Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche on Vaccination Policy Risks

Bossche has a recently updated FAQ on his site which says we should not have to wait too many more weeks before his prediction comes true.

h/t Michael L’Merchant

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/faq

Q: How can it be explained that in Israel it seems that the massive vaccination has almost stopped the pandemic and no dramatic effects are being observed over people that have been vaccinated?

A: It’s just a matter of weeks for a surge in Israel to occur due to resistance of the virus to vaccinal antibodies in vaccinees. I expect this surge to occur before summer.

Dr. John Campbell interviewed Dr. Pierre Kory today.

Part 1: Steroids and Anticoagulants

Part 2: Ivermectin

Israel cases still flat. No evidence yet that Bossche is right.

Israel cases have leveled off with 58% of population vaccinated. No evidence yet that Bossche is right.

Israel cases still trending down with 57% of population vaccinated. No evidence yet that Bossche is right.

Very interesting discussion on how the banking system works. I’d say it’s a must watch if you’re trying to figure out what’s going on in the economy.

Bill Gates says we need more innovation to save the world’s poor farmers from climate change.

Get on it boys.

Nehemiah is on a roll today at OFW. He’s one of the few commenters there that I regularly read.

Here is his take on the pandemic and our economic problems, followed by an advanced summary of what we know about EROI.

My take away is that when EROI falls below 10, things will go from bad to worse, in a non-linear hurry.

EROI has been falling for years and we’re now pretty much at the critical 10 threshold.

This kind of thread reminds me of the good old days at the now defunct Oil Drum site, the archive of which you can check out here: http://theoildrum.com/special/archives .

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2021/02/25/why-collapse-occurs-why-it-may-not-be-far-away/comment-page-12/#comment-285144

Most western countries just badly mismanaged the pandemic from the very beginning. Things could have been very different, as in very better. Democracy as it is currently structured seems to lead to governments of low competence.

Most of our econ problems now are due to financial mismanagement: too much debt, no fiscal discipline, an unwillingness to tolerate the normal operation of the business cycle, excess industrial and financial concentration and no trust busting to maintain competition, zero interest rate policies, lax enforcement of financial regulations coupled with excessive regulation of business in general, regulatory capture by big business and no push back against it, too many poor, under-educated immigrants being allowed in to compete with the citizens, the US acting as a unilateral importer of first resort to maintain the globalist economic agenda, needless wars and excessive military spending.

Energy is not yet our primary problem, although it will be soon enough. Right now the EROI of the total energy system, and even of oil in particular, is still above 10, and there is not a huge difference between an EROI of 10 versus 100. But as it falls below 10, each additional increment of decline becomes much more burdensome than it was at higher EROI levels:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2013.0126

QUOTE: The following points seem clear from a review of the literature: (i) the EROI of global oil production is roughly 17 and declining, while that for the USA is 11 and declining; (ii) the EROI of ultra-deep-water oil and oil sands is below 10; (iii) the relation between the EROI and the price of oil is inverse and exponential; (iv) as EROI declines below 10, a point is reached when the relation between EROI and price becomes highly nonlinear; and (v) the minimum oil price needed to increase the oil supply in the near term is at levels consistent with levels that have induced past economic recessions. From these points, I conclude that, as the EROI of the average barrel of oil declines, long-term economic growth will become harder to achieve and come at an increasingly higher financial, energetic and environmental cost.
SNIP

Murphy & Hall [3] examined the relation between EROI, oil price and economic growth over the past 40 years and found that economic growth occurred during periods that combined low oil prices with an increasing oil supply. They also found that high oil prices led to an increase in energy expenditures as a share of GDP, which has led historically to recessions. Lastly, they found that oil prices and EROI are inversely related (figure 2), which implies that increasing the oil supply by exploiting unconventional and hence lower EROI sources of oil would require high oil prices. This created what Murphy & Hall called the ‘economic growth paradox: increasing the oil supply to support economic growth will require high oil prices that will undermine that economic growth’.
SNIP

