The Stockmarket; A Scam?

For years the Dow barely moved after the stock market Crash of '29. For instance in 1952 the Dow was at 500. The expansion began August 1982 when the Dow gained 38.81 points in one day to reach 831.14, which heralded in the boom of the '80s. By January '87 the Dow breaks 2000; July '87 it reaches 2510.04. In October '87 Black Monday, when the Dow falls 508 points; but by January '90 the Dow reaches 2810.15 and April '91 it reaches 3004.46: May '93 it reaches 3500.03; February '95 the Dow reaches 4003.37; March 16, 1999 it reaches 10,000 points and by March 29, 1999 it exceeds10,000. Why after years of holding below 1,000 it climbs to now over 13,400?
Pension plans, IRAs, 401k plans are the reason, especially 401k plans. With all that money looking for investments it is no wonder stocks, bonds, and money markets are doing well. For proof look at 401k facts.
Four 0 Ones Kays began about 1978 and in 1990 $ .385 trillion were in 401ks (19.5 million participants); 1996, $ 1.061 trillion; 1997, $ 1.264 trillion; 1998, $ 1.459 trillion; 1999, $1.715 trillion; 2000, $ 1.712 trillion.
In 1990 there were about 19 million 401k participants and by 1999 39.3 million. 401ks represent 15% of retirement totals (2001), which represent $11.5 trillion in retirement assets (as of 2001).
The Big Question here is; "Do stocks represent "real value"? Where there are big bucks to be made there are always sharks looking to gobble up what ever is in the water--in this case investments. Remember the Crash of '29 and the Savings and Loan scandal?
As in all "frenzies" (and stock market booms are frenzies) good money chases bad indiscriminately and with so much money being invested by ordinary people there is a real danger for disaster. I'm reminded what happened to the German people during the 1920 and 1930s when their pensions went down the drain.
Personally I think the Stock Market is way over-inflated and is ripe for a real crunch.

Iraq--Pounding Sand Down a Rathole?

The argument goes on: should we withdraw or fight on for years to come? Remember Viet Nam? The same arguments are being given for staying the course or getting out. To some it is the principle that we don't give in to terrorists, giving in will encourage more attacks or taking over territory--remember the "Domino Theory"?
What about fighting a war that wasn't merited in the first place--Bush gives a lame excuse for his actions by retorting; "Would you prefer that Saddam still being in power?" A non sequtir perhaps? A return question might be; are the Iraqi people better off after four years of occupation? But aside from that argument what about the argument about our pounding sand down a rathole? The arab world can procreate faster than we can kill them so what is the point? The longer we stay the more resentment we create, in Iraq and elsewhere.
At some point we will have to make the decision to leave, and that means some civilian telling our military that we are getting out. Of course Bush can't do that because his ego is involved; so, that means some Democrat, or Democratic administration, will be left holding the bag (Iraq). Then Bush and his supporters will all be pointing fingers at the Democrats for "losing" the war. Some strategy! You might add Iran in the mess for Bush and Cheney aren't going to let the Democrats take over and let Iran get a "bomb". Or so that is their thinking.
So are we to continue to lose Americans and spend billions of dollars, that could go for much better purposes, for little gain; or choose a course that gets us out of a quagmire within a period of time--such as two years. That gives a realistic timetable, with enough time to accomplish some political solutions, yet is not short enough that the insurgents can take advantage. A time-table could in fact "defuse" the conflict. The insurgents would lose their basis for recruitment. Why try to induce someone to leave when they plan to leave anyway?

Monica Goodling's Testimony

/Did anyone fire the Assistant Attorney Generals? By the testimony given so far "no one is fessing up to it". No one knows the reason why they were fired--though their lack of "performance" might be the reason they were fired, though no one can point out what lack of performance was involved.
"I don't recall" statement was made 74 time; and Alberto Gonzales is a lawyer, a profession where attention to details and a good memory are necessary requirements. Maybe a little "water-boarding" would loosen his tongue. If he has such a bad memory he obviously is not the man for that position. Where is his notes? People with bad memories usually keep notes. Has anyone noticed that no one mentions notes anymore? A lesson learned from the Reagan administration investigations. Of course they can always be hidden in the Library of Congress.
It would seem that something important as firing 8 Assistant Attorney General would make some impression--like the reason for firing them. Maybe this administration has very little concern for peoples lives and careers--unless of course they are someone who has entered this country illegally. For an administration, who knows what the word "amnesia" means, its members sure suffers from the malady a lot; and too it is first time I've heard that the word "forget" (amnesia) was nullified by a fine.
Goodling got a pass by the hearing members. What work did she do if she wasn't acting as a White House liaison between the Justice Department and WH? What did she do regarding the firings? She had all these responsibilities and assignments, yet didn't do anything, confer with anyone? She doesn't have any insights or here say knowledge from overheard conversations and messages? Unbelievable!

What's Comprehensive About It?

The U.S. Senate has just agreed on a "Comprehensive" Immigration bill, which by the sound of it is just another Amnesty Bill. The provisions, such as employer sanctions, will be ignored (just like it was in 1986), requirements of checking out immigration requirements will be ignored, border enforcement will be ignored (just as it was in 1986), the back of the line requirement will be ignored--in other words 1986 de jevu all over again. More anarchy, more immigrants, and you can kiss Social Security goodbye because of 20 million more added to the system because of this new plan.

Humanity was used as an emotional appeal for the plan. Illegal immigrants are not our burden to assume. Their own countries are responsible for them. Who is representing us in our government? Between the "give America to the World" advocates and the Corporate Proxies the average American might as well find another country to live in as he/she will soon be "Strangers In Their Own Country".

