I read with interest John Kunstler's weekly column today in his Clusterfuck Nation Chronicles. He addresses the numerous conspiracy theories that have emerged about the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks in the US. He does not mention any of them in particular, but he does mention the idea of the government letting it happen. He sees the conspiracy theories as a delusion that is distracting us from tackling the problems of Peak Oil directly.
Some of these say that the Bush government knew what was coming but let it happen to get an excuse to put troops all over the place near where the oil is. Others go further and say that the 2001 September 11 attacks were somehow choreographed by the US government. Is there anything to these? Kunstler says not.
I am not sure. Some of what these theories say can be disproven easily. For example, bombs did not bring down the World Trade Center. Every floor (below the plane hit lines) of the towers was in perfectly good shape until the floor above it collapsed on it. This is in line with the theory that high temperatures in the weight-bearing columns caused them to give way. It is not in line with the theory that bombs brought the Towers down. If that had happen, we would have seen explosions all over the place in the Towers. Further, some say a small plane with a bomb aboard hit the towers. A comparison of the outline of a Boeing 767 and the holes left by the terrorist planes seems to show that the two match each other.
However, questions remain. Why did World Trade Center 7 collapse? It was farther away from Towers 1 and 2 than other buildings that stood were. And why did every single building with the name World Trade Center was destroyed, but all other buildings stood? And how about the infamous eight "My Pet Goat" minutes between the time Bush knew about the attacks and the time he announced it to the elementary school class and the world?
I suspect these have answers somehow that don't involve what the conspiracy advocates are saying. But I can't rule out some kind of complicity. It was in the interest of the Administration to take control of large parts of the Middle East, since that is where much of the remaining oil is. So to me I could see where he would see the attacks as an opportunity to take this control. It probably did not happen that way, but it can't be ruled out.
In any case, weapons of mass destruction were not the reason why the US invaded Iraq. Neither is getting rid of a ruthless dictator. That was the good thing about the invasion. Saddam can no longer shred people. But helping the Iraqi people and setting up a democracy, although it may be a generous act by the US to that country, was not the reason why the US invaded. It invaded because of oil. That is not the way to deal with the upcoming crisis; cooperation with nations and companies is the way.
Kunstler also says that there is an elephant coming up the python and that sooner or later it will be here. I wonder if he is aware of the other elephant in the python - the retiring Baby Boomers. This huge group of people is all of a sudden going to consume instead of save. Could this cause the economy to crash?
Monday, December 26, 2005
Oil Shale and Energy
This morning I read an article about the deposits of shale in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, centering around the triple-point at which the three states meet. The article said that there is a tremendous deposit of oil here. It said that there are a billion barrels of oil per square mile. I looked at the map and I could easily see two or three areas at least 30 miles wide. So this is a total of well over 2-3 trillion barrels of oil.
Then I read further to find out what this mining would be like. The idea is to take a rod and plunge it deep into the earth, and heat it to 700 degrees Fahrenheit. This melts the rock and after a while of doing this, the melted stuff, consisting in large measure of an oil-like substance, comes to the surface and it can then be refined into distillate products such as gasoline.
The problem with this is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to heat the rock to 700 degrees. The article said this would have to be done for four years before any oil comes from it. Further, the column would have to be surrounded by a cold layer, I suppose, at least 100 degrees below zero. That would require more energy. And further, the operation requires a lot of water, which is not in great supply in Wyoming, Colorado, or Utah.
The question is whether it takes more than a barrel of oil's worth of energy to get a barrel of shale oil out of the ground. If it does, this will not be an energy source for us - in fact, it takes up energy instead and would make the problem worse. Already, a few hundred thousand barrels of oil were extracted from these fields in the 1980s, according to the article, and it did not earn any profit.
Oil shale is a possibility, but mainly if a new technology not requiring so much energy could be used to get the oil out.
Then I read further to find out what this mining would be like. The idea is to take a rod and plunge it deep into the earth, and heat it to 700 degrees Fahrenheit. This melts the rock and after a while of doing this, the melted stuff, consisting in large measure of an oil-like substance, comes to the surface and it can then be refined into distillate products such as gasoline.
