505 replies to this topic

[Blue]

Regarding the papers they are all BLP's claims with no independent verification.

Mills created BLP almost 20 years ago and still has not managed to produce a single independently verified prototype of anything useful. But he has managed to gain large sums of money.

Mills in the year 1999 ""I'll have demonstrated an entirely new form of energy production by the end of 2000,"
http://www.villagevo.../quantum-leap/2

Edited by Blue, 18 September 2009 - 10:16 PM.

[Blue]

The PROCESS works? There is no independent evidence that large scale power production is possible. We only have a brief burst of heat. I can that from a match also.

I don't think you understand what the Rowan group has observed. Heat from a match would be fully explainable by conventional chemistry. The power they observed was substantial, and 1) no one can explain it using conventional chemical arguments, and 2) it is well explained by hydrino production, as has been corroborated spectroscopically.

My point was that a single brief burst of heat is not the same as large scale continuous energy production. Regarding Mills theory, if accepting maybe we have an explanation for the Rowan group brief heat production. We lose basic QM, so then we have no explanation for the results of countless of QM experiments and all the practical applications successfully using QM theory (integrated circuits, MRI, electron microscope, etc). Again, assuming that there is no explanation using conventional theory, which as noted some critics dispute, then it is likely that only some relatively minor modification of existing theories is necessary. Again see for exampe this:
http://en.wikipedia....eutrino_problem

[valkyrie_ice]

The PROCESS works? There is no independent evidence that large scale power production is possible. We only have a brief burst of heat. I can that from a match also.

I don't think you understand what the Rowan group has observed. Heat from a match would be fully explainable by conventional chemistry. The power they observed was substantial, and 1) no one can explain it using conventional chemical arguments, and 2) it is well explained by hydrino production, as has been corroborated spectroscopically.

The problem as I see it is two fold.

One, no one wants to believe the evidence, Why?

Two, even those who admit that there IS evidence try to dismiss it as a hoax, scam, con job, etc.

Why is is so hard to admit that further investigation needs to be done, since this appears to be exactly what everyone everywhere has been hoping for? A cheap, clean, retrofit-able, hydrogen based replacement for Coal, Oil, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydro, and whatever other costly, hard to implement, incompatible with existing technology, and decades away from functional systems are out there?

Have we hit peak oil? Why should we even care when a solution to the peak oil issue is in existence? Why spend billions looking for new reserves and wells when those billions could be spent replacing the current oil dependent energy structure with cheap clean hydrogen power?

And Blue, one thing you seem completely oblivious to is that BLP is not in proving stage anymore. They have developed the process to commercial stage, and it is being licensed to power companies around the country. Most of your "papers" were written PRIOR to this occurrence.

The chemists have demonstrated that a NON-CHEMICAL reaction is happening. Now it's time for the physicists to step up and figure out what Quantum reaction IS OCCURRING rather than simply going "well the math says reality can't possibly be real"

[valkyrie_ice]

The PROCESS works? There is no independent evidence that large scale power production is possible. We only have a brief burst of heat. I can that from a match also.

I don't think you understand what the Rowan group has observed. Heat from a match would be fully explainable by conventional chemistry. The power they observed was substantial, and 1) no one can explain it using conventional chemical arguments, and 2) it is well explained by hydrino production, as has been corroborated spectroscopically.

My point was that a single brief burst of heat is not the same as large scale continuous energy production. Regarding Mills theory, if accepting maybe we have an explanation for the Rowan group brief heat production. We lose basic QM, so then we have no explanation for the results of countless of QM experiments and all the practical applications successfully using QM theory (integrated circuits, MRI, electron microscope, etc). Again, assuming that there is no explanation using conventional theory, which as noted some critics dispute, then it is likely that only some relatively minor modification of existing theories is necessary. Again see for exampe this:
http://en.wikipedia....eutrino_problem

Who says QM has to be scrapped? Did you fail to grasp that the mathematics on which QM is based in part i.e. Maxwell's equations, is SIMPLIFIED math and that therefore it will give imprecise results? Results that just like estimates made from rounded off numbers can be accurate enough to provide results yet will not accurately represent the whole truth?

All your argument is based on non-experimental data. It is based in mathematical models based on simplified equations. It is based on theorizing in absence of empirical experimental data.

