Large: 20-02-28_EROEI-EROI_EnergyReturnInvestedGraphs


EROIE / EROI: Energy Return on Energy Invested:

A Net Energy Parable: Why is ERoEI Important?

Besides water, energy is the most important substance for life on the planet. For most organisms energy is embodied in the food they eat, be it bugs, nuts or gazelles. The excess of energy consumed to energy expended (net energy) has been integral in the evolution of the structure and form of present day organisms. Net energy is measured as how much energy is left over after the calories used to find, harvest, refine and utilize the original energy are accounted for. It is a term linked to physical principles and departs in many cases from our current market mechanism of valuing things by price. The alternative energy debate seems to have two firmly entrenched camps – those that acknowledge the importance of energy gain to our society and those who focus on gross energy, energy quality and dollars. This post explores what net energy is, why its important and how its principles may impact the future organization of our society.  For most living things, energy is calories. Over eons, natural selection has optimized the most efficient methods for energy capture, transformation, and consumption.( Lotka) Cheetahs that repeatedly expend more energy chasing a gazelle than they receive from eating it will not incrementally survive to produce offspring.. ……. The Bottom Line …   Since evolution has favored organisms that have the highest energy output energy input ratios, it will be a cognitive challenge for us (as organisms) to willingly reduce the numerator. Consumption, in the sasquatch example, continued very high until late in the game, and was subsidized from borrowing from other aspects of society. Lack of energy gain was a phantom concept until the situation was much deteriorated. The difference between their society and ours is that they got ‘paid’ directly in energy while we have an intermediate step – an abstraction in the form of digital money. So unlike the sasquatches who had immediate negative feedback to declining net energy, we might temporarily ‘paper over’ this decline by printing money or relaxing financial requirements – these measures will not be based on anything biophysical and make an eventual reckoning much more severe. In the end, it’s not about how much energy we have but how much societies can afford via real inputs and how resilient their institutions are to a change in the the prior trend. Our collective task will be to improve our net (total cost) energy from renewables while changing the infrastructure of society to best match what our long term sustainable energy gain can be. – The Oil Drum: A Net Energy Parable: Why is ERoEI Important?.


An EROI Review:

Introduction: I can be a very persistent (some might say hard-headed) person. If someone doesn’t understand something that I think is important – and readily understandable – I will often continue to explain it until I am sure they either understand it and won’t admit it, or they are incapable of understanding it. Because the topic of EROEI continues to be misunderstood (especially by those in the camp of “the only thing that matters is economics“), I will once again try.

EROEI Basics: There are a couple of important EROEI equations. The first is that EROEI = Energy Output/Energy Input. In other words, if we have to spend 10 BTUs (Input) to extract and refine 100 BTUs of oil (Output), then the EROEI is 100 to 10, or 10 to 1. Digressing for a moment, I recently had a conversation with someone who suggested that this is completely different from finance, where $105 returned on a $100 investment is a 5% return, not 105%. As I explained, the situation is the same. EROEI is a ratio. If I divide the $105 I get back from my $100 investment, then I get an output/input ratio of 1.05, but my return on investment is 5%. Likewise, if I input 100 BTUs and output 200 BTUs, the EROEI is 2 to 1, but the rate of return on my energy investment is 100%.

The second important equation concerns the net energy; that is how much energy was left after the energy input is accounted for. This equation is Net Energy = Energy Output – Energy Input. In our previous example, the net energy is (100 BTUs produced – 10 BTUs input), or 90 BTUs.

A couple of points here. First, the break even for EROEI is 1.0. In that case, you have input just as much energy into the process as you got back out. In some cases, that may makeeconomic sense. For instance, if you input coal BTUs but got back out ethanol or diesel BTUs, then you have converted the coal into something of greater value. This is a source of the “only economics matter” argument. But this misses the larger point: EROEI is going to have a huge impact on economics, because it shows that in order to maintain current net energy for society, energy production must accelerate as EROEI declines. It isn’t that planners are looking to EROEI to make their decisions; it is that a declining EROEI can indicate what those decisions will inevitably be.
» The Oil Drum: An EROI Review.


Society’s Hierarchy of Energetic Needs

* Energy Skeptic: Societys Hierarchy of Energetic Needs: PNG.