The problem with this is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to heat the rock to 700 degrees. The article said this would have to be done for four years before any oil comes from it. Further, the column would have to be surrounded by a cold layer, I suppose, at least 100 degrees below zero. That would require more energy. And further, the operation requires a lot of water, which is not in great supply in Wyoming, Colorado, or Utah.
The question is whether it takes more than a barrel of oil's worth of energy to get a barrel of shale oil out of the ground. If it does, this will not be an energy source for us - in fact, it takes up energy instead and would make the problem worse. Already, a few hundred thousand barrels of oil were extracted from these fields in the 1980s, according to the article, and it did not earn any profit.
Oil shale is a possibility, but mainly if a new technology not requiring so much energy could be used to get the oil out.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
This is indeed a cliffhanger
I have been away for some time due to a family problem. While that was going on, like everyone else, I witnessed on TV and other media the damage and suffering caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I have never seen anything like the destruction of an entire city, as though it were nuked, and the struggles that went on afterwards. Now people are pointing fingers at each other and vowing it would not happen again. It seemed to have worked with Rita. Now the opposite pattern has appeared. Some people are going to ride out hurricanes rather than roast for hours on a traffic-clogged interstate at 100 degrees F and 1 mph.
My main concern with these storms is the damage that they cause to oil facilities. Several refineries are now offline, and much production of oil and natural gas has been disrupted. The question is whether there is enough capacity to handle all the demand now. Gasoline prices rose from $2.51 to $3.29 after Katrina, and there were some stations out of gasoline. Since then the prices have been receding. After Rita, prices jumped, then fell back, and are now rising again. I was afraid that real shortages will appear.
They may not. Now that the $3 barrier has been reached, demand is finally going down. People are driving less and they are carpooling and otherwise saving gasoline. This lowered demand, and that has caused prices to fall. It's the supply and demand equation working. When prices of a commodity rise, demand for it will decrease, and other alternatives will become profitable and will activate. It seems that supply and demand will take care of this peak oil problem.
However, oil and other hydrocarbons are non-renewable resources and there is only a finite amount of these substances. Sooner or later we are going to run out, and supply and demand may not take care of this sudden change easily. That is why I say this situation is a cliffhanger. It could go either way. Supply and demand and other energy sources are tending to ease the situation, but the continued demand overseas and finiteness of the resources are taking us the other way. It is not clear what's going to happen; it could be anywhere from a gradual changeover to other resources to a world catastrophe. That is why I think this situation is a cliffhanger, and why I have named this blog that.
I will, if I have a chance, post again this Monday; I chose this day for this blog because that's when James Kunstler's Clusterfuck Nation Chronicles comes out. If you follow this link, you may have to increment the number "15" to make the chronicle current.
My main concern with these storms is the damage that they cause to oil facilities. Several refineries are now offline, and much production of oil and natural gas has been disrupted. The question is whether there is enough capacity to handle all the demand now. Gasoline prices rose from $2.51 to $3.29 after Katrina, and there were some stations out of gasoline. Since then the prices have been receding. After Rita, prices jumped, then fell back, and are now rising again. I was afraid that real shortages will appear.
They may not. Now that the $3 barrier has been reached, demand is finally going down. People are driving less and they are carpooling and otherwise saving gasoline. This lowered demand, and that has caused prices to fall. It's the supply and demand equation working. When prices of a commodity rise, demand for it will decrease, and other alternatives will become profitable and will activate. It seems that supply and demand will take care of this peak oil problem.
However, oil and other hydrocarbons are non-renewable resources and there is only a finite amount of these substances. Sooner or later we are going to run out, and supply and demand may not take care of this sudden change easily. That is why I say this situation is a cliffhanger. It could go either way. Supply and demand and other energy sources are tending to ease the situation, but the continued demand overseas and finiteness of the resources are taking us the other way. It is not clear what's going to happen; it could be anywhere from a gradual changeover to other resources to a world catastrophe. That is why I think this situation is a cliffhanger, and why I have named this blog that.
