Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Wall Street Journal interviews Michael C. Ruppert

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Nov 5, 2009.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Sounding an Alarm on Oil

    Independent journalist Michael Ruppert predicted the global recession. Now he's foreseeing an imminent energy crisis His new film, "coLLapse" opens in New York tomorrow (Nov. 6)

    The Wall Street Journal: What is the central message of your movie?

    Mr. Ruppert: It is not possible to continue infinite consumption and infinite population growth on a finite planet.

    WSJ: So what do you believe needs to be done first?

    Mr. Ruppert: Two things are critically important: A real worldwide transparent effort to determine how much oil is really left. Screw state secrets. I don't care what the Saudis, Russians, BP or Chavez want to hide. We have to clean up those books just exactly as the same way that we need to clean up the books on Wall Street. Secondly, we need to establish a second strategic petroleum reserve of refined product for state, county and municipal use because I really foresee a serious oil shock coming as soon as this ersatz recovery starts to push up the global GDP and demand for electricity. We have to make sure we have basic services.


    ... (continued)
     
  2. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +15 / 2 / -0

    This has been dropping like a stone with no response. I guess nobody is willing to give up their hunt for oil.
     
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    So, instead of not responding at all, your M.O. is to be a smarmy jerk. Typical, actually.

    No one responds to peak oil discussion anymore because no one can dispute it. Even the new conservative moderator admits it's happening.

    When you wanna roll up your sleeves and do the work, and not punt to irrelevant "ancillary value," please grow up and do so.

    Meanwhile, the WSJ thought enough of the man to interview him on a subject no one can really debate beyond a surface denial/dismissal of "no way."
     
  4. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +15 / 2 / -0

    Good interview, he seems like a unbiased voice. I think the point about strategic oil reserves per country is frghtening here. We use a 1/4 of the current supply, I find it hard to believe we could survive or abide by some reserve standard. On top of that hopefully we can start getting on top of the energy pyramid by moving more progressively in the nuclear department. I don't see that happening here anytime soon. Unfortunately, the American mindset is to be reactionary, so we'll wait until we are in a real energy crunch until we can sway public opinion on nukes. I don't know why any country would be willing to provide any real disclosure on how much oil they have left or in reserve. It seems like they would lose leverage, unless they had the most or lie.
     
  5. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    The nuclear discussion was dealt with in the thread by the new conservative moderator. In a phrase: Nuclear is not a silver bullet. That is the reason not a single nuclear facility has been built in this country in over 30 years.

    Nuclear expansion will not grow crops, will not power vehicles with combustion engines, will not pave roads, will not produce medicines, will not make plastics, will not make tires. On top of that, there is a very real limit on recoverable uranium and thorium reserves.

    The only viable solution is conservation and renewables.
     
  6. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,615
    Likes Received:
    753
    Ratings:
    +1,972 / 41 / -31

    #24 Jersey

    What baffles me is our country knows these things and yet shows no emergency to tackle the problem. The private sector can handle some of it but the government holds the most power through tax incentives and similar to help with the change. Why does the government not act with greater impetus? I don't get it?
     
  7. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Because not enough people are freezing to death here yet, and we survived the summer without a brown-out like we had in 2003. But they are coming, as the grid gets more and more over-burdened, and the infrastructure is not maintained.

    Meanwhile, it's getting worse and worse in Europe, where governments are finally being forced to acknowledge an energy problem they can't just keep blaming the Russians for:

    Winter crisis could see UK 'run out of gas in hours' | Business | The Observer
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2009
  8. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Government failure to acknowledge oil supply crunch risks conflict and threatens the climate


    There is an imminent oil supply crunch that governments have failed to acknowledge or act upon, the impacts of which will be felt throughout every aspect of modern society which is heavily reliant on oil, according to a new report published by campaign group Global Witness today.

    Governments have not taken on board the four underlying oil production factors which clearly show there is a problem. Heads in the Sand outlines these factors - declining output, declining discoveries, increasing demand and insufficient projects in the pipeline - which clearly show that the world is facing an imminent oil supply crunch. Some of these factors have been apparent for many years. [1]

    Governments and multi-lateral agencies have failed to recognise the imminence and scale of the global oil supply crunch, and most of them remain completely unprepared for its consequences. The report calls for governments to officially acknowledge the crunch and to shift urgently into safe sustainable energy alternatives. ​

    (continued)...
     
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14





    You certainly made that assertion but were refuted by the amount of Uranium available as established by the paper from the U Pitt. The lack of building of nuclear plants is a political issue not a technical one.

    I agree about the need for liquid fuel. Where I disagree is whether the shortage is due to a peak in available supplies, or due to a lack of use of resources and refusing to look for political purposes.