The problem is analysed in an important paper by Weißbach et al.1 in terms of energy returned on energy invested, or EROEI – the ratio of the energy produced over the life of a power plant to the energy that was required to build it. It takes energy to make a power plant – to manufacture its components, mine the fuel, and so on. The power plant needs to make at least this much energy to break even. A break-even powerplant has an EROEI of 1. But such a plant would pointless, as there is no energy surplus to do the useful things we use energy for. There is a minimum EROEI, greater than 1, that is required for an energy source to be able to run society. An energy system must produce a surplus large enough to sustain things like food production, hospitals, and universities to train the engineers to build the plant, transport, construction, and all the elements of the civilization in which it is embedded. For countries like the US and Germany, Weißbach et al. estimate this minimum viable EROEI to be about 7. An energy source with lower EROEI cannot sustain a society at those levels of complexity, structured along similar lines. If we are to transform our energy system, in particular to one without climate impacts, we need to pay close attention to the EROEI of the end result. Think of a society dependent upon one resource: its domestic oil. If the EROI for this oil was 1.1:1 then one could pump the oil out of the ground and look at it. If it were 1.2:1 you could also refine it and look at it, 1.3:1 also distribute it to where you want to use it but all you could do is look at it. Hall et al. 2008 examined the EROI required to actually run a truck and found that if the energy included was enough to build and maintain the truck and the roads and bridges required to use it, one would need at least a 3:1 EROI at the wellhead. Now if you wanted to put something in the truck, say some grain, and deliver it, that would require an EROI of, say, 5:1 to grow the grain. If you wanted to include depreciation on the oil field worker, the refinery worker, the truck driver and the farmer you would need an EROI of say 7 or 8:1 to support their families. If the children were to be educated you would need perhaps 9 or 10:1, have health care 12:1, have arts in their life maybe 14:1, and so on. Obviously to have a modern civilization one needs not simply surplus energy but lots of it, and that requires either a high EROI or a massive source of moderate EROI fuels. The point is illustrated in the EROI pyramid. (Theblue values are published values: the yellow values are increasingly speculative.) – Energy Central: The Catch 22 of Energy Storage.


Energy Return on Energy Invested

Energy Return on Energy Invested

Society’s Hierarchy of Energetic Needs: Pedro A Prieto and Charles A S Hall: ‘Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution: The Energy Return on Investment’, Springer 2013, p7: Pyramid of energetic needs representing the minimum EROI required for conventional oil, at the wellhead, to be able to perform various energetic task required for civilization. The blue values are published values: the yellow values are increasingly speculative (figure adapted from Lambert and Lambert 2012)

Energy Return on Energy Invested: A talk given by professor Charlie Hall in Princeton, last year. More than one hour of presentation to show how rich and interesting is the field of biophysical economics. These two images – Energy Return on Energy Invested; Societies Hierarchy of Energetic Needs – show that we need to make exceptional efforts to afford even basic “luxuries” with the exclusive use of renewables. The last image – Or We Could Tally the Sheep Like This – hints to what’s probably the main ingredient to the “problem” solution.
» IG: 20-02-28_wuhancorona-gaguidestoneswtc.


Energy Return on Investment: Net Energy Cliff

New research outlines how energy resource depletion and declining energy return on investment (EROI) may affect prosperity. In recent years, questions have been raised concerning the link between EROI and overall economic prosperity. A growing body of research indeed suggests that high societal EROI levels are strongly correlated with high standards of living, that the level of prosperity attained by modern, mostly Western, societies is heavily dependent on the use of high-EROI fossil energy sources, and that a minimum aggregate EROI value must be maintained to support modern, prosperous societies. At lowered energy productivity levels – or lower EROI levels – energy becomes expensive and costly to obtain – in energy terms – and consumption of energy to support other functions of society becomes constrained. A number of studies have explored the effects of declining EROI on society and found that, below a certain threshold, declining EROI results in rapid increases in the fraction of energy that must be dedicated to simply supporting the energy system. This phenomenon has become known as the “net energy cliff”, an expression coined by energy analyst Euan Mearns. – Resilience: Is There Such a Thing as a “Net Energy Cliff?”.


Population, Energy Per capita use, Total Energy Consumption

Ike Kiefer: March 14, 2014 11:43 AM:
[This graph] is a more detailed version of the “Net Energy Cliff” chart you introduced above. I developed this version to illustrate why EROIs below 10:1 quickly become an exercise in running up the down escalator, and to illustrate where the EROI of US corn ethanol compares to the EROI at the apex of biomass-fueled civilization – the Roman Empire in 70 AD. In building the Colosseum, the Romans achieved an overall EROI of 1.8:1 with slaves and oxen fed by wheat and alfalfa cultivated on huge and efficient Roman latifundia plantations. This high (by agrarian standards) EROI and scale of agriculture were not duplicated for 1,700 years until the discovery of coal and the advent of steam power. The Roman yield per acre in wheat of 1035 lb/acre (1,160 kg/ha) was not surpassed in the USA until the 1940s when widespread use of ammonia fertilizers began. The catch-22 of biofuels is that, to increase the yields to make them economically harvestable decreases their EROIs. Without modern intensive cultivation practices, the Romans achieved 12:1 with wheat and 27:1 with alfalfa, but got about 1/3rd to 1/6th the yield per acre that we do today. Corn ethanol, at nearly 500 gal/acre-yr, is the highest yield biofuel in the USA precisely because it is cultivated with huge amounts of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer made from fossil fuel natural gas. We currently get a mere 1.25:1 EROI for corn ethanol energy, and it is actually break-even at 1:1 for the ethanol itself if the energy credit for DDGS is excluded.  The US military’s foray into biofuels has been forced by its political leadership and has not served the US taxpayer well. It additionally has proved harmful rather than helpful to the national security objectives of energy security and global stability. For a detailed look at liquid biofuels and how they have not served US national security interests, see Kiefer.pdf. Liquid biofuels are a dead end as an energy source because thermodynamics and photosynthesis impose limits that prevent simultaneously achieving the necessary annual yield per acre to supply any meaningful fraction of national demand and the threshold EROI needed to support a modern civilization. – Our Energy Policy: Metrics for Comparing Alternative Liquid Fuels.

Oil’s Dying EROEI Ratio

EROEI refers to how much energy it takes to get energy out of the ground. Simply put, if the EROEI is equal to “1,” it takes one barrel of oil to produce one barrel. In other words, it is a wash. And, of course, anything below 1 would mean more energy is being used than gotten. Unless we were in a war or facing a natural disaster, this would be unsustainable. The problem we face now is that the overall EROEI figure is moving well down into single digits. This is adversely impacting energy across the board. Recently we’ve seen it in renewables, natural gas and alternative sources of energy. But the ratio is most alarming when it comes to the energy we need and use the most: Oil. In the 1930s you could get about 100 barrels out of the ground for every one barrel you used. By 1970 that figure was 25-barrels-to-one. Today, we’re only getting about 3 for every one barrel of energy we use to extract it! – Money Morning: The Biggest “Energy Crisis” Nobody Is Talking About.


Energy Slaves

In terminology, energy slave is an abstract conception referring to the technologic-mechanical energy equivalent that a healthy human youth could do. [1] The lifestyle of any person, in this logic, can be equated with a certain number of “energy slaves” equivalent to the number of human laborers required, measured in human labor power energy units, to mediate that person’s way of life.

Etymology: In circa 1944, American philosopher Buckminster Fuller introduced the term “energy slave”. [2] Fuller proposed the term based on the average output of a hard-working man doing 150,000 foot-pounds of work per day and working 250-days per year. [9]

In 1954 English thermodynamicist Alfred Ubbelohde, in his book Man and Energy, was using the term, it seems, independent of Fuller. [10]

It has been estimated, for instance, that a middle-class American lives a style of life that is equivalent to the work produced by 200 human slaves. [3] Fuller, who believed that in the future human societies would come to rely mainly on renewable sources of energy, such as solar-power and wind-derived electricity, referred to Americans as possessing two-hundred “energy slaves” that run on nonrenewable resources. [4] One energy slave, according to Fuller, equals “each unit of one trillion foot pound equivalents per annum consumed annually by respective economies from both import and domestic sources, computed at 100% of potential content.” [5]

Derivation: Fuller used data gathered by the U.S., German, and Swiss armies to arrive at an estimate for the average amount of (mechanical) work a person could do in a year. This is in addition to the energy spent in metabolic self-maintenance. The net work done constitutes a net “advantage” in dealing with the environment. A figure of 37.5 million foot-pounds was arrived at. [6]

Using this logic, one can calculate the ratio of work done by a system to the energy intake, to obtain a measure of efficiency. Since many machines and appliances inefficient, Fuller posited a figure of 4% overall efficiency for total energy consumption. He then calculated world energy consumption for the year 1950 as being 80.17 quintillion foot-pounds (plus or minus 10%). Given only 4% efficiency the net work obtained equaled 3.2 quintillion ft-lbs. One can divide this figure by the net annual energy output per man of 37.2 million ft-lbs. This gives a result of 85.5 billion man-year equivalents done by machines. These man-year equivalents are energy slaves. [6]

If the number of energy slaves is divided by the world population total of 2.25 billion (1950) a figure of 38 energy slaves per person is arrived at. Fuller plotted the geographical concentrations of energy slaves on what he called his World Energy Map. [7]

In 1987 commentary on Fullers energy slave theory, author Stephen Boyden commented that “in the USA, the daily use per capita of energy is around 1000 MJ; that is, each person has the equivalent of 100 energy slaves working 24 hours a day for him or for her…. In some developing countries, the rate of energy use is less than the equivalent of one energy slave per person.” [8]
– EOHT: Energy Slaves.


Jack Alpert: Losing Our Energy Slaves: Oil / Gas Work Compared to Human Work

Jack Alpert Skil: Losing Our Energy Slaves:
Rapid Population Decline or Bust: 01020304050607080910Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required Series:Overpopulation Means MurderToo Many People; Non-linearity of Overpopulation: 01.02 [SQCopy]; How Much Degrowth is Enough?.  Losing Our Energy Slaves.
» IG: 12-11-26_fallingman20-02-28_wuhancorona-gaguidestoneswtc.


Work of One Cubic Mile of Oil:

One Cubic Mile of Oil v Coal Power Stations, Nuclear Power Stations, Hydro dams, Solar Panels, Wind Turbines.
» IG: 20-02-29_cmo_cubicmileoil-equiv


The Lower the Average EROI, The More Civilization Struggles

IG: 20-02-28_CHall-LowerEROI-Pyramid-EnergeticNeeds



Forms of Energy over Time

Figure 6.2 shows two other aspects that have been closely associated with this rapid population growth. It shows a major transformation in sources of energy. In the 15th century the Spaniards and Portuguese developed new types of sailing vessels, circumnavigated the globe and produced what can be called our modern global ecosystem in which all the continents are closely tied together. That produced a slight increase in population growth rates in Europe and Asia as new crops came from the Americas and increased the carrying capacity of the land.  It was the transition to fossil fuels, coal and oil, that ushered in the industrial revolution and introduced a radically new type of society.  We are still today in that transition from rural agrarian to urban-industrial society. …. All biological populations have a carrying capacity, which determines the number of organisms that can live in a certain area of land. Since Earth’s area and resources are finite, many ecologists believe that humans are currently overshooting the Earth’s carrying capacity by using technology and energy stores (think fossil fuels), which makes it possible for a population to temporarily overshoot their carrying capacity before the population either: crashes due to overexploitation of their resources, or changes to an s-shaped distribution by coming into line with the population’s carrying capacity (Figure 6.6). – UMich: Human Population Trends, Appropriations and Health.