Reality shows that excess energy is being produced in a Non-chemical reaction. It is producing hydrogen atoms with the appearance of fractional states of the accepted "ground" Reality is showing that the thought experiments and mathematical "proofs" are simply incorrect. Obviously the theorems need to be corrected.

At no point have I ever stated Mill's THEORY held merit. However Mill's experimental data and results speak for themselves well enough. Mill's theories may indeed be absolutely correct or they may be completely in error. Dismissing the EVIDENCE because you dislike the THEORY is not acceptable science by any standard though.

And before this gets anymore off topic, maybe a mod should move this to the thread I already established on BLP in the nanotech forum months ago

[castrensis]

1. The oil supply is not "finite". The earth has a carbon cycle where plate tectonics drive carbon into the mantle where they become hydrocarbons. This is not coming to an end any time soon as far as I am aware. However, past deposits (into the mantle) may have been much greater than what is happening now which means less oil for the future - could be much less.

From _Introduction to Organic Geochemistry_:

The major prolific oil source rocks were deposited during global marine transgressions. As for coals, there appear to have been two main episodes of oil source-rock deposition: one during the Palaeozoic, peaking around the Deconian, and another during the Mesozoic, peaking around the Cretaceous. Such periods were characterized by marine transgressions on to continental margins, crating suitable conditions for the production (e.g. high nutrient supply) and preservation (e.g. anoxic basins) of sedimentary organic matter (Klemme & Ulmishek 1991: Section 3.4.3a). This is reflected in the correlation of phytoplanktonic abundance with organic-rich sediments in Fig. 4.31. The Palaeozoic peak in the phytoplanktonic production can be attributed to the dominant, organic-walled organisms of the era (acritarchs, green algae, and cyanobacteria). The latter productivity peak was characterized by major contributions from, initially, calcareous (cocccolithospores) and, subsequently, siliceous phytoplankton (silicoflagellates and diatoms).

Unless I'm misinterpreting the text the deposition of organic material into the mantle that is the source of nearly all of the oil extracted during this age occurred under conditions very different from today during a period 150 million years ago that lasted for approximately 100 million years. Under the subsequent & current global conditions the contributions to oil reserves are negligible, particularly given our rate of extraction.

2. Our agricultural system is becoming more efficient year-over-year. Production is not directly and exclusively related to hydrocarbon energy input. Genetics and other biotech techniques have boosted production and opened up new areas of the world (arid areas) to production.

While agriculture does not rely exclusively on hydrocarbon energy input, as the solar energy input is essential for the growth of plants, in order to increase yields from available land & sunlight beyond their natural capacity to support an artificially inflated global population we require significant energy investments in the form of fossil fuels. From Eating Fossil Fuels:

In the 1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation commonly referred to as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution resulted in the industrialization of agriculture. Part of the advance resulted from new hybrid food plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%.⁴ That is a tremendous increase in the amount of food energy available for human consumption. This additional energy did not come from an increase in incipient sunlight, nor did it result from introducing agriculture to new vistas of land. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation. The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average of 50 times the energy input of traditional agriculture.⁵ In the most extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture has increased 100 fold or more.⁶

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).⁷


...

In a very real sense, we are literally eating fossil fuels. However, due to the laws of thermodynamics, there is not a direct correspondence between energy inflow and outflow in agriculture. Along the way, there is a marked energy loss. Between 1945 and 1994, energy input to agriculture increased 4-fold while crop yields only increased 3-fold.¹¹ Since then, energy input has continued to increase without a corresponding increase in crop yield. We have reached the point of marginal returns. Yet, due to soil degradation, increased demands of pest management and increasing energy costs for irrigation (all of which is examined below), modern agriculture must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply to maintain current crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming bankrupt.

3. Worker productivity is also increasing, meaning we get more product per energy input. Is it enough to offset potential future drops in fossil fuel supply - probably not - but it helps.

But what is responsible for the increase in worker productivity? I see a couple possibilities. Necessarily, a portion is the conversion of energy from our environment (sustenance) supported by hydrocarbon-fueled agriculture. Also, perhaps, the increasing industrialization, computerization & automation of human activity; which is powered, developed & manufactured by large energy investments provided by fossil fuels.

The number of products derived from oil are staggering. Machines require lubrication, derived from oil. Plastics & the myriad products produced with them, soap, medications, pesticides, fertilizers, ink, tires, personal hygiene products, solvents, &c. are all produced from oil. Due to this it's not just the lack of energy that's concerning, it's the loss of all the products that make the modern condition possible.

[niner]

1. The oil supply is not "finite". The earth has a carbon cycle where plate tectonics drive carbon into the mantle where they become hydrocarbons. This is not coming to an end any time soon as far as I am aware. However, past deposits (into the mantle) may have been much greater than what is happening now which means less oil for the future - could be much less.

The major prolific oil source rocks were deposited during global marine transgressions. As for coals, there appear to have been two main episodes of oil source-rock deposition: one during the Palaeozoic, peaking around the Deconian, and another during the Mesozoic, peaking around the Cretaceous. Such periods were characterized by marine transgressions on to continental margins, crating suitable conditions for the production (e.g. high nutrient supply) and preservation (e.g. anoxic basins) of sedimentary organic matter (Klemme & Ulmishek 1991: Section 3.4.3a). This is reflected in the correlation of phytoplanktonic abundance with organic-rich sediments in Fig. 4.31. The Palaeozoic peak in the phytoplanktonic production can be attributed to the dominant, organic-walled organisms of the era (acritarchs, green algae, and cyanobacteria). The latter productivity peak was characterized by major contributions from, initially, calcareous (cocccolithospores) and, subsequently, siliceous phytoplankton (silicoflagellates and diatoms).

Unless I'm misinterpreting the text the deposition of organic material into the mantle that is the source of nearly all of the oil extracted during this age occurred under conditions very different from today during a period 150 million years ago that lasted for approximately 100 million years. Under the subsequent & current global conditions the contributions to oil reserves are negligible, particularly given our rate of extraction.

I think you are correct that we are using oil a lot faster than we are making it. I recall hearing about another source of carbonaceous deposits: Hundreds of millions of years ago, plants had evolved cellulose, but there were no microorganisms capable of breaking it down. Dead plant material simply built up on the ground, becoming the 'soil' in which new plants grew, but without breaking down as it does today. Eventually, after many millions of years, microorganisms evolved the ability to break down cellulose, and I suppose lignin as well. This ended the era of massive buildup of reduced forms of carbon. I don't know to what extent this contributed to our oil and coal deposits relative to plankton, but it's over now.

3. Worker productivity is also increasing, meaning we get more product per energy input. Is it enough to offset potential future drops in fossil fuel supply - probably not - but it helps.

But what is responsible for the increase in worker productivity? I see a couple possibilities. Necessarily, a portion is the conversion of energy from our environment (sustenance) supported by hydrocarbon-fueled agriculture. Also, perhaps, the increasing industrialization, computerization & automation of human activity; which is powered, developed & manufactured by large energy investments provided by fossil fuels.

The number of products derived from oil are staggering. Machines require lubrication, derived from oil. Plastics & the myriad products produced with them, soap, medications, pesticides, fertilizers, ink, tires, personal hygiene products, solvents, &c. are all produced from oil. Due to this it's not just the lack of energy that's concerning, it's the loss of all the products that make the modern condition possible.

The increase in worker productivity, which has been substantial, is primarily due to information technology. This has been a net win in terms of productivity per hydrocarbon unit. Hydrocarbons are an important chemical feedstock, as you point out, but these could be replaced by carbon from biological sources. That technology is already reasonably in hand, but it will no doubt cost more money.

[valkyrie_ice]

Honestly, I see the whole oil issue as kind of pointless. by most estimations we have at least 20 to 30 more years utilizing a variety of technologies that can extract oil sufficient to meet our global needs, even with the rate that need is growing. Within that time frame, it is extremely likely one or more energy alternatives such as BLP, Dense Plasma Fusion, LENR, Kasimir Well Devices, or even more efficient solar/wind/whatever will emerge. Most of these technologies have been in research and seem to be at the knee of their development curves.

Beyond that, we are also approaching the knee of exponential computing power enabling a coherent enough understanding of DNA encoding to begin creating synthetic bioorganisms such as tailored bacteria, which could lead to the creation of a oil synthesizing process that could eliminate any need to drill. Such ability could also bootstrap into a true nanofacturing system which could easily synthesize oil at need. Both of these are extremely likely within the next 15 to 20 years, and either could eliminate the "oil crisis"

All of which means the issue of oil is not how do we supply it at need, but how do we reign in and control big oil interests long enough for synthesis to become a viable alternative.