Oil Alternatives

Oil Alternatives was first published in American Survival Guide magazine September 2000. Not much has changed even though people are becoming aware of the fact that oil depletion is on our horizon. We are still struggling in our efforts to find alternatives to oil.

OIL ALTERNATIVES

In my previous article, "The Big Crunch: End of the Oil Age" I wrote that the world's oil reserves were declining, far outstripping discoveries, at a rate of one barrel being discovered for ever four being consumed, (in reality it is one for every nine, but I was being conservative) and that world oil production is estimated to peak within the present decade (2008). The result of this peaking of production would result in a continuing decline in available oil, which would soon cripple our ability to maintain our world technological cultures and result in an increasingly devastating great depression from which there would be no relief or rescue. I suggested that our only means to prevent this would be to develop alternative energies. This article explores what the most likely alternative candidates will be and their merits, both pro and con; based on their maturity as fuels, accessibility, affordability, renewability, and environmental friendliness.

There are many obstacles to overcome in replacing oil. The problem to moving to alternatives is complex; we cannot just make a choice and magically move from oil to our choice of alternative energy. There are many obstacles, such as politics, capital, labor, an existing powerful oil industry, and inevitably higher prices at the pump.

When the automobile replaced the horse oil fought it out with alcohol as a fuel and oil won; the reason being that farmers held out for higher prices for their corn and other grains. The battle will heat up again once the oil shortages and market manipulations again try people's patience as people attempt to replace oil.

The United States has very complex international affiliations based on oil policy which will be difficult to withdraw from. Any national policy to change from oil to alternatives will be highly public and political.

The new policy would also place the United States at a disadvantage; for other competing countries, in the short term, would derive economic advantage by having access to a cheaper and a more plentiful supply of oil because of the U.S.'s change to alternatives. The United States uses up over a quarter of the worlds oil production each year (7 of 24 billion barrels).

The long-term advantage for the U.S. would be the ultimate gain in energy, economic, and political independence. There would be economic advantages because the U.S. spends a reported 55 to 96 billion dollars each year protecting our oil interests in the world. (Now it is in the trillions due to Iraq)

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve costs an additional 5.7 billion dollars a year to maintain. (Talk about the high cost of oil!) Add in all the other billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives to aid our own flagging oil industry and you can see we are paying much more for gasoline than what you see at the pump.

Much mention of late has been made about the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve in Alaska having lots of oil in it and that it should be opened up for oil exploration. Recent oil drilling at the edge of the reserve has been however disappointing. It had been hoped by the oil industry that oil discoveries outside the reserve would lead to exploration in the reserve itself: a hope which hasn't been dashed. The reader should be remindded that just because rock formations are favorable for oil it doesn't mean that oil exists in the rock or that there is sufficient oil in place to make it commercially worthwhile to produce. The only way to be sure that oil exists is to drill exploratory wells. However, at this time, it makes more sense to go to alternatives than it does to produce expensive oil in a ecologically fragile environment; at least for the energy consumer.

The advantage economically of such oil is to the oil producers, not the consumers. (The profits realized by the oil industry today in 2008is obscene, and we are just reaching peak production of oil)

A misinformed and ambivalent public will probably in time give in to the idea of exploiting the reserve due to the stress of higher prices for oil and lobbyists for the oil companies hammering on our Congressmen.

The Oil Alternatives:

In my previous article I mentioned coal as a likely prospect as an alternative to oil. Coal is found in beds that can range from barely one foot in thickness to as much as eight hundred feet; such as found in Victoria, Australia. These thick beds are usually small in extent. More common are beds from three to eight feet in thickness and which may have a few layers superimposed over one another, or which may have as many as a hundred layers, such as are found in West Virginia.

Coal is ranked according to the amount of alteration (from plant material) and compaction the coal has undergone in its formation. It is ranked as lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, and anthracite. The difference between them is the progressive increase of carbon and heat content. The heat content is expressed as British Thermal Units (BTU), which is the amount of heat that is required to raise one-pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. One BTU is the equivalent f 778.6 foot-pounds, or 3214 BTUs are the equivalent of one kilowatt hour of energy. A BTU can be visualized as being one wooden kitchen match fully burned.

Bituminous coal has a heat capacity of 10,860 to 14,620 BTUs per pound and contains from 60 to 80 percent carbon, 4.7 to 5.6 percent hydrogen, 1.1 to 1.5 percent oxygen, and .7 to 3.9 percent sulfur. Coal contains some metallic and non-metallic elements introduced at the time the peat, the original state of the coal, was forming. During the burning of the coal these elements become concentrated in the ash, but the sulfur and some other elements are emitted into the atmosphere. Sulfur is emitted as sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide. These elements then combine with oxygen and water to form sulfuric acid and falls as rain.

Runoff from old coal mining operations also contribute sulfuric acid to ground water. One interesting fact, though nothing to worry about, is that coal electric generating plants emit twice as much radiation as do nuclear plants.

After mining the coal is sorted, cleaned, separated, and stored for shipment. Washing out the impurities is not a simple process. Impurities, such as pyrite, rock, and clay having found their way into the coal after formation are easily removed by washing, since coal, being lighter, floats away and the dirty coal, being heavier sinks and is discarded. Lots of water is needed in processing coal and that presents a problem for many areas, such as in the West, little water can be found. This makes it necessary either to ship the coal to the water, or water brought to the coal.