    BTW here are a couple of papers showing that methane can be produced by abiotic processes at pressures and temps readily seen in the earth's mantle.

    ABIOTIC METHANE PRODUCTION AT MANTLE PRESSURES

    In Situ Diamond-Anvil Cell Observations of Methanogenesis at High Pressures and Temperatures - Energy & Fuels (ACS Publications)



    Rupert is correct in the sense that we will see an oil shock but it will be because of irresponsibility by our political class.
     
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,365
    Likes Received:
    474
    Ratings:
    +1,031 / 15 / -8

    I posted on another thread doing very, very rough math based on modest energy consumption for a single family home and extrapolating to american dwellings of all kinds. The typical single family home would need about 285 square feet of solar cells -- ignoring heat and AC. I got the rundown from a site giving practical advice and given present expense, that was the practical advice: do the big ticket items another way.

    But think about how little 285 square feet is, compared to a rooftop. That gets you your fridge, lights, TV, computers, etc... everything but climate control.

    Reasonable AC and heat needs could certainly be made to fit in the other 3/4 of a modest home's roof.

    What the thread was about is the silly part: one of our number had dug up one noted science guy saying that renewables don't have the "energy density" to handle our energy needs. The truth of the matter is that you can power most homes using the roof space available to those homes. Yeah a renewable economy involves huge challenges, and it involves a ton of work. Well guess what we have for right now and might have for a couple more years? A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO NEED JOBS.

    There's no doubt that the go juice will run out. The term "peak oil theory," from what I can tell, seems to be related to an answer of "now" or "soon." "Soon" is pretty much the standard answer anyway.

    What's amazing to me is we all knew it was running out all along, and we all knew in the 70s what it's like when suddenly you have less of it. But of course we decided the problem was we didn't invade those blasted foreigners enough, and pretty much forgot about it in favor of puppy dogs, rainbows, and fairy tales peddled by de-reg kings and happy warriors.

    This is fixable. It's not fixable in a lurching fad-driven way. It's only fixable in a decades-long way. We need to replace the majority of an energy infrastructure.

    I have no idea what the hell someone is thinking when he declares this impossible because, basically, it's hard to do.

    Once we get started the one thing that troubles me is our gnat-like national attention span will end up writing our epitaph.

    It is unavoidable that we will need to rely on nuclear as a stopgap, in my opinion. I could easily see the same "Gimme all the candy now!" mentality kicking in, aided by a newly rehabilitated nuclear lobby, and the cry of "everything's fiiiiiine" going up while we're in the stopgap phase.

    You can already see the formation of the next phase of propaganda; because it's better to look into carbon capture than to just spew particulates into the atmosphere, we call this imperfect half-solution "clean coal." Because nukes don't spew particulates into the atmosphere but oh yeah leave around concentrated deadly poisons with half-lifes in the thousands of years, we talk about nuclear as if it's a magic bullet.

    We're at point A, we need to get to point B, and my worry is that with the paucity of real thought that goes on in much of the country, we just turn into a nation of quitters when something looks "good enough."

    Sometimes threescore and ten doesn't sound so bad, yanno?

    PFnV
     
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14

    No energy when the sun isn't out like most of this sumer for example. Solar and wind are very intermittent.
     
  12. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +15 / 2 / -0

    Wind isn't intermittent at a certain height. It's just developing the technologies to get up there and get it back to the ground sensibly.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,435
    Likes Received:
    320
    Ratings:
    +894 / 7 / -3

    The problem with solar is its start up costs. Panelling a roof would be extremely expensive, especially when you'd be converting older homes over. Plus, in urban area's, you don't have many single family homes. When the cost comes down, you'll see more people doing it. Some already do on new contruction, but again, you need to be willing to absorb the initial costs.


    If we are so worried about oil running out, we'd be exploring in places where we know reserves are likely to be had. The point made earlier about combustion, and asorted other products made via oil, is one some have pointed to to refute the notion that alternatives are viable now, or anytime in the near future. The bottom line is the currently are not. If we as a nation, or even as a planet, are going to wein our dependence on oil, and other fossil fuels, then we need to be honest about where we currently are, where we need to be, and how we're going to get there. The bottom line is that we're going to need oil for a couple generations atleast, so we better start looking for more real soon.

    Hydrogen is the wave of the future.
     
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,294
    Likes Received:
    194
    Ratings:
    +552 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    But fortunately, wind is usually blowing when the sun isn't out. Yes, we get windy days even when the sun is out, but if you look at the data, it will support more wind when there is less sun. As long as the sun keeps burning, we will always have one or the other.

    Changing weather is a guarantee in most areas of the world. Even in the arctic, deserts or the tropics you will always have either sun or windl...and often both. Energy can also be stored & shared.

