Leveling the Playing Field

[Toni Petrinovich]

Dan, thank you for your very astute and more than likely correct assessment
of the situation.  Personally, I am not attached to the statistics that I
used to drive home my point.  If they are incorrect, then so much the
better - it is even more reason why the US would attempt to capture as much
oil/land as possible to hold our imploding market in place.

The second part of my message is where my heart is.  We ARE tuning forks.
What we vibrate, what we hold in the energetic (electric/magnetic) field
that IS us is the message that we give to each other and, hence, the world.
As the U.S. is being driven to fear, war-mongering and hatred of the "evil
terrorists" by our ever more secretive and misleading government, the
feelings that people are carrying in their energy fields drives what
everyone experiences.

So it is much less about a beautiful vision than it is about a scientific
fact - if we do not wish war to take over our country and this world, then
we must hold that in our field.  Period.  There is no other way to create it
or make it so.  Every way we can drive home that point; every way we can
remain in that intention in all that we think, say and do is of the vastest
importance to the future of our world.

E = mc squared is the bottom line - and our energy will equal our mass
destruction if we continue in the line of thinking that the United States
government is demanding of us.

Toni Petrinovich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Heidi and Dan Chay" <chay at ALASKA.COM>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: Leveling the Playing Field


> Hi Toni,
>
> Your message in two parts (informational + inspirational) was interesting
to
> me.
>
> The first (informational) part refers to a book, "Black Gold Hot Gold."
In
> my searches, I couldn't find the title on Amazon or Powell's bookstores.
A
> google search took me to the following website which referred to an e-book
> of the same title, with the subtitle: "The Rise of Fascism in the American
> Energy Business."  Is this the book from which your material came?
> http://www.brojon.com/index.html
>
> The reason I looked is because in my initial reaction I found the first
two
> sentences of the material you quoted curious. It didn't fit with
information
> I've been studying off and on for the last couple of years:
>
> <<
> In the book "Black Gold Hot Gold" the oil expected to flow from the vast
> oilfields under the Russian Caspian Sea, discovered about 20 years ago
> remains undrilled and untapped. That field contains about 500 years worth
of
> oil at present world consumption rates.
> >>
>
> I'm fairly confident oil in the Caspian Region was discovered more than 20
> years ago.  Published data suggests that 60-70% of the world's known oil
> occurs in little over 300 giant fields. The discovery of such fields
peaked
> in the 1960s.
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/images/983fig4.gif
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/images/983fig5.gif
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/camdisc.htm
>
> According to EIA, proven reserves for the entire Caspian region are
> estimated at 18-35 billion barrels -- and in estimates of total
> "resources" -- about which EIA can be wildly optimistic -- there might be
> 200-235 billion barrels.
>  http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspian.html
>
> To base future thinking on "present world consumption" rates is a bit
> misleading in a market economy with assumptions of growth.  Most economic
> decisions are based on assumptions of continued average growth of 1-3%
> annually, or more. The doubling period of 2% growth is about 35 years.  I
> guess that's okay.  BP uses "present world consumption" rates on their
site,
> too.
>
> By 1999 already we were consuming globally 22 billion barrels per year (or
> 26 if you include oil condensates as I understand).  At that rate, i.e.,
not
> assuming growth, 235 billion barrels of the Caspian region would last less
> than a dozen years, not more than 500.  And even if we could instantly
> "prove" up on 235 billion barrels, and if we could pipe it to capitalist
> economies where most fossil fuel energy is consumed, mathmatical analysis
> shows it still would delay global peak oil production only a little.
>
> According to a scenario being drawn by petroleum geologists with access to
> the best oil information in the world (Petroconsultants' database and
> others),  world global oil production will peak somewhere between next
year
> and 2009, with most estimates closer to 2005.  After global oil production
> peaks, we will be living in a world increasingly defined by petroleum fuel
> scarcity (and probably still more and sharper elbows).  After peak, total
> global oil production could fall at 3% or more per year.  Better petroleum
> extraction technologies actually often serve to increase decline rates.
Gas
> declines are "like a cliff."  We now find one barrel of oil globally for
> every barrel we consume.
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/midpoint.htm
> http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/commons.htm
>
> The most recently published book I've read about impending world oil
> shortage came out last month. It is titled "Hubbert's Peak," by Kenneth S.
> Deffeyes, Professor Emeritus at Princeton, petroleum geologist and second
> generation oil man.  Deffeyes writes on page 149:
>
> <<
> This much is certain:  no initiative put in place starting today can have
a
> substantial effect on the peak production year.  No Caspian Sea
exploration,
> no drilling in the South China Sea, no SUV replacements, no renewable
energy
> projects can be brought on at a sufficient rate to avoid a bidding war for
> the remaining oil.  At least, let's hope that the war is waged with cash
> instead of with nuclear weapons.
> <<
>
> By two methods, Deffeyes estimates a peak production year of 2003.
> Technology corucopists are banking on largely unproven substitutes
> (particularly at scale) and unbuilt infrastructures to replace the oil and
> gas that fuels our transportation systems and provides feedstock for
> fertilizers, pesticides, and petroleum-based commodities. Many of the
> so-called substitutes we hear about in the mainstream press evidently
> actually provide a negative energy return on energy invested.  Fuel cells,
> methane hydrates and ethanol (biomass), for example
> (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm).
>
> If I give this dismal energy scenario, -- maybe combined with a variation
on
> war scenario, or not --  some credence, the second part of your message,
> Toni, also takes on new meaning for me, particularly "holding and creating
> the intention of peace," "conceptual integrity," and "a vision of a world
> united."
>
> I assume that the "shifts" required of us to achieve your beautiful vision
> in an increasingly difficult world will require of most of us heightened
> awareness, good will, openness, construcive connectivity and creativity,
> willingness to test our assumptions, true interest to understand, and
> ability to learn and change.  This, I think, is partly why "Open" space
> technology is so important and why I enjoy community on this list.  Even
> more so, if constructive change is demanded of us at faster rates of
change
> than to which we are accustomed.
>
> Does any of this make sense or resonate with you or others?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dan
> http://www.learning-communities.com
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
> Visit:
>
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html