After the coal is washed it must be dried; usually by vibration and hot-air blowers.

The Department of Energy and the industry estimates that 4.5 to 5 barrels of oil can be made from a ton of coal and at a price of from $35 to $40 a barrel. (At $60-plus a barrel for oil now why aren't we using coal to make oil?) A joint effort with energy companies, such as EXXON, is in progress to research the possibilities of making an oil product for $25 a barrel. (It has been seven years since I wrote this--where is the process to make oil from coal?) A company in South Africa, Sasol, has been making syngasoline; but has been criticized for possible contamination of ground water from its processing wastes.

There are at this time two processes for converting coal to synthetic oil; direct and indirect processes. The direct process converts coal directly into a liquid fuel by heating the coal under pressure and adding hydrogen. Coal is hydrogen poor compared to oil. Carbon-rich anthracite coal, for instance, has only 2.6 percent hydrogen compared to bituminous coal having 5.6 percent. Petroleum has from 11.7 to 14.7 percent hydrogen.

Part of the processing of coal consists of removing oxygen and trace minerals that would create undesirable chemical reactions. Catalysts are being considered to help the process in converting coal to a liquid fuel.

The indirect process converts coal into liquid products such as gasoline, diesel, and methanol.

Coal makes up 70 percent of the world's energy reserve (renewables aside). If we could convert all of the reported reserves of coal to liquid fuel the world would have an eighty-year supply--at present consumption rates. That equates to seventy years since world consumption grows at 2.5% a year. We would also have to subtract out any unsuitable coal--coal that has a high sulfur content or coal in layers too thin to produce economically.

Some coal will be needed for electrical generation. The DOE states that in the next 20 years the demand for capital will be in the $27 billion range and 70% of it will be for coal fueled electricity plants.

Because coal is not renewable, requires large amounts of water for processing, contains contaminants, labor intensive, bulky, expensive, and in direct competition with other energy industries, it should not be considered a long-term replacement for oil.

Alcohol

Alcohol, also known as ethyl alcohol and ethanol, is a prime candidate to replace gasoline in most applications involving light vehicles, comprising 60% of U.S. transportation.

Alcohol can be made from any biomass that contains starch and sugars. The more starch or sugar a feedstock contains the cheaper and higher the yield of alcohol.

The most common sources are grains, fruits, vegetables, and wood products. Methanol, another source for alcohol, comes from coal and petroleum. It is highly poisonous.

Man has been fermenting alcohol from 4000 to 6000 years in the Middle East and around 800 BC it was being being distilled from rice liquor by the Chinese.

Ethanol is an excellent source of energy and can be used for heating, cooking, and light as well as powering internal combustion engines. It has the advantage of being a mature technology, is clean burning, and a renewable resource.

A point overlooked in considering any commercially grown feedstock is that large amounts of fertilizers are needed to replenish nutrients in the soil. Much of the fertilizers today, such as ammonium nitrate, are derived from non-renewable resources such as petroleum. Other fertilizers are more or less non-renewable as well.

Some crops yield more alcohol per ton than others.

FEEDSTOCKS --GALS/TON

Whey, dry 85
Wheat 85
Corn 84
Barley 79
Molasses 70
Cane Sorghum 70
Oats 64
Wood and paste 47
Potatoes 23
Carrots 10

The fundamental steps in making alcohol are:

1) Mash preparation (grinding, mashing, cooking, etc.)
2) Fermentation.
3) Distillation.

The mash is prepared by grinding up the feedstock, cooking, adding acids or enzymes. The mash or slurry is placed into a vat and yeast is added to it and then the vat is sealed to exclude harmful outside organisms. It is then allowed to ferment for a number of days at moderate temperatures. The resulting product of fermentation should contain 10 to 14 percent alcohol.

Since alcohol boils and turns to vapor at 172 degrees Fahrenheit and water boils and turns to steam at 212 degrees (sea level) this 40 degree difference makes it possible to separate out the alcohol from the water relatively easy. The process has to be repeated, the first run yielding a 90 to 95% product, or 180 to 190 proof. The maximum amount of alcohol that can be produced by distillation is about 195 proof. To extract the rest from the water benzene or calcium oxide is used to produce a 200 proof alcohol.

Alcohol as a fuel, for gasoline type engines, can hold up to 30% water without loss of power. The best running water/alcohol mixture is 180 proof.

Distillation is achieved by allowing the vapors to pass through a distillation column, which is essentially a long vertical tube containing internal baffles. The water vapors cool and condense on the baffles and returns back to the bottom. The hotter alcohol vapors continue to rise and pass through the column and into a condensing coil, which is cooled by water. The alcohol vapor cools and condenses in the coil and runs out the end where it is collected as a liquid.

When comparing alcohol to gasoline we see that gasoline comes out ahead in BTUs--gasoline has 124,000 BTUs per gallon compared to 87,000 BTUs (when they are combusted) for alcohol. This means that fuel tanks must be larger to get the same mileage as gasoline.

Alcohol can run very well in gasoline engines modified for its use. It has an octane rating of 92. An engine requires more fuel through the carburetor and the fuel metering jets must be enlarged 30 to 35 percent to compensate for the lower heat content of the alcohol. it takes two times the heat to vaporize alcohol than it does gasoline. This makes it harder to start on a cold morning requiring a fuel or carburetor heater or dual tanks--one for gasoline to start the engine, and one for alcohol to run on.

Alcohol production is labor and energy--intensive; besides being a lower energy fuel than gasoline. When you compare all the hidden costs that gasoline costs us, and the lives that have been lost to guarantee its supply, it may be a good choice despite its limitations.