US Public Debt vs US Oil & Gas EROI

The information discussed in this article makes it abundantly clear that the precious metals will be the GO TO ASSETS in the future. The standard financial practice of investing most of one’s assets in stocks, bonds and real estate will no longer be true. The EROI stands for Energy Returned On Invested. Basically, its how much profitable energy you get in return from what amount of energy was invested (burned). The EROI has been a guiding principle for humans going back thousands of years when we were hunter gatherers.
Here are some simple EROI for human food production:
Hunter Gatherer = 10/1
Simple Human Farming = 5/1
Human & Animal Farming = 1-2/1
High Tech Modern Food System = 1/10
You will notice two important trends in the chart above. When the U.S. EROI was higher than 30/1 prior to 1970, U.S. public debt did not increase all the much. However, this changed after 1970 as the EROI continued to decline, public debt increased in an exponential fashion.
We must remember, to sustain a transportation system with agriculture and minimal health care and education, we must have at least an EROI of 10/1.
You will notice that the US public debt didn’t really start to increase until after 1970’s… the time period when U.S. oil and gas EROI fell below 30/1. Which means prior to 1971, the U.S. oil and gas industry was providing 30+ barrels of oil to the market for each barrel of oil (energy equivalent) that it burned in the process.
– Indigo Precious Metals: Coming Breakdown of US and Global Markets.

As the U.S. energy EROI continued to fall to the 5/1 of shale oil today, the debt exploded. For those folks who still believe that PEAK OIL is a grand conspiracy by the wealthy and large oil companies, you need to go back to grade school math and learn why a 5/1 EROI of shale today versus 100/1 EROI of conventional oil production in 1930 PROVES that peak oil is a CERTAINTY. However, if you would rather continue to believe in lousy conspiracy gossip, just wait around for five more years and I would imagine all doubts of PEAK OIL will be erased. The Value Of Gold & Silver Will Explode As U.S. Public Debt Implodes. The reason investors need to be holding onto LOTS of physical gold and silver is due to the coming implosion of US public debt. – Gold Eagle: This One Chart Should Drive Investors Into Buying Gold And Silver.


World Population Growth: NNR Metal and Energy Use

The rate of world population growth during the semi-nomadic era was very low, about 1/100 of 1%.  That means for every 10,000 people alive in one year, there would be 10,001 alive the next, on average.  Over the 5500 years from 10,000 BCE to 4,500 BCE, the population grew from somewhere around 4 million people to somewhere around 6 million people – we don’t know very precisely because no one was counting back then!  By comparison, in 2007 there were more than 8 million people living in New York City alone.

The Era of City-States
Around 4,000 BCE, the rate of global population growth jumped to 7/100ths of 1%.  Although that doesn’t sound very high, the power of a compound growth rate shows up in a more than ten-fold increase in population during the period to 500 BCE.  By 500 BCE, there were approximately 100 million people on the planet, mostly concentrated in coastal southern Asia and around the Mediterranean Sea.  By comparison, the population of Japan in 2009 was more than 125 million.

The Era of Empires

The expansion of political organization from city states to empires brought many economic advantages and opportunities, but it also increased war-related deaths and allowed diseases to spread more quickly.  The early part of this period, from 500 BCE to around 1 CE, brought a doubling of the world population.  Over the next 500 years, however, world population did not grow at all.  Growth recovered around 500 CE, although the period from 500 CE to 1700 CE was marked by spurts of rapid population growth cut back by severe population declines.  It was a difficult time, yet overall, the population grew six-fold through the Era of Empires with an average compound annual growth rate of 8/100ths of 1%.

The Global Era
Although the 300 years from 1700 to the present day has be characterized by intense national rivalries and often open warfare, advances in transportation and communications have set all nations within a global context.  From around 1700, the world was round not just in scientific theory but in economic practice.  Great leaps in industrial activity occurred based on the use of fossil fuels for energy. No longer was the strength of a human limited by our muscles: soon we had machines that could dig, lift, and transform raw materials into the goods and services to sustain life.  With this transformation came an enormous increase in population growth.  From 1700 to 2000 CE, a period of only 300 years, world population increased 10-fold to over 6,000 Million people – a compound annual growth rate of .75 %, ten times higher than in the previous era.  More amazing, from 1900 to 2000, the growth rate was over 1.3 %, doubling twice in just 100 years. World population will have increased by almost as many people in the twelve years from 2000 to 2012 as it did in the 6000 years from the invention of the wheel to the invention of the steam engine! – Econosystemics: Human Population Through the Ages.


