order
Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 @ 20:15:18 GMT by vlad

General Our only hope lies in forging a new energy world order
By Michael Meacher (Telegraph.co.uk)

Although the price for July deliveries of Brent crude is over $70 a barrel, Lord Browne, BP's chief executive, thinks prices will halve in the medium term. According to a recent interview, he believes large oilfields are still being found and Canada's oil sands could be exploited.

Some hope. Already four-fifths of the world's oil supply comes from fields discovered before 1970 and even finding a field as large as Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest, would only meet global demand for another 10 years.


Peak oil is the point at which oil production rises to its highest point before declining. Almost all expert opinion agrees that it is fast approaching, possibly within five years, almost certainly within 15, according to the former Saudi oil chief, Dr Sadad al-Husseini.

Whilst it has taken 145 years to consume half of the 2-2½ trillion barrels of conventional oil supplies generally regarded as the total available, it is likely that, given the huge increases in demand from China and India, with rates of growth of 7pc-10pc a year in economies supplying two-fifths of the world population, the other half will be largely consumed within the next 40 years.

The significance of this can hardly be over-stated. Oil is the fundamental underpinning of our civilization.

Alternatives like biofuels, ethanol or biomass can play a marginal supportive role but nowhere near on the scale required. When the oil runs out the economic and social dislocation will be unprecedented.

But isn't this too pessimistic? Won't new discoveries continue to fill the gap?

The pattern of the past few decades argues very strongly against it. Some 98pc of global crude oil comes from 45 nations, of which more than half may have peaked in oil production, including seven of the 11 Opec nations.

Major oil field discoveries fell to zero for the first time in 2003. Worse still, the excess capacity held by Opec nations has dwindled, from an average of 30pc to about 1pc of global demand now.

The political significance of this is almost incalculable. World oil and gas production is declining at an average of 4pc-6pc a year, while demand is growing at 2pc-3pc a year.

Global oil production is 84m barrels a day. As the president of Exxon Mobil Exploration, John Thompson, said in 2003: "By 2015 we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today." That is not just a problem of better technology. Additional oil on that scale is not available.

There are three options to escape this dilemma. One, which the US is ruthlessly pursuing, is to grab by force of arms the lion's share of what remains.

A second is to shift into unconventional sources of oil - tar sands, extra heavy oils and gas to liquids processing. A third is to accelerate the switch out of oil altogether into renewable sources of energy, especially wind power, biomass, tidal power and solar.

What is so disturbing is that long-term global policymaking on this, perhaps the biggest decision this century, is virtually non-existent and driven instead by self-destructive short-termism.

The first option was the real reason behind the first Gulf War in 1991, to deter Saddam gaining control of the Saudi oilfields.

It was also a major reason for the orchestrated revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the military interventions in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, all of which offer key oil transit routes from the Caspian Sea Basin, which holds the world's biggest untapped fossil fuel resources, worth up to $5 trillion.

Equally it is also one major reason for Russian intervention in Chechnya, part of the northerly transit route between the Caspian and Black Sea under current Russian control. It is certainly another reason for US concern about Iran, holding only slightly lower oil reserves than Iraq.

But, above all, option one was the main trigger for the Iraq war. Of more than 80 oilfields discovered in Iraq, only about 21 have been at least partly developed.

Despite this, Iraq's proven oil reserves exceed 110bn barrels but its total reserves are likely to be far more, perhaps even 200bn barrels more.

This explains US determination to control this fulcrum but it has involved an escalating political, military and economic price that must make this option unsupportable even for the US.

An alternative strategy is to take advantage of the rising oil price to develop unconventional oil sources, notably the Athabascan tar sands in Canada and the Venezuelan Orinoco heavy oils.

However, the downsides in terms of cost, manpower, water shortages and, above all, CO2, are prohibitive.

Cost-wise, the International Energy Agency reckons that investment needed in oil and gas over the next 25 years to meet an expected 50pc increase in global demand, will be $5 trillion, equivalent to more than four times the entire GNP of the UK.

The biggest constraint, however, is environmental. It takes almost as much energy to mine, process, refine and upgrade the oil extracted from tar sand as the energy contained in the light oil produced.

Worse still, the processing releases five to 10 times more greenhouse gases than a barrel of conventional oil. This is the exact opposite to the scientists' requirement for the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60pc by 2050.

The third option is clearly the right way forward - a new energy world order. The potential for powering the world economy via renewables is almost infinite. Governments should now be switching to this option, far faster and on a far greater scale.

# Michael Meacher, Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton, was Environment Minister from 1997 to 2003

Source: A New Energy World Order

 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about General
· News by vlad


Most read story about General:
Z machine melts diamond to puddle


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"A new energy world order" | Login/Create an Account | 14 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Life After the Oil Crash (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, June 25, 2006 @ 23:27:45 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
From KeelyNet.com News: Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global "Peak Oil." Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up. In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

Original Link: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/



Re: A new energy world order (Score: 1)
by CWhite on Monday, June 26, 2006 @ 06:18:44 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Your comments on peak oil are interesting.

But your assertions as to the political reasons behind historic events seem a bit out of place, if not simply presumptious and/or wrong.

For example, your assertion that the US is trying: "to grab by force of arms the lion's share of what remains." and your further assertion that this:"was the real reason behind the first Gulf War in 1991"

First, may I ask what policy-making body your were a part of that makes you so certain of the "facts" you assert?

Second, is it not possible that the "real reason" for the first Gulf War was the invasion of Kuwait by a rabid dictator?

Third, you bring doubt to all your assertions, even those you may be qualified to make, by baldly assuming "facts" you are clearly not qualified to make.



Re: A new energy world order (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Monday, June 26, 2006 @ 09:42:32 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Military force, as used today in the Middle East, is not a solution to the Energy Crisis.

Its like robbing a bank to improve your economic situation, it works in the short term, but the consequences will be unacceptable.



Good riddance to 'civilization' (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Monday, June 26, 2006 @ 19:37:11 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I know this may sound a little sadistic, but I want 90% of the world's population to be wiped out.   Why?   The answer is simple: humanity is so out of sync with the universe, that every tangible thing has become commercialized.  Zero Point Energy and Nanotechnology will NOT solve this problem, and could very possibly make the problem fester even more, mainly due to humanity's desire for greed, wealth, and power.

By destroying 90% of the population, the rest of humanity will be able to live in a 'free for all' world where anarchy reigns supreme.   Anarchy is the only way we will ever become what we were destined to become: Gods. 

Seriously, things such as 'civilization', governments, money, and religion have all been nothing more than barriers to keep us away from the truth.  If such things never came into being in the first place, ZPE, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and space travel would have all been possible thousands of years ago.

The only way to remedy this is to give the world a wake up call in the form of a major cataclysm which brings the species near extinction.  Perhaps, then, in humanity's darkest hour, hope will truly spring eternal.

Unfortunately, this 'hope' could be a stifled if Project Blue Beam occurs before such a cataclysm takes place...if such a scenario did occur, then the remaining populace will be permanently brainwashed, and the old world ideals will never go away.   Beware of Project Blue Beam.











 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.