Biodiesel.

Biodiesel is another likely fuel. It is a diesel oil made from vegetable oil. Biodiesel, unlike diesel oil made from petroleum, gives off low undesirable emissions: the exhaust fumes smell like French Fries. Another favorable attribute of biodiesel is that the CO2 emitted is removed later from the air by plants and this equates to zero emissions.

Biodiesel is manufactured relatively quickly and easily from any good grade vegetable oil, such as soybean, peanut, or corn oils.

The process basically consists of warming the oil to about 95 to 175 degrees and a small amount of a methanol/lye mixture added and mixed thoroughly, then allowed to stand for eight hours.

Glycerin and soap settles to the bottom of the container and the result is a near pure diesel oil ready to be used in a vehicle. The process is clled transeerization. The process is so simple anyone can make it at home.

Proponents of the process claim that over a 3 to 1 energy gain is achieved; deriving one megajoul for every .31 megajoule expended in the process.

A disadvantage of biodiesel is that it has a flash point of 300 degrees compared to a 125 degree flashpoint for a petroleum based diesel oil. It is harder to start and use in colder climates.

Biodiesel is being used today as an additive in petroleum based diesel in order to lower noxious emissions.

Hydrogen.

I include hydrogen as an energy possibility only because so many people I have talked to have shrugged away the oil depletion problem by pointing to hydrogen as being a solution.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier rather than an energy source because it takes so much energy to break its bond with oxygen in their coexistence as a water molecule.

The processes of releasing hydrogen from oxygen in water are electrochemical, biological, and photoconversion.

The electrochemical process consists of passing electricity through water with enough energy to separate the two elements. The common energy efficiency is 65%, though 80 to 85% is being reached. This means that it takes more energy expended than what can be produced.

Hydrogen can be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine. The changeover mostly consists of replacing a gas tank with a larger heavier pressurized tank similar to a propane tank.

The disadvantage in using hydrogen as a fuel is its shorter range, taking up of load space, weight, special handling when transferring fuel, and storage.

When hydrogen is liquefied it becomes 845 times denser than its vapor gas state and requires a -213 centigrade temperature to become a liquid.

The ratio in energy, by volume, compared to gasoline is 1:3.8; or simply put, hydrogen has one-quarter approximately the energy that gasoline has. To get the same energy from a twenty-gallon tank of gasoline one would need a 72-gallon pressurized tank of hydrogen.'

The tank itself must be insulated and 2% of the hydrogen must be evaporated off to keep the liquid hydrogen cold enough for it to remain liquefied.

It is for these reasons, despite is abundance in the universe, that limits its use as a fuel.

The requirements for a good fuel are that it must be cheap, abundant, small in bulk, must burn rapidly, and require less energy to produce than it gives as a fuel. To give the reader some perspective on energy requirements I will quote some numbers from a report: "U.S. Transportation Statistics of 1998".

Sixty percent of U.S. transportation is composed of light duty trucks and automobiles, 18 percent heavy trucks and buses, and 8 percent for air.

Trucks move 72 percent of value of all freight and 53 percent of the tonnage. Rail, in contrast, moves only 4 percent of value and 13 percent by tonnage.

Transportation costs make up a large share of total costs for commodities and often influence the prices of commodities.

By now the reader is probably realizing that the subject of energy is not quite the easy subject many tend to think it is. Solutions are not easy to come by and anyone who thinks they can solve it in a sentence or two is greatly oversimplifying. Any solutions to the U.S. and world's energy problem will take lots of money, research, discipline, and time, and more.

Author's Note:

When I wrote the two articles, the last part of 1999 and the first part of 2000, oil was down to 10 to 12 dollars per barrel and everyone was claiming there was no end of oil in sight. What I left out of the articles was that China was making moves to grab all the oil resources it could, particularly in Venezuela and the Caspian Sea region. I also left out the fact that hybrids, fuel cells, etc. would do little to replace oil. I also left out the fact that wind and solar would do little to replace oil. Fusion power is a dead-end requiring an expertise that would be realized long after oil was depleted and therefore also not an answer.

It will take trillions of dollars to switch over to alternatives, and time. We are taking tentative steps now but far too little and perhaps also too late. The more ideal time to have begun was when the articles were published in 2000.

We are concentrating too much on ecological concerns, apparently unaware of the consequences of oil depletion. Oil is a perfect energy source and it will take not just one alternative to replace it but the whole gamut of alternatives at our disposal. The consequences become greater as time goes on. The larger the number of those effected the more chaos that will result.

Without oil our technological society ceases to exist. People can't get to work, food can't be grown, water can't be pumped to cities, government services no longer operate, fuel for coal electrical plants can't be delivered, anarchy reigns, and much much more. Civilization will not be able to bounce back--at least as we know it. A big die-off will occur. Anarchy, starvation, disease, all will take a huge toll. Our civilization requires commercial agriculture operations to exist. All that will be left, if any, will be small scale subsistence farming; and that will take time to root.

The Big Crunch: End of the Oil Age

This, and the follow-up article, "Oil Alternatives" were published in American Survival Guide Magazine in the year 2000. Since then many of the predictions made have come true; some are in the process of coming true. Still, very little is being done to remedy problems: and the clock keeps on ticking.

THE BIG CRUNCH: END OF THE OIL AGE


All the scientists, politicians, writers, and business analysts who have been recently asked to reflect on what will happen in the next century are optimistic about the future and speculate that many great things will happen in the areas of space, medicine, and technology. Not one it seems anticipates that there is the remotest possibility that our great technological world society is facing a collapse because of a critical dwindling natural resource. That resource is oil.

