
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Superb article . Once it takes more energy to get a barrel of oil out , than there is in it , the economies of the world will collapse. On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:09:21 +1030, Meteorite Debris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:29:30 +1030 the ET form known as Meteorite Debris<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.- -._. > Producing shale oil is energy expensive but energy is the end product. Hundreds of years before Europeans discovered the North American continent there was a settled civilisation in the south west United States called the Anazari. They built towns with buildings up to 5 stories high. Their main source of energy were the trees found in the region. They provided some of the building materials and fuel for cooking and heating. The Anazari did not so much harvest the trees as much as mine them. That is, their use of timber was not long term sustainable. To fuel their society trees were felled from further and further away. Eventually timber was sourced from as far away as 70 miles. And then collapse. What happened? What follows is part analysis and part hypothetical. There are also some parallels with today. The Anazari would have come up against that old troll on the bridge who always wants his toll - EROEI (energy return on energy invested). No one crosses the bridge to plentiful energy nirvana without paying this horrible little monster. Timber getting is an energy intensive business. Travelling, sawing, cutting up, carrying and transport. Also a very efficient way to make widows. The timber getters are the machines who do the work and need fuel (food), a garage (heated quarters) and some maintenance (folk medicine with potions prepared in part with heat). The energy to keep the timber getters going was coming from the timber they were getting. Initially this was done at a large EROEI profit. As time passed however timber was coming from further and further away. Eventually the energy involved in getting timber from 70 miles away did not justify the product which by now was becoming very expensive. What with having to carry enough food on route and timber to heat it with the journey would barely justify their own needs for energy, let alone provided a surplus for the society at large. With more effort devoted to timber getting there would be less time to devoted to other economic activities. If it takes 2 days to get timber instead of 1 day there is less time for tilling the soil or making tools. The economy drifts into long stagnation and decline. How might have the Anazari reacted to these increasingly difficult times? The economic rationalist among the Anazari may have seen the poor economic performance and decided the "deregulation" was needed. The medicine men should be privatised and the rules regarding the safety of timber getters are clearly putting an onerous burden on the industry. These have to go. Allowing price of timber to rise would give an incentive to go further afield to get more (ignoring the fact that the EROEI does not change). The market will fix the problem. With these changes the "enterprising spirit of the free market will be released" and the economy will grow. Don't laugh. The problem of going further and further afield for timber is real today in Nepal and Ethiopia and here the IMF have given these sorts of policy prescriptions without recognising the obvious reality that energy stress (wood is the main source of energy in these countries) is retarding the economies. The rewards from the IMF are loans that can never be repaid but must always be serviced. The same IMF response is repeated in many countries with soil or water stress without recognising resource stress as economically significant. Is it any wonder the IMF and the World Bank are so hated. They fly to country X on Monday in an air conditioned bubble and are chauffeured in another a/c bubble to the 5 star hotel which is another a/c bubble, talk to government figures in a gov building (a/c bubble) on Tuesday and fly out Wednesday (a/c bubble) and pride themselves as "experts" on country X without ever leaving some sort of a/c bubble let alone know anything about the history or culture of the country. Back to the Anazari. The moralist among them may have decided that the economy is stagnant because "young people are lax and don't want to work". "Back in my day...." etc. The xenophobe will point to foreigners who wear different clothes and speak with funny accents "undermining our way of life" as the reason why the economy will not move up. "Stop them coming in" or "kick them out" would be the catch cry. The engineer among the Anazari would talk of there being plenty of trees still out there. He would call timber getting of up to 70 miles away "enhanced recovery". This increases the energy needed to get the timber and lowers the EROEI but it is hailed as a "triumph of human ingenuity". Density of trees is a factor too. The more dense an outcrop, the more worthwhile it is to go further to get it. Timber getting of low density trees far away is also "enhanced recovery". This is like geologically difficult oil fields. The REAL news about "enhanced recovery" of oil is not that this is some sort of technological break through but rather that it is actually needed. We need to spend more energy in recovering oil from old fields rather then developing less energy demanding younger large fields which will return more profit and this would surely be done if the world was as washed in plentiful oil as many spin masters tell us. Further our Anazari engineer claims there are lots of trees 100 miles away and all we need is the right "market price" and this will come online as a supply of energy. This is what might be the equivalent "shale oil" recovery today. The engineer talks eagerly about building high lookout towers in outlying areas to see at a glance any outcrop of trees instead of the slower, and likely to miss some, method of exploring on foot. This would be like 3D seismic surveys today and again the real news is that this is needed. The most typical response would be denial and wishful thinking. This is true today of Hubbert's Peak despite observed confirmations of its' predictions at local levels - most notably in the USA and the North Sea. Paul May's assertion that the observed peak in US oil production 40 years after a discovery peak is nothing to do with supply is typical of this. I can imagine the Anazari being confident that there were still plenty of trees out there - enough for 100 years or 300 even. Having observed local Hubbert Peaks there is no reason to doubt the advent of a global one coming soon. When I read Stephen Jay's Gould's book "The Missmeasure of Man" I learnt a new word - "rarefy" - to treat an imaginary concept or model as if it was reality itself, to turn an idea into reality in the same way as deify means to turn something or somebody into a god. Rarefy describes the economists' craft to a T. They even blame the subjects of their failed experiments instead of reexamining at their models. It is our responsibility to live up to the expectations of economists' models and not theirs to model reality. This extends even to the laws of physics and thermodynamics which somehow MUST give way to the workings of the "market". The economist, moralist, xenophobe and the ostrich will all give their various misleading analyses of problems of post oil peak societies. They will not see the wood for the trees. -- To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD* apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet - Evil Atheist Conspiracy http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/ Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh. "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/ RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99 DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |