The e-mail numbers listed are the sources of this information.
In crude oil's earlier days, especially in the Permian Basin (mostly Texas) and Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, the crude oil was called, “light sweet crude.” The "sweet" refers to the sulfur content. The higher the sulfur content, the more energy is required to refine it: that is the basis for the decline in EROEI which peak oil is actually referring to. Tar sands, shale, etc., all have high levels of detrimental elements to the refinement process, and those refinement processes are at or below 1:1 EROEI right now, when disposing of those toxins are accounted for. (((Thankfully for Chevron's stock prices, most people think a gallon of gasoline costs about 2-4 dollars))); but when the cleanup costs, and the military-protecting-the-supply-chain costs, and the inevitable swap from gasoline to ethanol or hydrogen (possibly methane/natural gas in some remote situations) costs are all added up, a gallon of gasoline costs closer to 20-25 dollars a gallon. But those costs are hidden in the taxes that everyone pays every year without really knowing where it goes. Well, now you know. It goes to supplement and supply the enormous network of protectors of the oil economy, and everyone who makes money from that specific energy source. As the source deteriorates from light sweet crude to some deteriorated version the sulfur content rises, meaning more is burned to refine it. THAT'S RIGHT! The worse off the quality gets, the more we have to burn to refine it, and that equation never stops deteriorating. I mean, that's exactly why the USA is even trying to refine tar sands and shale. It's because the light sweet crude is drying up. Hydraulic fracturing is just more evidence that peak oil has already occurred. It's just a shame that nobody really understands it. I studied Marion King Hubbert's own research, and several opinions that correlated to the data. I'm very well versed in what peak oil is and it's always somebody that doesn't know what the science behind the research is, means, or how to correlate the data [who denies it]. Most people don't even know how gasoline is made, but that won't stop them from commenting on it. It's always amusing to me though, because they're not really arguing with me, they're arguing with M. King Hubbert himself. It's his research I'm using. But yeah, the longer we use oil, the more the quality degrades, ultimately meaning the more sour/sulfur-rich the toxins from refinement become. And it just keeps multiplying... every day. The fire hasn't stopped in over 100 years, and now... it is EVERYWHERE.
"Cuba" and "peak oil situation."
Cuba did not, and has not experienced any form of a "peak oil situation." The problem with Marion King Hubbert's research does not reside with him, but rather, in everyone that utilizes the nomenclature "peak oil" to signify an internal ideal of what those two words mean to the selfish individual using them. Cuba did have a sudden lack of participating in the global crude oil economic platform, but it did not go through a peak oil situation. Communism, pride, bravado, and selfishness is what caused the shift in Cuba's rejuvenation of Organic farming practices. Instead of swallowing their pride, admitting defeat, and joining the rest of humanity, they doubled down on their derelict ideology, and forced starvation onto their general populace as a result. The general populace fought back in the only way they could, which was to take care of themselves. Lawns became gardens, animals became the workers, and the people formed an equilibrium as a result. During this swap, the bravado and arrogance was allowed to be maintained by the upper echelon, and insider deals still formed. Cuba does have exports. Their economic interests extend beyond their populace's ability to be truly self-segregated. This internal ideology is only possible with a fully integrated crude oil economy on a global scale existing outside of Cuba. An "end" to global crude oil reserves, or an extreme downturn, and Cuba would have lost a lot more than they did after the collapse of the USSR. Cuba's first problem in that scenario would be their ability to fight off intruders to their fish stocks that surround the island. If they lost the ability to control the waters around them, Cuba would be kaput. There may not be any beef on their menus, but I bet there's a shitload of fish options...
Let's start by giving you a quick rundown on what peak oil is. Many people try to utilize that nomenclature without understanding the data that created it in the first place. The word peak itself, refers to a precipice, not an "end." The only way to even attempt trying to understand what peak oil is, is by becoming an expert in EROEI. Energy Returned On Energy Invested, which is sometimes referred to as EROI. Same thing, just different wording. What Marion King Hubbert's version of that nomenclature was based on, was the declining Permian Basin's data, along with a burgeoning Ghawar reservoir's data, extrapolated to the remaining oil fields throughout the world. When Ghawar started to lose pressure, signifying the BEGINNING of its decline, along with the data from the Permian basin's reserves which have been declining for many decades, AND with the end of the Pennsylvania reserves in the rearview mirror, the trajectory was well established. EROEI wise, Hubbert's peak was based on the precipice at which new reserves could be found and extracted at the same profit margin/EROEI as the remaining oil reserves could maintain that were already being drawn from. The decline in every oil well's production over time varies in speed, but EVERY ONE OF THEM IS ALWAYS IN DECLINE. To give you an even more focused synopsis, ALL of this data is subjugated to the quality of the crude oil. The Permian Basin and Ghawar have/had the largest source of light sweet crude in the entire world. Light sweet crude is what birthed the middle-class ideals of the 1940s and 1950s. What that nomenclature addresses is similar to how I described The Holy Grail's definition. It's referring to the high gasoline content which adds to viscosity (meaning easier to extract), sweet, meaning the low sulfur content (easier to refine), and crude refers to the substance itself in its crudest form.
There is a caveat to understand within this paradigm of a crude oil/finite energy reserve civilization. It's called Jevon's Paradox, as per Sid Smith. What it signifies is that the more we extract, the more we use. The more efficient we become, the more we use. The more people we birth, the more we use. Adding efficiency within this system does nothing to curtail the inevitable decline. If anything, efficiency within a crude oil economy tied to capitalism will increase overall usage dramatically. To the MK Ultra'd selfish disposition of the world's general populace currently, constant expansion without addressing these problems, is not a theory: it's a fact. As a result, Hubbert's version of peak oil has long since passed us by. The proof of that was when tar sands, shale reserves, and deep water reserves were tapped. Not only are those sources extremely heavy, and sour, but the material itself requires very sophisticated solutions that do not always pan out. There's even a movie about one of those deep water rigs exploding. Look at how much effort that took... JUST TO DRILL THE HOLE. Not the rig exploding and spilling gigatons of crude oil into the surface environment, but just to drill the hole. The Beverly Hillbillies found their oil reserve in the Permian basin with a shotgun, if memory serves. That's how easy it was to extract light sweet crude in our parents’ parents’ days. NOW... they're going through all of that trouble, just to refine heavy sour crude oil. The EROEI is backwards on shale and tar sands when the environmental toxicity cleanup is addressed, and the recycling of machinery away from those mining strategies. Even though that is a fact... it still seems economically feasible to the selfish and stupid, to maintain the societal infrastructure's whole. They're not exactly wrong, either. The crude oil economy (Lake of Fire) is everywhere on Earth. A complete swap over to Hydrogen (from this societal model of economics and fiat currency) would take an enormous amount of reclamation. Imagine how many gasoline/diesel stations would have to dig up their tanks and dispose of them properly. Then ALL car manufacturers would have to completely retool everything. And so on and so forth. Not only is that a difficult proposition, but then try to imagine every human on Earth HAVING TO learn a completely different system. How many selfish and stupid people would take the instructions for granted, expect hydrogen fill stations to be exactly like a gas station, and blow up the entire block as a result? I use this same analogy with morons that think personal nuclear reactors are a viable alternative. Imagine thousands of nuclear reactors in the basements of every resident in let's say... Flint Michigan. How long before Lake Michigan is inundated with radiation and the entire ecosystem therein collapses? But I digress...
The peak oil scenario from Hubbert's perspective is quite technical and applied to empirical data. What I am guessing is your view of peak oil, based on what you said about Cuba, is more of a philosophical ideology. What most people are referring to when that nomenclature is utilized, as you are trying to imply it, is the concerted effort, or forced by time result of an end to using crude oil. The reason why this is a philosophical approach is because the system that created crude oil can never stop, or we all die. That is the planet sequestering carbon to form its own equilibrium. Many forms of crude oil (before it becomes crude oil) are still going to be viable from a non-burning perspective. How to pick and choose those variables in an already capitalistic mind frame is anyone's guess on how that will coalesce, however, meaning it's philosophical. Before that can even be contemplated, a viable alternative must be found. The problem in finding an alternative to crude oil is that NOTHING is as energy dense as crude oil is, especially light sweet crude. This conundrum implies that a drastic shift in efficiency must compensate. What I am saying is that no matter how efficient this system implemented gets, many people will have to die, or sterilize themselves as a result. You can only push the parameters of the Earth's trophic web so far, and without crude oil energy, or a viable alternative to match or exceed its capability (all while being carbon neutral and unlimited), people must sacrifice. Otherwise, omnicide will consume everything. Even the way in which you described Cuba could not occur during a real collapse. Cuba also had the ability to illegally raise money through drugs, and various other shady systems that were regulated outside of their country's influence, that they could leech from. Drugs, human trafficking, and all other forms of degeneracy are also fueled by the crude oil economy. There will be none of these alternative means of raising capital when the entire planet is reaching peak omnicide. My guess is THAT is what you, and so many others are trying to imply when using the term "peak oil," without understanding what Marion King Hubbert meant. There are legions of people that imply all kinds of stuff to that reference, and all of them mean something other than what peak oil actually means. The reason why I called that ideal peak omnicide is because once we burn the oil... it's gone. There is no recovery back to a functioning oil economy. At that point, humanity will be forced to fight each other for the dwindling resources left over, or drastically change EVERYTHING about their lives once and for all. To simplify: Omnicide, or Salvation...