It is not just the fact that we are running out of oil that is the danger but it is the fact that we are ignoring the fact that we are running out of oil that is the danger. We cannot solve a problem without first realizing that one exits. The word "problem" hardly defines what the consequences of using up our oil will mean.

It is uncertain when the beginning of the end will happen, an end brought about by a second Great Depression, from which there will be no reprieve once it begins. This lack of reprieve is what is so dangerous to us.

There will be no reprieve because oil is what has made our society great. It is the foundation on which our technological society is built. Remove that foundation and there is nothing else available that is able to energize our society.

Our dependency on oil developed quickly. From the first automobiles came trucks, and then farm machinery, which allowed us to farm huge tracts of land and transport produce all over the world. It has allowed us to fight wars on a global scale and ultimately to escape the gravity of earth and begin to explore the Cosmos. Oil supplies us with the building blocks to make thousands of products.

We laud ourselves for our achievements and describe in glowing terms the future before us, but in reality it is a tenuous position, which can and will come crashing around our ears. It is unlikely to happen today, tomorrow, but it will happen someday soon.

To say we will be running out of oil and will suffer a great depression during a time when we are experiencing one of the greatest economic booms in recent history seems fool hardy. But there are trends and statistics that indicate our economic boom, and our way of life, will not last.

Oil depletion is not a "might-be" statistical possibility. It is an event that will happen and is in the process happening at the moment. The big question is not "if" it will happen, but "when" it will happen. Some avoid the possibility entirely by pushing its eventuality far into the future and thus beyond our immediate concern. However, putting off the problem is irresponsible because of the thirty to fifty year lag time that is required to do research and implement an oil substitute.

Oil depletion and its consequences is a difficult subject to sell for in the past there has been "Chicken Littles" and "Cry Wolf" warnings that have not materialized; but in time things do fall from the sky and sheep get eaten by wolves.

I will show in this article that the world's oil supply is not as substantive as everyone believes and that it is not a secure resource we can always depend on.

When I refer to oil I mean not only crude oil but also all those things that are made from it; such as gasoline, kerosene, diesel, lubricants, solvents, medicines, fertilizers, perfumes, explosives, and thousands of other products we find it impossible to live without.

Crude oil is not just a black liquid that comes out of the ground that we use to make gasoline out of. It comes in many forms; from a bituminous, thick almost solid substance, to very light grades that needs little refining.

The thick heavy grades of oil are hard to pump out of the ground and require heavy refining to get it the oil to a usable state. This heavy processing requires large complex refineries costing billions of dollars to design and build. To make more profit the oil producers will pump out the lighter grade oils first, if available, leaving the heavier grades for later. In time they are left with the heavier grades of oil, higher costs, and lower production rates. To compensate for the higher production costs the price of the oil products increases.

The economics of oil plays an important part in the availability of oil. Oil companies produce oil to make lots of money; not to supply the world with oil for altruistic reasons.

The arbitrary raising of the price of oil causes several things to happen; it causes inflation and the higher prices oil prices causes people to buy less gasoline. This causes problems for the producers because inflation in turn increases operation costs by raising the prices of equipment and salaries and the slower gasoline sales means lost revenues and profits. The oil companies end up worse off than before.

This the reason OPEC has been careful, since the 70's and 80's, not to raise oil prices too drastically and why the real price of oil is actually lower. The oil producers make more money in the long run by selling the oil cheap during non-inflationary cycles. The profits of oil are derived by the volume of oil sold rather than a higher price for it. The next important part of the oil picture is who has the oil, and who doesn't.

The United States used to have lots of oil, but after pumping out more than 176 billion barrels of the black stuff it is now down to a mere 22 billion in "proven" reserves. (A figure which strangely hasn't changed since the year 2000; the U.S. consumes 7 billion barrels of oil per year.) The only reason we have any oil left is because we are now importing nearly 60% of the crude oil we consume each year. We are still finding oil, but it is a mopping up process from old oil fields passed over from previous explorations.

The U.S. production is declining each year by 2% and continues to decline each year. (Strangely production has ceased to decline and is actually increasing each year. Someones figures are wrong, it goes against logic) Oil refinery after oil refinery have been closing down for decades. The major oil companies have given up exploring for oil in the United States and are now hoping to find major oil discoveries in places like Russia and Azerbaijan, in the Caspian Sea area.

Unfortunately this has removed the more advanced exploration technology needed to find the more elusive pockets of oil in the U.S., which costs us in the long run. An important part of the picture is who is supplying the oil imported into the U.S.

Mexico is one of the suppliers of oil to the U.S. and it has 40 billion barrels in proven reserves and uses 6 of the 10 barrels of oil it produces. This means that the U.S. can get at most 16 billion barrels from that source. We are importing 511 million barrels from Mexico each year.

Much of Mexico's oil is production-rated--meaning that the oil can only be pumped from the ground at a certain rate. If the rate were exceeded water would be sucked into the reservoir and ruin it.

Venezuela is our major supplier of oil, exporting to us 620.5 million barrels a year. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves left in the western hemisphere with over 65 billion proven barrels of oil. Only 28% of its reserves are light to medium density oil; the rest is 20% API or less. API is a density designator; the heavier the density the lower the number. A light density oil would be in the 30 API range and higher.