Other researchers have come to similar conclusions to those of Murphy & Hall, most notably economist James Hamilton [47]. Recently, Kopits [50], and later Nelder & Macdonald [49], reiterated the importance of the relation between oil prices and economic growth in what they describe as a ‘narrow ledge’ of oil prices. This is the idea that the range, or ledge, of oil prices that are profitable for oil producers but not so high as to hinder economic growth is narrowing as newer oil resources require high oil prices for development, and as economies begin to contract due largely to the effects of prolonged periods of high oil prices. In other words, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the oil industry to increase supply at low prices, since most of the new oil being brought online has a low EROI. Therefore, if we can only increase oil supply through low EROI resources, then oil prices must apparently rise to meet the cost, thus restraining economic growth.
SNIP

we should remember that the average oil price during periods of economic growth over the past 40 years was under $40 per barrel, and the average price during economic recessions was under $60 per barrel (dollar values inflation adjusted to 2010) [3]. What these data indicate is that the floor price at which we could increase oil production in the short term would require, at a minimum, prices that are correlated historically with economic recessions.
SNIP

Heun & de Wit [15] found a statistically significant correlation between the Divisia EROI for global oil and gas production and global oil prices. The equation they tested…. indicates that the price of oil increases exponentially as EROI declines. They suggest that the nature of the relation between EROI and the price is such that the effect on price becomes highly nonlinear as EROI declines below 10.

King & Hall [13] examined the relation between EROI, oil prices and the potential profitability of oil-producing firms, termed energy-producing entities (EPEs). They found that for an EPE to receive a 10% financial rate of return from an energy extraction process, which, for example, has an EROI of 11, would require an oil price of roughly $20 per barrel.3 Alternatively, a 100% financial rate of return for the same extraction project would require $60 per barrel (figure 3). King & Hall also echoed Heun & de Wit, suggesting that the relationship between EROI and profitability becomes nonlinear when the EROI declines below 10.
SNIP

— there appears to be a negative exponential relationship between the aggregate EROI of oil production and oil prices;

— there appears to be a comparable relationship between EROI and the potential profitability of oil-producing firms;

— the relationship between EROI and profitability appears to become nonlinear as the EROI declines below 10; and

— the minimum oil price needed to increase global oil supply in the near term is comparable to that which has triggered economic recessions in the past.
SNIP

[My comment: an economy in recession consumes energy more slowly, allowing prices to fall from weaker demand, but it still consumes; even if prices are too low to justify new drilling, eventually enough wells will deplete to the point that the world is producing less oil than even a depressed economy is consuming, forcing buyers into a bidding war and driving prices higher, which will allow increased drilling and production, but not necessarily at prices that will allow the economy to recover. The economy could become mired in a permanent depression, with the economy spending less time in failed recoveries (that never get back to the expansion phase) than in contractions. If end users purchase more energy for more money (resources), they will have less money (resources) for making other purchases, and so consumption and production will fall. Conversely, if they spend the same amount of their budget (resources) on higher priced energy, they will be consuming less energy, and therefore the economy will contract because energy is necessary to fuel the work that produces goods and services.]

The mathematical relation between EROI, net energy and gross energy can be used to explain why, at around an EROI of 10, the relation between EROI and most other variables, such as price, economic growth and profitability, becomes nonlinear.
SNIP

…an EROI of 5 will deliver to society 80% of the gross energy extracted as net energy, while an EROI of 2 will deliver only 50%. This exponential relation between gross and net energy means that there is little difference in the net energy provided to society by an energy source with an EROI above 10, whether it is 11 or 100, but a very large difference in the net energy provided to society by an energy source with an EROI of 10 and one with an EROI of 5. This exponential relation between gross and net energy flows has been called the ‘net energy cliff’ [53] and it is the main reason why there is a critical point in the relation between EROI and price at an EROI of about 10 (figure 4).
SNIP

Much like organisms, economies also have energy requirements that must be met before any investments in growth can be made. Indeed, researchers are now measuring the ‘metabolism of society’ by mapping energy consumption and flow patterns over time [54].4 For example, economies must invest energy simply to maintain transportation and building infrastructure, to provide food and security, as well as to provide energy for direct consumption in transportation vehicles, households and business, etc. The energy flow to society must first pay all of these metabolic energy costs before enabling growth, such as constructing new buildings, roads, etc.