What happened to Cuba was an embargo from the crude oil using nations. Let's say for argument's sake that the USA was met with the same scenario right now. We would be fine internally, but everyone else would be fucked. Ghawar would have to double production to meet the loss of our crude oil exports. BUT... let's just say that we didn't have the Permian Basin or ANWR's (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) reserves, and had to suddenly go organic because we were embargoed by every other country. Inversely of Cuba, our weather does not permit year-round farming in all zones, nor do dominantly sunnier regions have sustained water for that type of a swap. Therefore, resource migration ensues. Unfortunately, there's nowhere left to run to, and no more energy reserves on the horizon waiting to be discovered. War is the summation. …
Any referential sources of analogous systems to that which you are choosing to use as a viable alternative to a crude oil economy are fantasy. These sources of reference only exist because of the crude oil economy continuing to function outside of the reference. In your mind, you have to picture a system that is devoid of external influence entirely, to the point of not existing. Imagine Cuba being alone. I mean REALLY alone. No other countries could supply ANYTHING to them, and what's worse, they would have to protect themselves from all others trying to steal their shit. The actual result would be that a lot more people would have died, and the centralized power structure would be kaput. There may be some semblance of governmental system that would remain, but even the politicians would need to supply their own sustenance. Even having a "royalty" like system (as most politics are today), where the dignitaries do not produce anything in their worthless lives, implies that there is an external energy source with energy to spare. That would not be the case in a global collapse of the crude oil economy scenario... at any level. Communities won't be able to afford it. It's just basic math. Using Cuba as a reference to a solution for the present dilemma of omnicide is bad science. I'm sorry, but it is. The basic control of each scenario is astronomically different in scope and complexity. Before using nomenclatures like peak oil to certify notions of a global collapse of the trophic web, you might want to study up on what peak oil actually is.
Marion King Hubbert's ideology; peak oil, was based on the ability to find new reserves, not oil production capability. It was about the ability to find new oil reserves, and how easily it would be to extract said oil. Oil production capability is what peak oil is confused with. There's no way to properly determine how much oil is in each reserve, the quality of said oil, or how much energy implemented it will take to recover it. Although everyone that uses the term peak oil THINKS that the production capacity is THEE aspect to determining what peak oil refers to without properly researching it, that is simply not the case. Peak oil, from Hubbert's perspective, was the timeframe in which humanity would reach a point where the ability to find recoverable reserves diminished significantly. One does not need to interject false equivalents into that algorithm. With the land masses of Earth being well researched geologically, finding new light sweet crude reservoirs that are easily accessible is close to impossible after such a long-dedicated focus on that mission. That tells us that the only recoverable reserves of any value, inherently have a diminished value just due to their location alone. In other words, there could be enormous amounts of light sweet crude reservoirs at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, but extracting that oil will bring an immediate downturn in EROEI, simply due to the engineering difficulties, and proximity to refinement facilities. THAT... is the basis for Hubbert's view of peak oil. It's not about how much oil is in the Earth, but more so how accessible it is, when compared to the discoveries of his era of research. When Hubbert did his research, Pennsylvania was dried up, the Permian Basin was dropping in production, and Ghawar was just coming on line. All 3 of those examples were on land, and the proximity to the refinement facilities AND where the product would be consumed were fairly close.
The first bumps in that road were felt when the USA had to import Ghawar crude oil. The oil itself immediately became worth less, just because of the voyage it had to take to get to the consumer base. Ever since that first bump in the road was felt, Hubbert's peak oil equation could be seen as empirical. All of that said... IF!!! another reserve of light sweet crude would have been discovered after the initial estimations were made on timing peak oil's arrival, the estimation would have been inaccurate, but that does not mean the entirety of the research would be inaccurate. It would simply mean that peak oil would be further into the future. ANWR kind of did that, but when the scope of how large Ghawar and the Permian Basin's reserves are were entered into the equation, ANWR is a drop in the bucket. Same with everything in reality. Yes... many more reserves can and have been found... But none of them... NONE OF THEM... are even close to the size and quality of what Ghawar and the Permian Basin produce. The EROEI is backwards on just about every other reserve found since Ghawar came online. There's lots of oil... but when it takes more energy to recover it and refine it for usage in the society Permian and Ghawar built... the equation will never balance itself. There will always be a negative summation to that of the effort inherent in recovery. I know how difficult it is to understand all of these complexities because I've studied them extensively. I do an okay job of getting my point across, but that's why I always recommend studying the source of this knowledge. EVERYONE alive has an opinion on "peak oil," and almost ALL OF THEM are wrong. Most of those sources of knowledge bleed into many different subjects with many different instructors teaching things based on incorrect assumptions. I've dealt with this problem for 25+ years now. I see some of those false dichotomies in some of the things you profess, which is why I recommend studying the source for yourself. I have no idea how often those ideals have infected otherwise seemingly righteous ideals people have taught you, that you hold sacred. You're the only one who could know that. Unraveling the incorrect teachings you've received on that subject matter can only be done in a certain way. Study the source. FUCK THE OPINIONS! THEN... and only then... will you be able to determine who is full of shit on the subject, and why they're trying to get you to capitulate to their motives. Until then, everything becomes a shit slinging contest of opinionated garbage flying in everyone's direction, which is why it is so easy to incorrectly extrapolate summaries. The feeling becomes based on who agrees with YOUR opinion... not the actual truth itself.