Over half of Venezuela's revenues are spent keeping oil production at optimum. Venezuela's oil contains a high percentage of sulfur, which requires processing to extract. As time goes on more and more of Venezuela's revenues will be diverted to maintaining and upgrading its oil facilities and its oil production, which may burden its already taxed economy. All of these things may spell trouble for Venezuela's oil industry and to our future oil supplies.

Canada supplies the U.S. with a surprisingly large amount of oil considering that its proven reserves are only about 6.9 billion barrels. It exports to the U.S. 547.5 million barrels a year. Canada has large unproven reserves of tar sands and bituminous oil locked away. Attempts are being made to unlock these reserves by steam assisted gravity methods using horizontal drilling techniques.

Saudi Arabia supplies the U.S. with about 511 million barrels of oil per year. We'll discuss Saudi Arabia and its resources a little later.

The western hemisphere has combined proven proven reserves of over 132 billion barrels. A lot of oil, but not all of it will be available on demand--when we want it, or need it--because as oil fields mature more effort and money is needed to get the oil out of the ground.

To better understand what the numbers relating to oil mean I will describe briefly how oil is produced. I've used the word "produced" a number of times and the word means generally the combined processes of exploring for, drilling, pumping, refining, and delivering oil to consumers.

Oil is found only in sedimentary rock and oil requires certain conditions in the rock formations for it to exist. When a well is first opened the oil is under great pressure, caused by gas build up and layers of rock pressing down on the reservoir rock. The oil comes out, mixed with natural gas, like water out of a seltzer bottle. "Reservoir rock" is any layer of porous rock that will hold oil and that has pathways for the oil to flow to a well.

In time the gas and pressure is exhausted by production and from then on pumps are needed to produce the oil. Most everyone has seen pictures of huge "grasshoppers" bobbing up and down pumping oil. In time other physical forces begins to work against the pumping forces and the slows to a trickle--especially in fields where the oil is thick and normally flows slowly.

Adhesion and capillary forces captures the oil in reservoir rock and this is the reason why only about one-third of the oil can be gotten out of the ground. Think of the oil being contained in rock similar to a concrete block five thousand feet under ground.

Secondary methods can produce more oil. Secondary methods such as water flooding, steam injection, acid treatment, micro foam, horizontal drilling, chemicals, and even someday bacteria specifically designed to generate gas and thus pressure.

All of these treatments add to the expense and time that it takes to produce oil. When it costs as much to produce a barrel of oil than what people will or can pay for it you have reached what is known as economic oil depletion.

Much of the oil statistics being tossed out for public consumption incorporates oil that is not economically producible or beyond our present abilities to produce. It is a hard concept for some people to comprehend; that there can be many billions of barrels of oil in the ground yet be "out of oil". For most of us "oil" has always been in their lives.

Raising prices on oil does not help produce more oil. In fact, as was previously shown, raising prices acts to inhibit oil production in the long run by decreasing consumption. This takes away the profits that could be used to explore for more oil and for developing better methods of producing oil. (Of course a government run by oil men, for oil men some theories are hard to prove out!)

People have heard that the oil companies over the years have been shutting down wells because of low oil prices and will open them again when the oil prices go back up. This is partly true as some marginal wells may be opened back up, but the majority of them will be shut down forever, because there is no profit to be made by reopening them. It costs more to produce oil from them than what they can charge for it. Now to has the oil and who doesn't.

Again, in our hemisphere, the major players in oil production is the U.S. with 22 billion barrels, Mexico 40 billion, Venezuela with 65 billion, and Canada 6.9 billion.

Western Europe has very little oil; with the UK reserves at about 4.5 billion and Norway's at 11.2 billion.

The USSR region has from 57 to 189 billion barrels. The larger number probably reflecting optimism rather than reality.

China is reported to have from 24 to 31 billion barrels. Africa has three major oil producers; Algeria with 9.2 billion, Libya 29.5, and Nigeria 15.5 billion barrels.

The Middle East region holds the greatest reserves of oil in the world; with Iran's reserve at 57 to 88 million barrels, Iraq 100, Kuwait 96, United Emerites from 63 to 98 billion barrels, and lastly Saudi Arabia with a walloping 261 billion barrels.

The numbers, in the case of the OPEC countries, are suspect however, because their production quotas are based on how much oil they report for their reserves. The larger the reserve they have the more oil they are able to produce to sell. These quota requirements may be the reason that in 1985 Kuwait increased their reserve numbers by 41%, and in 1988 Abu Dhabi and Dhabi tripled their reserve numbers and Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela doubled their oil reserve estimates. In 1990 Saudi Arabia increased their reserve estimates by 50%.

You can see by the numbers that most of the world's oil is located in the Middle East and after the Western Hemisphere's oil is depleted the Middle East will be in a position to dictate to the rest of the world.

It is ironic that the most important commodity in the world is produced in the most unstable region in the world. Political and religious instability in the area is likely to cause an upheaval that will cause a premature and artificial depletion of oil. The most dangerous growing danger is Muslim fundamentalism.

The Saudi ruling class is Sunni Muslim and the bulk of the Arabs in the region are Shiite. Ninety-five percent of Iran's population is Shiite and sixty-three percent of Iraq's are Shiite, conversely only 15% of the Saudis are of the Shiite sect.

Muslim fundamentalism, mostly based in the Shiite sect, is growing and becoming more militant as it fights against the advance of Western culture.