All of which moves the issue from how do we find new resources into the social issue of ensuring Synthesis and energy technologies are pursued without suppression.

[Mind]

Honestly, I see the whole oil issue as kind of pointless. by most estimations we have at least 20 to 30 more years utilizing a variety of technologies that can extract oil sufficient to meet our global needs, even with the rate that need is growing. Within that time frame, it is extremely likely one or more energy alternatives such as BLP, Dense Plasma Fusion, LENR, Kasimir Well Devices, or even more efficient solar/wind/whatever will emerge. Most of these technologies have been in research and seem to be at the knee of their development curves.

20 to 30 more years of oil and likely 50 years worth of Nat Gas - see here. It is starting to look very unlikely that we will see a "fossil fuel crash". Disruptions and price shocks, sure, but Val is correct about alternatives coming online, plus Blacklight is looking more interesting. Even though it started out with all the hallmarks of the latest and greatest free energy scam, they have hung in there. One University confirmation of the energy output is not super, but it is a start. Also, they have now licensed the technology to 6 (yes SIX) power companies in the U.S. This is a level of commercial legitimacy not usually achieved by your typical free energy scam. Caveat: the 6th company to license BlacklightPower is also a shareholder of BlacklightPower, hmmm?

Let us just say that it is getting to the level where it would be difficult to continue to perpetuate outright fraud.

[Mind]

Michael Dittmer says we will run out of readily available fissionable material for nuclear power plants by 2013. Yikes, if true.

[niner]

Michael Dittmer says we will run out of readily available fissionable material for nuclear power plants by 2013. Yikes, if true.

The comments seem to be running against him.

[Mind]

I interviewed Dr. Hirsch of the Hirsch report a couple weeks ago. He is still VERY pessimistic about the stability of our energy supply. I was amazed that he basically outright dismissed the new large proven reserves of natural gas and the development of better solar, biofuel, wind, etc...

Read the interview here.

Weather Blog (JL): What is the greatest change in the energy and Peak Oil situation/scenario that you have observed since you compiled data for the Hirsch Report back in 2004?

Dr. Hirsch: 1) THERE IS MORE DATA INDICATING THAT THE DECLINE IN WORLD OIL PRODUCTION WILL HAPPEN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER; 2) WORLD OIL PRODUCTION HAS BEEN ON A FLUCTUATING PLATEAU SINCE MID 2004, EVEN THOUGH DEMAND INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY UNTIL THE GREAT RECESSION. WHILE THE RECESSION CUT BACK ON OIL DEMAND, THE REDUCTIONS WERE FRACTIONALLY RELATIVELY SMALL.

[niner]

I interviewed Dr. Hirsch of the Hirsch report a couple weeks ago. He is still VERY pessimistic about the stability of our energy supply. I was amazed that he basically outright dismissed the new large proven reserves of natural gas and the development of better solar, biofuel, wind, etc...

Read the interview here.

Weather Blog (JL): What is the greatest change in the energy and Peak Oil situation/scenario that you have observed since you compiled data for the Hirsch Report back in 2004?

Dr. Hirsch: 1) THERE IS MORE DATA INDICATING THAT THE DECLINE IN WORLD OIL PRODUCTION WILL HAPPEN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER; 2) WORLD OIL PRODUCTION HAS BEEN ON A FLUCTUATING PLATEAU SINCE MID 2004, EVEN THOUGH DEMAND INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY UNTIL THE GREAT RECESSION. WHILE THE RECESSION CUT BACK ON OIL DEMAND, THE REDUCTIONS WERE FRACTIONALLY RELATIVELY SMALL.

Hirsch actually sounds pretty level-headed in the interview. I take it he's not one of the "stone age" nuts. I suspect he's too pessimistic, but it's true that there's a hell of a lot of hardware out there that needs liquid hydrocarbon fuel, and it isn't going to change overnight. Given a decade or so, we can probably make a pretty big dent in the private auto fleet, rolling it over to something more efficient. Aircraft are going to be harder. The price of liquid fuels will surely go up, once the economy gets going. The Great Recession is kind of a blessing in disguise as far as peak oil is concerned, because it gives us a chance to get the technology in place without getting killed by fuel costs. I just hope that people aren't lulled into a false sense of security. I note that the Chinese government recently told Hummer to go find another buyer, so it is now headed for the great scrapheap of history.