I will, if I have a chance, post again this Monday; I chose this day for this blog because that's when James Kunstler's Clusterfuck Nation Chronicles comes out. If you follow this link, you may have to increment the number "15" to make the chronicle current.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Prius Really Does Have Good Gas Mileage
It is now 2005 August 1. We are in the year of 18 projects, and apparently they are keeping the oil flowing in the world, although the market is so tight that a little hint of hurricane or a little flame at a refinery can send oil prices soaring towards the Space Shuttle. I heard today that Ford's average gasoline mileage is only about 19 mpg. This is averaged over all of Ford's vehicles. Evidently Ford can't get out of the SUV habit. One of these days it will bankrupt them. Toyota is much better, surely. They make gasoline-frugal cars such as the Corolla and the Matrix, and hybrids such as the Highlander and the Prius. But no, they are not the most gas-frugal brand of car. Honda is, at 25 mpg, and even that is not good in my opinion. Evidently Toyota has too many SUVs, too. They roar down TV news advertisements and car dealerships with a huge army of Tundra SUVs, ruining the good gasoline mileage they get from the Prius. Hopefully this will change soon.
But the Prius does indeed get good gasoline mileage. It gets nearly 50 mpg! This, plus conserving on when you drive, anyway, will help you through the high gasoline prices ahead of us. To show you what I mean, here is a record of our Prius, which we bought last Christmas Eve:
Pretty good, isn't it? The display on the Prius shows the number of miles since the last refueling and the mpg at that time. "Panel mpg" refers to this number on the display panel on the dashboard. "Actual mpg" is obtained by subtracting the mileage from the past refueling mileage, and dividing by the number of gallons. There is a bit of bouncing around, caused by uneven places at which gasoline pumps cut off. But the trend is clear. This vehicle averages at least in the high forties, and many times it comes close to or exceeds 50 mpg. Even with today's high prices, it still costs only $18 to fill the tank.
This is the car of the future. Either auto makers must make hybrids like this one or fail. Toyota is destined to be the top automaker in the United States, and in the entire world, by far.
But the Prius does indeed get good gasoline mileage. It gets nearly 50 mpg! This, plus conserving on when you drive, anyway, will help you through the high gasoline prices ahead of us. To show you what I mean, here is a record of our Prius, which we bought last Christmas Eve:
| Date | Gallons | Price | Panel mpg | Actual mpg | Miles Driven |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005/06/12 | 8.088 | 16.98 | 49.1 | 49.0 | 396 |
| 2005/06/20 | 8.608 | 17.55 | 48.1 | 46.1 | 397 |
| 2005/06/29 | 8.424 | 18.27 | 48.8 | 48.9 | 412 |
| 2005/07/07 | 7.736 | 16.16 | 49.3 | 51.6 | 399 |
| 2005/07/16 | 8.584 | 19.65 | 48.3 | 43.0 | 369 |
| 2005/07/31 | 8.4 | 18.22 | 49.8 | 49.3 | 414 |
This is the car of the future. Either auto makers must make hybrids like this one or fail. Toyota is destined to be the top automaker in the United States, and in the entire world, by far.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Global Warming Special
On CNN last Saturday night, I watched a special on global warming on CNN. According to the special, the effects of global warming are being felt right now. In Tuvalu, the water is rising, and even strong ordinary waves will flood houses and lawns. There is fear that this atoll, just above the water, will get submerged in the years ahead, and then where with the Tuvaluns go?
The ice is melting in the Arctic. The Inuit depend on it for their activities. The polar bear feed on seals during the winter, when the water is frozen solid. The frozen part of the year is getting shorter every year, and now there is fear that polar bears, which don't eat much at all during the summer, will become extinct.
The city of New Orleans is especially subject to damage by global warming. Over the past few decades, much marshland in the Mississippi delta went under water.
And so on it goes. Every coastal city, including 13 of the 17 largest, is subject to damage by global warming.
Or are they? How much energy does it take to melt all that Arctic and Antarctic ice? Is there enough energy in the oil and natural gas still remaining to do all this damage? A recent study suggested not. The Club of Rome report in the 1970s suggested in their basic computer run that the thing that will get civilization in the 21st century will be running out of resources (such as oil), not pollution (global warming). To me, much of this material about how the world will flood with global warming is hype.
However, most of the remedies for global warming would also deal with the problem of peak oil as well. These include cleaner and more efficient automobiles, limits on pollution at factories, and more efficiently operating industry, together with conservation. Further, the Club of Rome also suggested that if we get a gift from the heavens (or Alpha Centaurions) of a century's worth of oil, then pollution; i.e., global warming, will be a serious problem - it will cause billions of deaths and make the planet unlivable. So we need to heed the warnings of this special. In particular, President Bush needs to sign the Kyoto Treaty now.
