Suffice that Kunstler’s “The Long Emergency” gets little argument from me, insofar as his views on energy availability and the effects of the inescapable decline in availability. He’s done an excellent job of articulating what I’ve been figuring on for some thirty or forty years, now. Hey, all that’s really been necessary has been a wee tad of watching politicans.

Digressing: Bill from Slidell mentioned subsidence. Hey, with 3,000 feet to bedrock, and on clay, pumping oil and water allows compaction which makes for subsidence. Same-o, same-o for the area around Houston. Back in the CB radiddio daze, folks referred to Baytown as the “sinking city in the sand.” The sidewalk around the reflecting pool of the San Jacinto monument was waist-deep in baywater in 1976.

As is said in commencement speeches, the future lies ahead. At age 75, I don’t have a bunch of “ahead” left. Best to all of you…

‘Rat

US Rail Map Atlas Maps can be obtained from spv.co.uk if local sources (historic archives, County Planning Bureaus, utilities , etc. are not in possession legacy rail maps of your respective locale. Period (1925-1965) Thomas Bros City & County Maps are good for urban area rail footprint and helpful in seeing how the downtown rail/trucking warehouse interface way laid out.

The program to prioritize and commence rehab of the dormant rail lines can be facilitated with re-commissioned Army/Guard Railroad Operating And Maintenance Battalions. See Van Fleet’s 1956 Rail Logistics manual from AAR librarian (202-639-2100). Updated look at localization of power generation and rail to local interface, see Christopher C. Swan’s “ELECTRIC WATER” (New Society Press, 2007).

Gerneric discussion for policymakers can be seen at (peakoil.net) Newsletter 42, article 374, and Newsletter 89, article 1037, respectively. Railway is not a panacea, simply a basic, durable and robust essential part of the Peak Oil Solution Set.

Not necessarily. Even if the oil companies believe oil production will increase in the future, that doesn’t imply they necessarily believe that oil will be avaliable to THEM.

I think the oil companies know full well that REGARDLESS of the size of the oil industry in the future, their role will be decreasing. Even today they only control something like 15% of global oil production, and that number will be going down.

A decade or so from now the private oil companies will only have one main role in the oil industry- retailing.

Another reason for no new refineries in the US: There is no reason to believe there will necessarily be feedstock for them.

Foreign oil producers want to glean as much as possible of the economic value of their oil for themselves. Thus, they will increasingly want to do their own refining and sell refined products rather than raw oil.

Really the only reliable oil supply for US refineries is US oil production. Needless to say, that means we will need LESS US refineries in the future, not more.

It’s especially interesting to hear about the downward pressure from elected adminstrations on (presumably) career persons - (?)- within the DOE. It’s so sad to think that a decision which is fundamentally one of values and integrity - (i.e., to publish the report or not, to continue the work or not, to broadcast the concern or not) - carries so much risk to one’s career, and thus to the well being of oneself and one’s family.

And also, it’s sobering and ironic to think that such a decision-fork, so hidden from public discourse, becomes a personal one for each individual involved, despite the fact that obscuring the truth has such consequences for the entire world, really.

Is there a way we can find to support each other in a real sense, rather than be part of this funneling of pressure?

When Bob brings up two positions, such as a general one called “Armaggeddon” and his own desire to present “facts and realities,” this strikes me as an inadvertent tumble into a similar existential spot.

The response to “peak” that involves increasing violence and use of force -(i.e., my take on “Armaggeddon” is that it means war and/or use of weapons)- may be likely, even more than likely, but it is still a matter of choice, and this choice is one involving, logically, the future. (If we can put aside the invasion of Iraq, and all other current military deployments that have to do with oil extraction and delivery. My “putting aside” is not to minimize these, but to make a logical point.)

A look at the “facts and realities” of our global dependence on oil, combined with what the numbers show, yields some inescapable impacts - barring massive change and radical re-organization.

Use of force and weapons may or may not be part of this response to the impacts shortfall in oil supplies, shortages, etc. and yet, the impacts can also be characterized as “catastrophic”, even so. In fact, this word fits.

So, the “sugar-coat” may be exactly the message that comes across if one leaves off an explication of the catastrophic implications of the facts. It’s not necessary to have Armaggeddon (war, use of nuclear weapons, etc.) to see some dire consequences. Many dire consequences.

Therefore, my suggestion is to clarify what is optional in the sense of possible response on the part of societal actors (leaders, dictators, militaries) and what is inevitable when oil becomes scarce as we enter and continue down the decline.

The inescapable facts have to do with the machines and systems that require oil to function.

I encourage everyone with Bob’s level of expertise to clearly elucidate the impacts, if no preventative and risk management options are taken. Doing so does not imply one subscribes to Armaggeddon, in fact, quite the opposite.

Along with this facing of reality (and spelling out of the consequences) comes the opportunity to take seriously the contribution of those with ideas (including arrangements that have been shown to work on a small scale) for what positive actions might be taken.

As Bob says, there is no “magic wand” fix for the disjoint between the decline of oil and the explosion (in numbers and patterns of consumption) of the human species to fit the energy base we have had until now.

We can open the range of options to new arrangements. This requires a loyalty to the courage displayed thus far on the part of Bob and others who look at the facts. A direct conversation about the impacts of peak oil is the first step. (An example, not, of course, the last word, may be found here: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html)

Also, I’d say that there a lot of solid work has been done in thinking about sustainability, in all it’s “hard” and “soft” (and perhaps even more consequential) aspects. We need a closer look at those with a view towards what we want to do with the time and material available to us.

And we need a sense of “us” - a way to support each other, as per above example.