[Mind]

I wouldn't call the stone-agers "nuts", just that they are looking at the very worst case scenario and not incorporating all the data. If a couple of the major oil fields in the middle east dried up at the same general time that a couple major terrorist attacks and major wars broke out, then we would probably be at risk of a stone-age (or Mad Max) type scenario. The odds of this are extremely small in my view.

And yes, I can't help but see increasing fuel/energy costs over the next decade while the switch to alternatives occurs. Are energy/commodity stocks still a good bet?

[Mind]

.....Are energy/commodity stocks still a good bet?

I'll answer my own question....hell no. Not since 2008. Even after a big oil spill and a significant shutdown of production in the Gulf, the price of oil has barely moved. In fact, all commodities are currently stable or falling. There are surpluses of nat gas, coal, oil, gasoline, etc... Not even energy service stocks are doing well, I should know, since I bought some of those stocks. egads!

I still suspect we will have some supply disruptions, but at this point I am leaning toward the "Peak Oil" apocalypse prediction being one of the worst in human history, destined for the same trash heap as Malthus and Ehrlich. This particular thread has been going for years now and it doesn't look like we are in danger of running out of fossil fuels anytime soon, certainly not fast enough to derail the adoption and creation of cleaner alternatives.

[PWAIN]

I still suspect we will have some supply disruptions, but at this point I am leaning toward the "Peak Oil" apocalypse prediction being one of the worst in human history, destined for the same trash heap as Malthus and Ehrlich. This particular thread has been going for years now and it doesn't look like we are in danger of running out of fossil fuels anytime soon, certainly not fast enough to derail the adoption and creation of cleaner alternatives.

Don't you think that a global recession may have more to do with available inventory and also the relativly high price continues to make it desirable to keep production levels up.

The recent oil spill also highlights that we are resorting to the final option - deep sea drilling with all the extra risk that entails. I am hopeful that we will be able to transition in time, however the persistence of a relativly high oil price in the middle of a global downturn, concerns me. What happens if we flip to a global boom period? It is also worth noting that China is still growing at a very rapid rate and will be taking a bigger share of oil/non renewables from the available pool. I don't think we are clear of the woods yet.

[Mind]

Good points. I don't think we are out of the woods yet either PWAIN. I just think it is time to stick a fork in the "Stone Age" Peak Oil scenario. There certainly seems to be enough fossils fuels around the earth to last for decades, even in the case where demand increases, and alternatives do not come online very fast. The production/price of fossil is dynamically self-limiting. The price gets too high, the world economy goes into recession, demand drops.

[Mind]

Another year in the books (2011) and no major collapse in fossil fuel supply. I suspect there will be supply shocks and high prices in 2012, but I doubt there will be a crash.

[Lazarus Long]

Actually Mind the collapse of petroleum based fossil fuel supplies will probably not be the sudden disappearance too many have predicted but rather a competition with economic recovery that will consistently and inevitably stifle growth and inhibit recovery, as the price of fossil fuel dependent energy chases recovery thus quickly wiping out initial gains and mitigating any perceptible reversal of current conditions. Any opening of new reserves could momentarily create a spark of growth that is quickly stifled by global demand because such new reserves will not have long term sustainable outputs nor long term impact on overall markets.

Some infrastructural conversion will continue to natural gas and certainly coal especially for electric generation and heavy transport, as technological advances make them more competitive but also they will be more costly as demand goes up. We see that now with natural gas supplies for example. Supply, reserves, and production are at all time highs, yet the price to the average consumer is also at an all time high as well. Supply and demand economics do not appear to be benefiting as promised the average consumer at the moment, since current demand for natural gas has not in fact kept pace with supply. So why isn't the fabled free market rescuing consumers?

Could it be that energy pricing is controlled by cartels and not a free market?

The economics of energy is precipitating a decade at least of stagflation that will both extend energy reserves and inhibit growth, even in the emerging markets. Energy drives growth and global economic recession is accomplishing what rational conservation could not; buying a little more time to reach the edge of the accelerating slide.