The ice is melting in the Arctic. The Inuit depend on it for their activities. The polar bear feed on seals during the winter, when the water is frozen solid. The frozen part of the year is getting shorter every year, and now there is fear that polar bears, which don't eat much at all during the summer, will become extinct.
The city of New Orleans is especially subject to damage by global warming. Over the past few decades, much marshland in the Mississippi delta went under water.
And so on it goes. Every coastal city, including 13 of the 17 largest, is subject to damage by global warming.
Or are they? How much energy does it take to melt all that Arctic and Antarctic ice? Is there enough energy in the oil and natural gas still remaining to do all this damage? A recent study suggested not. The Club of Rome report in the 1970s suggested in their basic computer run that the thing that will get civilization in the 21st century will be running out of resources (such as oil), not pollution (global warming). To me, much of this material about how the world will flood with global warming is hype.
However, most of the remedies for global warming would also deal with the problem of peak oil as well. These include cleaner and more efficient automobiles, limits on pollution at factories, and more efficiently operating industry, together with conservation. Further, the Club of Rome also suggested that if we get a gift from the heavens (or Alpha Centaurions) of a century's worth of oil, then pollution; i.e., global warming, will be a serious problem - it will cause billions of deaths and make the planet unlivable. So we need to heed the warnings of this special. In particular, President Bush needs to sign the Kyoto Treaty now.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Oil gets to 60 before I do
Well, it looks like oil has done it. It has hit the big six zero more than a year before I will hit mine. Crude futures today in New York sold for $60.55 a barrel, or $1.44 a gallon. It is making gasoline and other oil-based products go up as well. It is due to the Saudis and other OPEC members not being able to convince the rest of the world that they can increase production. In fact, many in the oil business say that they no longer can, and if so, then maybe peak oil has been reached. Kenneth Deffeyes has been predicting that magic moment for 2005 November 24.
To me the important thing is when demand exceeds supply. If reduced supply reduces demand, that postpones that exceeding point. I predict that to occur in 2008. It then remains to be seen whether this will cause severe economic problems for the world, or whether it will cause such a reduction in demand that an oil glut will develop, despite production ability being in decline.
Once again I hear that part of the reason for crude's upward rise is refinery shortages. I don't know why they keep saying that. Maybe it's something they just say. But it does not make sense. Refinery shortages should cause crude prices to go down. If I am crude and can't get refined, then I am worthless. My price should drop then. No, the reason for the increase in crude prices is a perceived crude shortage, which is probably based on a real one. The latest fear is that Gödelized Iran will halt or slow down oil shipments.
I did a least squares fit on oil prices from 2004 January 1 to 2005 June 22, using data from the tax department of the state of Alaska. The resulting equation is:
Crude Oil Price = 35.12599281*exp(0.000852*t)*(1+0.044513*sin(0.0793*t+3.213698406))
where t is the time in days since 2004 January 1 and the argument of the sine is in radians. If you graph this function, you get a wavy exponential increase. There is oscillation going on, probably caused by 2004's huge increases. The formula predicts the following prices:
2005 July 1 57.25
2005 Sept 8 61.95
2005 Oct 12 58.46
2005 Nov 27 66.28
2005 Dec 30 62.55
2006 July 22 81.17
2007 Jan 1 92.69
2008 Jan 1 120.38
2009 Jan 1 163.51
2010 Jan 1 236.55
So that we will hve $237/gallon oil in 2010.
To me the important thing is when demand exceeds supply. If reduced supply reduces demand, that postpones that exceeding point. I predict that to occur in 2008. It then remains to be seen whether this will cause severe economic problems for the world, or whether it will cause such a reduction in demand that an oil glut will develop, despite production ability being in decline.
Once again I hear that part of the reason for crude's upward rise is refinery shortages. I don't know why they keep saying that. Maybe it's something they just say. But it does not make sense. Refinery shortages should cause crude prices to go down. If I am crude and can't get refined, then I am worthless. My price should drop then. No, the reason for the increase in crude prices is a perceived crude shortage, which is probably based on a real one. The latest fear is that Gödelized Iran will halt or slow down oil shipments.