As the oil production becomes more centralized and focused in the Middle East Arab confidence in their omnipotence will grow and a take over of the oil from the Saudis is almost a certainty--for what better weapon against the West is there than oil? There would be little the West could do if the fundamentalists gained control of the region. Using force against them would be impossible as illustrated by the fact that it took months to shuttle in troops and equipment to deal with Saddam Hussein, and that was when we had the advantage of Arab backing and their land to muster troops and equipment on. In the length of time that it took for us to build up our forces during "Desert Storm" trillions of dollars worth of oil infrastructure could be plastered with explosives and held hostage as a means of preventing an attack. The West would have to capitulate to whatever demands were made because the blowing up of the infrastructure--refineries, pipelines, storage facilities, loading facilities, gas-oil separators--would leave the world without oil for a very long time, maybe permanently. The West, without oil, would lack the means to repair the damage, and in fact would be undergoing total disintegration.

Even without a hostile takeover of the oil the world is faced with an oil monopoly from an area and people not sympathetic to the West.

As the Middle East begins to deplete its oil there will be nowhere and no one else to supply oil. Without alternative energy to replace oil an energy vacuum will exist. What will happen then is hard to predict.

The super depression, which I call "The Big Crunch", would result in a destruction of our way of life, back to Square One. A hunting and gathering way of life is not the best way to survive--that is why man took up farming. Without lots of food set aside very few people could survive The Big Crunch.

A year's supply of food wouldn't get you by because the first year of the Crunch would be spent avoiding the many thousands of desperate people wandering about trying to find food, water, and shelter. By the time the next growing season rolled around most of those unprepared and unlucky, possibly 80 to 90 percent (or more) of the population will have died from starvation, exposure, disease, and human interaction. The land will have to be barren of people before it would be safe enough to begin any type of agriculture. It takes 100 to 120 days for most crops to mature and gardening is a full time occupation. A person needs food to live on until harvest time. Agriculture is also risky because there is always the chance of blight or drought happening that could wipe out a crop and that would mean no food produced that year.

Besides the hardships mentioned there are those diseases that we have been incubating over the years, such as AIDS, viruses, incurable tuberculosis, flesh-eating bacteria, as well as the usual plagues that have always been with humanity. There will be no way of testing for these diseases or the means to treat them once they were diagnosed. These diseases would have an opportunity to spread throughout a surviving population because malnutrition and the elements had weakened it.

The big question the reader may be asking by now is; "when is all this going to take place?" To answer that question I have first tell how I came to the conclusion that I did.

For the last three years I have been gathering data--mostly from the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy and supplemented by my own textbooks on civil and oil engineering.

New oil discoveries are taking place at about a 1:4 ratio, relative to consumption. (Actually this equates to 1 barrel proven for every 9 barrels consumed)

That ratio increases in spread at some rate each year--I place it at 1.5%; in other words we are finding 1.5% less oil each year. (Some years are better than others so this is an average)

Our consumption rate increases from 1 to 2 percent each year--1.5% being the most quoted figure. The world now consumes a little over 24 billion barrels each year and its reserves are from 980 to 1,000 billion barrels (proven estimates).

To help me analyze the data I wrote a computer program in BASIC. The input assumed reserves at 1,000 billion barrels, oil discovery beginning at a ratio of 1:4 and spreading at 1.5%; initial world consumption at 24 billion barrels, increasing at population growth estimated as being 1.25%. The program of course calculates oil to total depletion but in reality oil will never be depleted to a zero figure. That is the problem in the debate. At some point depletion will cause a shortfall of production to demand and the economy will suffer. Will it be 10% shortfall, 25%?

The significance of these percentages becomes clear when you consider that oil production shortfalls cause inflation, recessions, and even depressions. We have some historical examples of economic hard times that are based on reductions in employment and the Gross National Product (GNP). A 25% reduction in oil would have a serious effect on our economy. We know that recessions are brought on by an increase in unemployment from a normal 5% unemployment rate to a 6% to 7% and a reduction of GNP of 5 to 10%.

A serious depression, such as the Crash of 29 represented an unemployment rate of 14 to 25% and a shrinking GNP of 40 percent.

In 1973 the panic and subsequent recession was caused by a 5 to 10 percent reduction in oil. A reduction in oil of 25% short of demand could mean that our economy would suffer a depression as great as the Depression of 29 and maybe even greater.

The results of my computer analysis calculated that 13 years past peak oil for the 25% point less demand, 22 years for the 50% depletion point, 29 years for the minus 75% point, and 36 years for the theoretical total depletion point. The big question is then when will the world oil production peak occur?

The Scientific American article of March 1998 stated that the peak production would occur around the year 2008.

Based on the behavior of past oil fields the reported oil reserves, and particularly the lack of major new oil discoveries, world oil production will soon reach maximum peak production.

Adverse effects will soon begin to be felt after the production peak occurs. The reduction in oil will increasingly stifle the production of goods, cause increases in unemployment, and reduce the mobility of goods and of people. Mobility is our greatest need.

We can derive energy from many sources for utilities but for transport vehicles we have only one source of energy and that is oil.

The methods used by the oil industry to "prove" their reserves are by drilling holes to find the oil, core samples from test holes, seismic studies, and experience based on the behavior of adjacent oil formations.

After the information is gathered the oil reservoir is mapped and the oil quantities are determined from the thickness of the reservoir rock, the oil content of the rock, and the boundaries of the reservoir. Even though much information is collected and analyzed estimates are still part gut instinct. There are very few absolutes about oil.