However, unlike the rational conservation model, it is also causing the cost of instituting a conversion to global renewables is currently to be on a steadily increasing curve as basic material (ie rare earths etc) costs start to mitigate production advances. The rational conservation model would help to flatten that price climb but we do not have a truly rational conservation and conversion model in place in this country, nor the world.

Nevertheless, we have already hit peak petroleum production according to actual global figures and whether that peak is a plateau and a descending plain vs a spire and dangerous downward spiral is really the only difference, and that will be determined by human behavior, BOTH in the marketplace AND legislatures. The marketplace alone will not suffice because it is too short term in its practicalities to address the kind of energy switch required to meet the long term needs of civilization's energy dependent transition, nor is the global energy market in fact a "free market", despite loud disingenuous claims to the contrary.

As for shocks, let's see how the bluster and rhetoric of war impacts 2012 with Iran starting the year with a threat to close the Straits of Hormuz.

[Mind]

Another update on Peak Oil: http://www.newscient...o-peak-oil.html

Up to 93 million barrels per day production. Even I didn't think we could reach that level. Either we are going to burn reserves up very fast or technology will continue to rescue us.

Choice quote from the article:

It is true that global oil production has not yet peaked, but that is almost beside the point. The people who fixate on this need to wake up and smell the fumes we are reduced to running on.

There are challenges ahead, but the wildly wrong Peak Oil predictions of the past 15 years do matter, IMO. They illuminate our understanding (or mis-understanding) of oil/economic dynamics.

[Mind]

U.S. oil consumption continues to decline (IMO, mostly because we are still in a recession, contrary to what the government and the government run mainstream media try to spin).

With the increased usage of natural gas, U.S. carbon emissions are not at a 20 year low! The U.S. hit Kyoto emission targets without ever ratifying the document. The U.S. did better than almost every other advanced nation that actually ratified Kyoto. Still, not really a reason to applaud too enthusiastically, most of the pollution and emissions (from the U.S. and Europe) have been exported to China.

[Mind]

Another article about how much oil is now recoverable. Sure it is more expensive, but we are not running out. Recoverable reserves are growing by leaps and bounds. Reading this latest article made me a little sad. A part of me wants the oil price too stay high so that alternative energy is more price competitive.

[PWAIN]

I think you may be missing the point. The more the price goes up, the more competitive and desirable the alternatives become. If your extraction costs qre high, you cannot cut your prices to compete and then you are on a level playing field. One breakthrough in storage tech and it would be all over for oil.

[Mind]

Haven't updated this thread in a while. Nearly 20 years past the time when the "peak oil shock" was supposed to send us back to the stone age. WTI futures contracts trading at $38.25 today!. Everyone talking about an oil glut. U.S. storage facilities full to capacity.

 

I was actually hoping that higher prices would speed the adoption of alternatives. I guess I should be thankful that there has been enough oil and other fossil fuels to help foster technological progress over the last few years and prices of clean energy continue to drop.

[Multivitz]

Just two words from me:

1) Thorium.

2) Transmutation.

[Mind]

Another 3 year have passed. Both supply and demand of oil (and other fossil fuels) have gone up. In fact there is a glut of oil recently. The U.S. is now the world's biggest producer of oil. Never would have thought it would be possible at the start of this thread 15 years ago. Crazy.

 

It has to end sometime. Who knows when. 

 

Like I mentioned earlier in this long thread, I kind-of wanted the price of fossil fuels to stay a little higher, so that there would be more adoption of alternative energy.

 

Interesting to note that while the U.S is the largest producer of oil in the world, it has decreased fossil fuel emissions by the largest percentage of almost any country in the last 5 to 10 years. Geo-strategically, this positions the country well if there are some price/supply shocks. China seems the most vulnerable with their heavy reliance on fossil fuels - a side effect of which they are now the world's largest polluter and contributor to anthropogenic global warming - by a huge margin!

[Mind]

Had to check in on this discussion again. There is still no shortage of oil or other fossil fuels. China is still building coal power plants at a feverish pace and is the biggest carbon "polluter" in the world - and it isn't even close.

 

With the population of the earth likely to decline in coming decades (based upon current trends), it seems unlikely there will ever be a true or significant shortage of oil.