I did a least squares fit on oil prices from 2004 January 1 to 2005 June 22, using data from the tax department of the state of Alaska. The resulting equation is:
Crude Oil Price = 35.12599281*exp(0.000852*t)*(1+0.044513*sin(0.0793*t+3.213698406))
where t is the time in days since 2004 January 1 and the argument of the sine is in radians. If you graph this function, you get a wavy exponential increase. There is oscillation going on, probably caused by 2004's huge increases. The formula predicts the following prices:
2005 July 1 57.25
2005 Sept 8 61.95
2005 Oct 12 58.46
2005 Nov 27 66.28
2005 Dec 30 62.55
2006 July 22 81.17
2007 Jan 1 92.69
2008 Jan 1 120.38
2009 Jan 1 163.51
2010 Jan 1 236.55
So that we will hve $237/gallon oil in 2010.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Oil crash coming?
I found an article on CNN's Money web site today. Since this link will probably go dead in a few days, here is a quote:
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The oil market may be quickly headed for a massive crash as global economic growth slackens, alternative energy gains ground and financial traders sense a price peak, an economist with Morgan Stanley said Thursday.
His projection for a multi-year bear cycle stands in sharp contrast to the super-spike scenario envisioned three months ago by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley's arch-rival in the world of oil derivatives trading, where they are the two biggest players.
"As evidence of weakening demand and ample supply accumulates, the market may panic," Andy Xie, Greater China economist in Hong Kong, said in a report. "I believe it could correct in the most speculative fashion -- it could collapse."
This article is further evidence that people just don't seem to understand or want to talk about the possibility of cheap oil running out soon. They say that growth will slacken, that advances in alternative energy will be made, and that economists will think the price is getting too high and is forming a bubble. Sure these things will influence oil prices for a while, but there are many people that say that these are not going to make much difference. I happen to think that oil prices will continue to go up for the foreseeable future.
The price may very well crash. It may go down into the 40s or even the 30s. But then it will go right back up again, just like it did in February. If indeed the price is headed for a crash, it presents an investment opportunity. Sell out of energy stocks and bonds, wait for the crash to occur, then rebuy into them.
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The oil market may be quickly headed for a massive crash as global economic growth slackens, alternative energy gains ground and financial traders sense a price peak, an economist with Morgan Stanley said Thursday.
His projection for a multi-year bear cycle stands in sharp contrast to the super-spike scenario envisioned three months ago by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley's arch-rival in the world of oil derivatives trading, where they are the two biggest players.
"As evidence of weakening demand and ample supply accumulates, the market may panic," Andy Xie, Greater China economist in Hong Kong, said in a report. "I believe it could correct in the most speculative fashion -- it could collapse."
This article is further evidence that people just don't seem to understand or want to talk about the possibility of cheap oil running out soon. They say that growth will slacken, that advances in alternative energy will be made, and that economists will think the price is getting too high and is forming a bubble. Sure these things will influence oil prices for a while, but there are many people that say that these are not going to make much difference. I happen to think that oil prices will continue to go up for the foreseeable future.
The price may very well crash. It may go down into the 40s or even the 30s. But then it will go right back up again, just like it did in February. If indeed the price is headed for a crash, it presents an investment opportunity. Sell out of energy stocks and bonds, wait for the crash to occur, then rebuy into them.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Peak Oil Looks Like a Real Cliffhanger
Welcome to Cliffhanger, my newest blog. This blog will be devoted to Peak Oil and related issues, such as Global Warming, alternative energy, hybrid and fuel cell cars, development encroachment, and anything else that impinges on the health of this planet or on our supply of resources.
In my opinion, we have a cliffhanger coming in the next few years, and it is hard to say what will happen. According to many experts, including Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, and Matt Simmons, world production of oil is nearing a peak, and despite rapid demand growth, especially from the United States, China, and India, production will decrease rapidly a few years after the peak is reached. Projections of the peak are anywhere from right now to 2112, with the median seeming now to be somewhere around 2008. After this, oil and gasoline prices will rise dramatically, and economic recession or depression, world tensions, possible famines, and other undesirable things will start to happen. A good review of what will happen to Suburbia can be found in the film The End of Suburbia, published by Postcarbon Books. A good site for describing these changes rather frankly is Clusterfuck Nation, by James Kunstler, especially his Chronicles.