Myths about oil abound. The most common myth is the "super carburetor" that was bought up years ago by some oil company because it used far less gasoline. Physics is physics and we are at the moment squeezing about as much energy we can out of gasoline. In other words there are no super carburetors. Another energy myth is running everything on solar power. Imagine running an eighty thousand pound eighteen-wheeler on batteries and solar panels, or running a farm tractor on solar power. Most of the alternatives you have heard about are costly, bulky, and totally inappropriate for heavy transport use.

Hydrogen as a fuel is another one of those utopian dreams that seems to be the answer to everything. The problem with hydrogen is that it takes a lot of energy to break the bond that exists in water between hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Hydrogen also requires special handling. It has to be kept pressurized at very low temperatures in order to keep it liquefied.

Coal is the only option we have at the moment as an alternative for oil but coal has many drawbacks. It is extremely dirty, contaminated with heavy metals; such as uranium, arsenic, sulfur, iron, and others. It has rock and other materials that need to be removed.

To make synthetic oil out of coal hydrogen must be added. Coal on average contains about 5 percent hydrogen, compared to about 12 percent for oil. The process of adding hydrogen is referred to as hydrogenation or liquefaction. The coal is pulverized and hydrogen gas is added to it under high temperatures and pressures. The hydrogen gas gradually combines with the carbon in the coal to produce a liquid. At the moment the process costs $35 to $40 a barrel. About 4 to 5 barrels of synthetic oil can be produced from one ton of coal.

A process efficient enough to produce oil in the quantities we need is a long way off and research and implementation of a synthetic oil program will take many years and cost trillions of dollars.

It is unlikely that anything will be done soon enough to prevent "The Big Crunch". The politicians are notorious for being shortsighted in dealing with problems. It would be political suicide to advocate spending billions and possibly trillions of dollars on a problem that no one at the moment is even recognizing as a problem. The oil companies are not going to promote a program that is likely to take money out of their pockets and scientists and technologists are conservative and generally involved in their own areas of expertise. Without solutions the only answer then is survival.

Not your garden variety of survival, where you plan on surviving for days or weeks, while you make your way to civilization, or wait it out to be rescued, but survival that lasts a lifetime.

No longer will there be communications, mechanical transportation, agriculture, utilities, or anything else technological. Those cultures that do not depend heavily on technology will be better able to survive, but we who live by technology will be ill prepared, physically or psychologically. Without our precious oil we cannot grow crops, get to work, run utilities and services, or keep our government functional.

Cities will quickly become unliveable as food and water and other necessities become depleted. Since eighty percent of a country's population resides in cities and towns people will have to migrate in large numbers to rural areas in search for food, water, and shelter.

By the time "The Big Crunch" occurs the U.S. will have a population of over 300 million. Time is often benefactor but if nothing is done about energy time will not be our friend, for those extra numbers will exacerbate the effects of The Big Crunch.

The best means of surving The Big C is by preventing it from happening and the only way towards doing that is by being aware of the possibility of it happening.

To summarize; "The Big Crunch" is not only a case of shortages and high prices. Our economy is oil-based. We are in an "Oil Age". All the technologies we have developed in the 20th Century have been made possible because of oil. Without it we are afoot. Our technological culture cannot grow and sustain itself without an ever increasing supply of oil. Our way of life will decline once our world oil production begins to decline. The importance of oil has been grossly underrated, we take it for granted, and if don't realize its importance we will pay dearly by overlooking that fact.

Immigration Debate: Euphamisms and Emotional Appeals

As of yet I have yet to hear a decent rational argument from the pro-"comprehensive immigration reform" side: just euphemisms and emotional appeals and other such fallacious argumentation. Examples:

1) Inhumane separation of children from their parents.
2) Uprooting children from their parents, friends, schools, communities.
3) Government inhumane treatment of parents and children.
4) Illegal aliens being deprived of their immigration "rights".
5) Hardships endured by the illegal aliens in their efforts to enter the U.S.
6) Illegal aliens are "hard-working" people.
7) Illegal aliens "want" to be U.S. citizens so should be allowed to be.
8) Illegal aliens "want" a better life for themselves and their children.
9) Illegal aliens "strengthen" the U.S.
10) Using the word "comprehensive" instead of "amnesty".
11) You can't deport 12-20 million illegal aliens so make them legal by passing a "comprehensive immigration reform" law.

John McCain is trying to make a dishonest representation of the last statement by saying that "you can't "jail" 12 million illegals: so, then the only recourse is to make them legal." And he wants to be President after using such a dishonest statement and a grossly fallacious argument?
I sure wouldn't vote for him.

What bothers me the most about this whole issue is the complacency of our press, TV, etc. to the blatant acceptance of anarchy that is taking place and the refusal of the government to enforce its own laws.

Illegal aliens are coming here for one basic reason: jobs. Jobs being offered by private as well as corporate employers. Without jobs available to the illegal aliens there is nothing for them to come for. Dry up the jobs and the problem solves itself for the most part. We have created our own problem; by following the temptation of greed. At the same time we are depriving our own citizens a decent wage by hiring workers used to working for less in their own countries.

Besides the great injustice being done to and by illegal aliens we resort to dishonesty in our discourse to solve the problem. Euphemisms, fallacious argumentation, outright use of propaganda techniques in order to push through laws that are not beneficial to the American people. Americans are on the whole a humane and charitable people and these traits are being abused by self-serving special interest groups. Already 2 million aliens a year enter our country due to our open armed charity. Not everyone in the world can live the American good-life, which is being threatened at every quarter because of our dwindling resources and world competition for those resources. We need a reality check and a moratorium. At the moment our country is fragmenting because we are moving too fast on issues that require analysis and consensus.