Building off this idea of societal metabolism, we can gain additional insight into the relationship between EROI and economic growth by differentiating between three main uses of energy by society: metabolism, which could be described as the energy and material costs associated with the maintenance and replacement of populations and capital depreciation (examples include food consumption, bridge repair or doctor visits); consumption, which is the expenditure of energy that does not increase populations or capital accumulation and is not necessary for metabolism (examples include purchasing movie tickets or plane tickets for vacation; in general, this category represents items purchased with disposable income); and growth, which is the investment of energy and materials in new populations and capital over and above that necessary for metabolism (examples include building new houses, purchasing new cars, increasing populations).

Figure 5a–d illustrates how the flows of energy to the three categories change as EROI declines. Let us assume that the metabolism of Economy A requires the consumption of 5000 units of energy per year. So, of the 10 000 units of energy extracted, 1000 must be reinvested to produce the next 10 000, and another 5000 are invested to maintain the infrastructure of Economy A. This leaves 4000 units of net energy that could be invested in either consumption or growth (figure 5a).
SNIP

As society transitions to lower EROI energy sources, a portion of net energy that was historically used for consumption and/or growth will be transferred to the energy extraction sector. This transfer decreases the growth and consumption potential of the economy. For example, let us assume that, as energy extraction becomes more difficult in Economy A, it requires an additional 1000 units of energy (2000 total) to maintain its current production of gross energy, decreasing the EROI from 10 to 5 and the net energy from 9000 to 8000. If the metabolism of the economy remains at 5000 units of energy, Economy A now has only 3000 units of energy to invest in growth and/or consumption (figure 5b).

If the EROI for society were to decline to 2, the amount of energy that could previously be invested in growth and consumption would be transferred completely to the energy extraction sector. Thus, given the assumed metabolic needs of Economy A in this example, an EROI of 2 would be the minimum EROI needed to provide enough energy to pay for the current infrastructure requirements of Economy A, or, to put it another way, an EROI of 2 would be the minimum EROI for a sustainable Economy A. If the EROI were to decline below 2, for example in some biofuel systems [31], then the net energy provided to society would not be enough to maintain the infrastructure of Economy A, resulting in physical degradation and economic contraction (figure 5d).
SNIP

it is important to remember that this is a simple example with hypothetical numbers, and, as such, the minimum EROI for our current society is probably, and maybe substantially, higher.
SNIP

‘Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.’The Red Queen, in Through the looking-glass [55, p. 15]

Another way to explore the impact that a decline in EROI can have on net energy flows to society is to consider the ‘gross energy requirement ratio’ (GERR). The GERR indicates the proportional increase or decrease in gross energy production that is required to maintain the net energy flow to society given a change in the EROI of the energy acquisition process. The GERR is calculated by dividing the gross energy requirement (GER) of the substitute energy source by the GER of the reference energy source. The GER is the minimum amount of gross energy production required to produce one unit of net energy. Both of these equations are outlined below
SNIP

For example, the average barrel of oil in the USA is produced at an EROI of roughly 11 [9]. Using equation (5.1), an EROI of 11 results in a GER of 1.1, i.e. 1.1 units of gross energy must be extracted to deliver 1 unit of net energy to society, with the 0.1 extra being the amount of energy required for the extraction process. For comparison, delivering one unit of net energy from an oil source with an EROI of 5 would require the extraction of 1.25 units of oil. If conventional oil at an EROI of 11 is our reference GER, and our substitute energy resource has an EROI of 5, then the GERR is 1.14. This GERR value indicates that, if society were to transition from an energy source with an EROI of 11 to one with an EROI of 5, then gross energy production would have to increase by 14% simply to maintain the same net energy flow to society. The net effect of declining EROI is to increase the GERR…
SNIP

The most recent estimates indicate that the EROI of conventional oil is between 10 and 20 globally, with an average of 11 in the USA. The future of oil production resides in unconventional oil, which has, on average, higher production costs (in terms of both money and energy) than conventional oil, and should prove in time to have a (much) lower EROI than conventional oil. Similar comments apply to other substitutes such as biofuels. The lack of peer-reviewed estimates of the EROI of such resources indicates a clear need for further investigation.