Or will all this happen? Disaster has been predicted over and over again, especially by Colin Campbell, who always seems to be predicting imminent disaster. President Jimmy Carter in 1977 said that the peak was coming in the 1980s, but developments in oil extraction technology and discoveries in the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay has delayed this peak. The economists say that supply and demand will take care of the situation. There are alternative sources of energy, such as wind, tar sands, hydrogen, solar, coal, nuclear, and natural gas (but each of these has their own problems, especially the latter three). When oil becomes too expensive, these other technologies will take over. Further, technological developments will make what use of energy we do have more efficient. A good example of this is the Toyota Prius, which uses a motor to help maximize the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, resulting in a car with 50 mpg fuel economy. Because of this cliffhanger I see coming up, I have purchased a Prius.
So what will happen in the future? There is no denying that supply and demand is a powerful force. But will it fully address the Peak Oil problem? I think it is going to be a close call. This one is a cliffhanger, folks. This is why I have named my blog "Cliffhanger". I have chosen this blog as my Monday blog, on the most depressing day of the week, and after James Kunstler publishes his next installment of his Clusterfuck Chronicles. I expect that demand for oil will drop drastically when oil rises in price, causing conservation and technological developments to increase. This happened in the 1970s, resulting in a huge oil glut. It will happen again. But supplies will continue to dwindle. In my opinion, supply and demand will kick in, but it will result in a massive disruption in our way of life, as we convert from one set of lifestyles to another. The result will be a crisis, and this may be well the Fourth Turning that Strauss and Howe are calling for. The results of this disruption and adjustment to me are uncertain. And that is why I am monitoring this situation and have constructed a blog for it, in which I will report any developments I see on it and also my feelings about what is going to happen. I am hoping for a happy conclusion to this crisis but am still concerned.
In my opinion, we have a cliffhanger coming in the next few years, and it is hard to say what will happen. According to many experts, including Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, and Matt Simmons, world production of oil is nearing a peak, and despite rapid demand growth, especially from the United States, China, and India, production will decrease rapidly a few years after the peak is reached. Projections of the peak are anywhere from right now to 2112, with the median seeming now to be somewhere around 2008. After this, oil and gasoline prices will rise dramatically, and economic recession or depression, world tensions, possible famines, and other undesirable things will start to happen. A good review of what will happen to Suburbia can be found in the film The End of Suburbia, published by Postcarbon Books. A good site for describing these changes rather frankly is Clusterfuck Nation, by James Kunstler, especially his Chronicles.
Or will all this happen? Disaster has been predicted over and over again, especially by Colin Campbell, who always seems to be predicting imminent disaster. President Jimmy Carter in 1977 said that the peak was coming in the 1980s, but developments in oil extraction technology and discoveries in the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay has delayed this peak. The economists say that supply and demand will take care of the situation. There are alternative sources of energy, such as wind, tar sands, hydrogen, solar, coal, nuclear, and natural gas (but each of these has their own problems, especially the latter three). When oil becomes too expensive, these other technologies will take over. Further, technological developments will make what use of energy we do have more efficient. A good example of this is the Toyota Prius, which uses a motor to help maximize the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, resulting in a car with 50 mpg fuel economy. Because of this cliffhanger I see coming up, I have purchased a Prius.
So what will happen in the future? There is no denying that supply and demand is a powerful force. But will it fully address the Peak Oil problem? I think it is going to be a close call. This one is a cliffhanger, folks. This is why I have named my blog "Cliffhanger". I have chosen this blog as my Monday blog, on the most depressing day of the week, and after James Kunstler publishes his next installment of his Clusterfuck Chronicles. I expect that demand for oil will drop drastically when oil rises in price, causing conservation and technological developments to increase. This happened in the 1970s, resulting in a huge oil glut. It will happen again. But supplies will continue to dwindle. In my opinion, supply and demand will kick in, but it will result in a massive disruption in our way of life, as we convert from one set of lifestyles to another. The result will be a crisis, and this may be well the Fourth Turning that Strauss and Howe are calling for. The results of this disruption and adjustment to me are uncertain. And that is why I am monitoring this situation and have constructed a blog for it, in which I will report any developments I see on it and also my feelings about what is going to happen. I am hoping for a happy conclusion to this crisis but am still concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)