"So "peak oil" is actually "the peak of oil's EROEI"?"
No. According to Marion King Hubbert, the man who defined that terminology, peak oil is referencing the height at which our discoveries of new reserves "peak." It's not going to happen, BUT... Ghawar and the Permian basin could sustain their light sweet crude quality well into the future. In so doing, they would stay level on the EROEI scale. This is just a hypothetical example, just to reiterate. The data suggests that the more gets drawn from those reserves over time, the lower in quality the oil becomes. Plus, the pressure within the reserve drops signaling that the reserve is diminishing at a steady decline. The idea here is that as the crude oil economy continues moving forward, we must find a steady supply of newly discovered reserves, or the entire system will begin to decline steadily until there is no more oil left. The more reserves we can find, the longer we stave off that event occurring. As I've said, the only "new" reserves we have found on Earth over the last 50ish years are tar sands, shale, and bitumen. Those types of discoveries cannot even enter into the equation due to their extremely poor quality. The EROEI of those reserves is backwards, meaning in order to extract the gasoline and diesel from that particular oil, we would need to put more energy into refinement of it than we will be able to use from it. The fact that we have not found any other Permian or Ghawar type oil, AND the fact that we have started refining heavy sour crude as a stopgap to the economy collapsing, means that "peak oil"... as Marion King Hubbert described... happened years ago. If that event hadn't already occurred, then why are we even considering refining that junk oil? The reason... is because we cannot find any more quality oil reserves, which is the exact reason why "peak oil" as a nomenclature exists. Get it now? The quality COULD (but more than likely won't) remain at a light sweet crude quality. The reserves that we have tapped already COULD (but more than likely won't) last for a long time at the current pace. The data suggests that neither one of those two scenarios is anything more than a "pipe dream." But that is also why using the term "peak oil" to define those types of events is simply bad science. Those conclusions are NOT based on empirical data, meaning they are philosophical in nature. The declining ability to FIND NEW RESERVES, however, IS based on empirical data because there are only so many places we can explore on the planet. Most places have already been explored, meaning those areas have already been accounted for. As the map of areas to explore gets smaller and smaller, peak oil becomes not only likely, but certain. With this knowledge in hand, it's easy to see that we are beyond the peak, of peak oil.
“People are clearly not aware of this situation."
Exactly... but now you are. As you can see from the depth of misunderstanding, the term "peak oil" has been used as a scapegoat to those who make snap judgements just based on the terminology itself. Take this information and use it to dissect everyone that makes claims that they understand the conundrum at hand. You'll be astounded at how many people have fucked that up. It's very similar to how people behave in regards to religious doctrine. They hear whatever they want to hear, then act on it. When having an ability like this, the world becomes quite clear. The detractors unmask themselves without even realizing it. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so high, but as it stands now, it's just another tragic situation brought on by selfish indignation. And what's worse, the entire planet is affected by this arrogance personified. Peak oil is a very tricky subject to fully understand, which is why it takes an engineering mindframe to properly quantify it... not a journalist's or politician's. Great job. This was not an easy task. I apologize if I seemed pushy about it, but this is one of those subjects that I would consider myself an expert in… . As you can now see clearly, these types of things have been happening to me my entire life, and very rarely do I get an opportunity to have a real conversation with someone willing to learn. Thank you.
"We have not found any reserves of light sweet crude oil in over 50 years? If we really are at this point then why do people act like we are not?"
50 years is not a ubiquitous statement. What I meant was that we haven't found anything substantial enough to assume it can make up for a Permian Basin or Ghawar type reserve drying up. There have been numerous wells drilled that do produce light sweet crude, but nothing even close to being able to power a global crude oil economy, especially as it stands now. Bravado and arrogance are the lubricators to the mechanisms that fuel human to human interaction. They know something is very wrong, and are terrified of the implications... BUT, as long as they can find others who share the same degeneracy, they can ACT confident in themselves no matter how scared they are internally. Before they realize it, everything they do becomes a lie based on their "friends" agreeing with the lie, thus, giving them the fuel to keep having confidence. It's a destructive way to live, obviously, but there's no reason for them to stop. No motivation... as long as the like button on their faceberg page keeps getting smashed. It's all just fake bravado, and everyone in society right now is infected by this disease. Makes my mission VERY difficult, but I knew that before I started. There's a few of you on my side of the fence now... Again, thank you.