Transitioning to lower EROI energy sources has a number of implications for global society. First, it will reallocate energy that was previously destined for society towards the energy industry alone. This will, over the long run, lower the net energy available to society, creating significant headwinds for economic growth.
SNIP

[My comment: lowering the net energy available to society does not create “significant headwinds for economic growth,” it outright contracts the real economy. Economic growth (usually measured by GDP) is the increased production of goods and services, but increasing production requires increased work (by men, animals, or machinery), and increased work requires increased energy, because that is what energy is: “the ability to do work.” Less energy=less work=production of FEWER goods and services, i.e,. recession/depression.]

Nehemiah today with a different take on why we deny reality…

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2021/02/25/why-collapse-occurs-why-it-may-not-be-far-away/comment-page-12/#comment-285106

EV’s will also require more electric production than we can currently provide. Their boosters deny this, but even Elon Musk has said it is so.

“The mining industry accounts for 10% of world energy consumption”
https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/mining/energy-use-in-the-mining-industry/story
and a substantial fraction of this is from electricity, maybe 20 or 30 percent (it appears to vary by country, and also by type of mine), and the rest tends to come from diesel or natural gas.

The attempted green energy revolution will use huge amounts of mined materials, even as those minerals are becoming scarcer and therefore more energy intensive per ton extracted. I doubt that this increased energy cost has been included in the EROI’s of solar and wind (since they were EROI’s at the time of calculation, not future EROI’s), but those EROI’s will definitely fall if the world’s politicians are serious about a green energy transition. Frankly, I think dreamer politicians who don’t understand hard sciences or engineering will steer the ship onto the rocks faster than it would get there on its own.

Just as fossil fuels face declining EROI’s, the indirect dependence of green energy on fossil fuels means their EROI’s are declining too–unless we try to go to 100% renewables for power, but then we will need storage capacity (buffering), which will also drop the EROI.

“Sustainable development” is the impossible dream. Why have greens/environmentalists hitched their wagon to an illusion? I can think of three reasons:

One, the illusion that life as we know it can continue is much easier to sell to the public. As Dick Cheney said, “The American way of life is not up for negotiation.” Ironically, Greens seem to have moved into the hated Cheney’s corner on this point. “We must all lower our standard of living” is hard to sell.

Two, Communists infiltrated the movement after the fall of the USSR, and old line Marxists are believers in growth and industry. Their vision of the future was always about building a material paradise in this world, not living for the world to come.

Three, the Green/environmentalist movement has always been controlled by social liberals. Theological and cultural conservatives have never been welcome, and social liberalism is a by product or externality or “emergent property” of industrial capitalism. If we return to a world of mostly tiny cities surrounded by larger populations of peasant farmers, while vast national welfare states are replaced by dependence on extended families and religious communities, social liberalism will be as dead as it was in the Middle Ages.

Illusions may have no future, but if people want them to be true badly enough, the temptation to ignore reality until it begins to devour them is hard to resist. Socially liberal values and lifestyles are dependent on industrial civilization and its ability to empower the individual by freeing him from dependence on the patriarchal family and religious authority, those values in turn are cherished very strongly my many today as a morally superior worldview because the liberty of the individual to make his own, unimpeded choices in life is perceived as sacred, and finally people are strongly disinclined to cast their sacred values “under the bus.” So it is renewable energy or perish, because that is the only way to preserve the new sacred canopy of Late Modernity. To return to a pre-industrial way of life is unthinkable for many Moderns, and not merely because of the inconveniences and hardships of such a life, but because they detest the moral system that governs life in an energy-poor environment. Malthusian insights have become a victim of the culture wars.

Jean-Marc Jancovici criticizes in blunt language the widespread ignorance and hypocrisy of people who claim to be concerned about climate change.