C U later.

I am going to sign off now, but on the outside chance that you either work
for one of the big intelligence services (e.g., CIA, MI5, KGB), or you are
wealthy enough to have purchased your very own politician, there is
something that you can do to help.  (I you aren't in one of these
influential groups, then you might as well watch reruns of LEAVE IT TO
BEAVER and quietly wait for the end.)

Good hunting,
Jay -- www.dieoff.org
---------------------------------

              ENERGY OR MINERALS?  WHO KNOWS?

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has embarked on a so-called "reliable,
objective assessment of the world's energy resources". [2]  Unfortunately,
the USGS is using flawed methodology which guarantees that it will NOT
be an "energy" assessment but a "mineral" assessment instead.  Here's why:

A mineral is a mineral no matter how much energy is required to mine it.
But by definition, energy "sources" must produce more energy than they
consume, otherwise they are called "sinks".  USGS assessments report
resources in three different ways, as "in place", as "technically
recoverable", and as "economically recoverable".   But neither "technically
recoverable" energy nor "economically recoverable" energy is relevant for
anyone who is not in the energy business.  On the other hand, we average
citizens are vitally concerned about ENERGETICALLY RECOVERABLE energy.   For
example, if it takes more energy to search for and mine a barrel of oil than
the energy recovered, then it makes no energy sense to look for that
barrel -- no matter how high the money price of oil goes.  It will make no
energy sense to look for oil in America after 2005. [3]  Domestic coal is
not expected to be worth digging out of the ground by 2040 because it will
consume more energy than will be recovered -- it will have become an energy
"sink".

With present methodology, USGS won't be able to differentiate "source"
from "sink"!  Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the USGS has
been misguided. One is reminded of the Hubbert-Zapp fiasco that
ultimately forced the director of the USGS to resign in disgrace. [4]
The USGS was wrong before, and they are most certainly wrong again!

It is absolutely imperative to introduce policymakers to these real-world
energy concepts because the coming "peak" in global oil production marks
the end of the market economy! A good analogy is a car with a twenty-
gallon tank, but the nearest gas station is twenty-five gallons away. You
can't fill your tank with trips to the gas station because you burn more
than you can bring back -- it's physically impossible for you to cover your
overhead (the size of your bankroll and the price of the gas are
irrelevant). You might as well plant flowers in your car because it's
"out of gas" -- forever.

It's the same with the American economy: If America must spend more-than-one
unit of energy to produce enough goods and services to buy one unit of
energy, it's physically impossible to cover its overhead (again, money is
irrelevant). At that point, America's economic machine is "out of gas" --
forever
----------
[2]  USGS Fact Sheet FS-007-97: The USGS World Energy Program
       http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/worldenergy/world.html
[3]  TITANIC SINKS, http://dieoff.com/page143.htm
[4]  HUBBERT, THE PERSISTENT PROPHET, by Garrett Hardin
       http://dieoff.com/page143.htm#HubbertZapp