    The wind atop Mt Washington alone could produce enough energy to power the entire state of Massachusetts....if you want to cover the summit with wind turbines.
     
  15. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +15 / 2 / -0

    They are working on windpower that hovers above the ground and then transfers power through cables back down. Balloons, blimps that capture the always present winds at about 200 or so feet.
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14






    Unfortunately the math doesn't support your conclusions indeed Denmark who built the largest wind powered set of windmills and it was a failure power only 33% of the time on the North Sea.
     
  17. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Oh moderator. How about a link to what you're talking about? Universities put out a lot of papers. Liberty University comes to mind. They, by themselves, don't often "refute" a geological certainty corroborated by international energy agencies, science think tanks, and UN studies.

    Blaming everything on liberal lawmakers and environmentalists got exposed as a false flag from your camp many years ago on this forum.

    Thank you for exposing yourself once again as an abiotic oil theorists. Much like with the global warming debate, you're choosing the side that is in the EXTREME minority -- as if you WANT something to be true in order to advocate more gluttonous consumption, "to hell with the accepted science."

    It's interesting how people like you will attach themselves to old iron curtain Russian theory when it suits you, as it was a rogue group of Russian scientists who tried the abiotic oil theory decades ago when they needed to counter U.S. oil hegemony.

    "A couple of papers" prove only that trace amounts of methane can be reproduced under a number of convenient conditions. That's a far cry from proving trillions of cubic meters of light crude oil being mysteriously conjured up from the mantle of the Earth.

    From Wiki:

    Key arguments against chemical reactions, such as the serpentinite mechanism, as being the major source of hydrocarbon deposits within the crust are;

    * The presence of no commercial hydrocarbon deposits within the crystalline shield areas of the major cratons especially around key deep seated structures which are predicted to host oil by the abiogenic hypothesis [33]
    * Limited evidence that major serpentinite belts underlie continental sedimentary basins which host oil
    * Lack of conclusive proof that carbon isotope fractionation observed in crustal methane sources is entirely of abiogenic origin (Lollar et al. 2006)[3]
    * Mass balance problems of supplying enough carbon dioxide to serpentinite within the metamorphic event before the peridotite is fully reacted to serpentinite
    * Drilling of the Siljan Ring failed to find commercial quantities of gas[33], thus providing a counter example to Kudryavtsev's Rule and failing to locate the predicted abiogenic gas
    o Helium in the Siljan Gravberg-1 well was depleted in 3He and not consistent with a mantle origin[51]

    * The distribution of sedimentary basins is caused by plate tectonics, with sedimentary basins forming on either side of a volcanic arc, which explains the distribution of oil within these sedimentary basins
    * Kudryavtsev's Rule has been explained for oil and gas (not coal): Gas deposits which are below oil deposits can be created from that oil or its source rocks. Because natural gas is less dense than oil, as kerogen and hydrocarbons are generating gas the gas fills the top of the available space. Oil is forced down, and can reach the spill point where oil leaks around the edge(s) of the formation and flows upward. If the original formation becomes completely filled with gas then all the oil will have leaked above the original location.[52]
    * Ubiquitous presence of diamondoids in natural hydrocarbons such as oil, gas and condensates are composed of carbon from biological sources, unlike the carbon found in normal diamonds.[53]

    * Gas ruptures during earthquakes are more likely to be sourced from biogenic methane generated in unconsolidated sediment from existing organic matter, released by earthquake liquefaction of the reservoir during tremors
    * The presence of methane hydrate is arguably produced by bacterial action upon organic detritus falling from the littoral zone and trapped in the depth due to pressure and temperature
    * The likelihood of vast concentrations of methane in the mantle is very slim, given mantle xenoliths have negligible methane in their fluid inclusions; conventional plate tectonics explains deep focus quakes better, and the extreme confining pressures invalidate the hypothesis of gas pockets causing quakes
    * Further evidence is the presence of diamond within kimberlites and lamproites which sample the mantle depths proposed as being the source region of mantle methane (by Gold et al.).
     
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14

    I linked the paper in my previous post on nuclear energy , check the articles for the data.
     
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,294
    Likes Received:
    194
    Ratings:
    +552 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    I stated that there is either sun or wind at least 95% of the time. I never wrote anything that said Denmark or anywhere else on earth would get 100% reliability on either sun or wind.

    I did say that you'll always have one or the other in every part of the world. Reliability is another issue. But in the coastal areas of the US, a COMBINATION of solar & wind power would result in at least double the reliabilty of the case in Denmark.
     
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,294
    Likes Received:
    194
    Ratings:
    +552 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    That sounds incredible, but it makes sense since there is no friction from land, trees or mountains the higher up you go. Energy is everywhere. Even taking a cubic yard of plain air up 1000 ft will produce energy in the form of "Adiabatic cooling".
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>