Energy Return on Energy Invested of Different Energy Sources

Slideplayer: Energy Return On Investment (EROI) Charles Hall (SUNY College Env Sci & Forestry): Slide 5: EROI: Energy Return on Investment: Energy return on investment (EROI) for different energy sources. Lighter color indicates range of EROI, depending on conditions. Source: Charles A.S. Hall and John W. Day, Jr. in “Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil” in American Scientist, May-June, 2009.


Human Society Wellbeing & Non-Renewable Natural Resource NNR Utilization

Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter?[11]; is an overview of Chris Clugston Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity based upon his analysis of the criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs, using data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; and concludes in general that “absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our global NNR utilization levels, … we will experience escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming decades over increasingly scarce NNR‘s, which will devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.”[12]

Scarcity’s Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-49[13]) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNR’s: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered “scarce” globally in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; (b) A significant number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are “almost certain” to remain scarce permanently going forward; and a sizeable number, 16 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, will “likely” remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels associated with 39 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, are considered “at risk”.

NNR’s at risk – i.e. years to global exhaustion of reserves – are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs (used for starter lights ignition batteries in cars and trucks; (b) Bauxite: 40 years (only economically viable feedstock for aluminium); (c) Bismuth: 17 years (non-toxic substitute for lead in solder and plumbing fixtures); (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years (stainless steel, jet engines and gas turbines); (f) Coal: 40 years (electricity generation); (g) Cobalt: 26 years (gas turbine blades, jet aircraft engines, batteries); (h) Copper: 27 years; (i) Fluorspar: 23 years (feedstock for fluorine bearing chemicals, aluminium and uranium processing); (j) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (k) Iron Ore: 15 years (only feedstock for iron and steel); (l) Lead: 17 years; (m) Lithium: 8 years (aircraft parts, mobile phones, batteries for electrical vehicles); (n) Manganese: 17 years (stainless steel, gasoline additive, dry cell batteries); (o) Molybdenum: 20 years (aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors, tool steels); (p) Natural Gas: 34 years; (q) Nickel: 30 years; (r) Niobium: 15 years (jet and rocket engines, turbines, superconducting magnets); (s) Oil: 39 years; (t) Rhenium: 22 years (petroleum refining, jet engines, gas turbine blades); (u) Silver: 11 years; (v) Thalium: 38 years; (w) Tin: 18 years; (x) Tungsten: 32 years; (y) Uranium: 34 years (primary energy source, weapons); (z) Zinc: 13 years; (aa) Zirconium: 19 years (nuclear power plants, jet engines, gas turbine blades).

Scarcity concludes “Our Next Normal is Catastrophe”: Our AnthroCorpocentric worldview does not recognize that “from a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant,” to “paraphrase Thoreau, we are ‘thrashing at the economic and political branches of our predicament, rather than hacking at the ecological root.’”[14]

“Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political “fixes” are misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not “broken”; they are “dying of slow starvation” for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs.

“Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable, i.e. physically impossible – going forward.[15]
– Amazon: Chris Clugston: Scarcity: Humanity’s Final Chapter. [SQ Copy]


Energy Use: EoP or WiP Labour Future

EoP v WiP Wealth Transfer

“What are written about in history books is wealth destructions but they’re not really, they’re wealth transfers, if you look at them the way I do, which is that before and after the Wymar hyperinflation experience they are just as many acres of farmland and buildings around and people and productive property plant and equipment. But what happened was a lot of people got wiped out and who owned those things changed hands rather violently and dramatically.” – Chris Martinson; Peak Prosperity: Grant Williams: Why Smart Money is so Nervous. [SQ Copy: Chris Martenson: Accelerated Common Sense Crash Course: EoP v WiP NWO Wealth Transfer Options]

Two Wealth Transfer options:

Masonic War is Peace Wealth Transfer: Instead of 50% of the world belonging to the 1%; 90% of the world belongs to them. One percent elite become overt In Your Face Warlord slavemasters; and the rest of the 99% overt slaves. The treatment of slaves, whether they are allowed to live or procreate; or how they are to be slaughtered, is totally dependent on their Warlord slavemasters goodwill.

Ecology of Peace wealth transfer: all bankrupt banks; corporations are nationalized. All individuals owning property greater than the EoP allotted ration footprint have their property nationalized. Families who agree to cooperate by signing EoP cooperator statements; are granted confiscated nationalized property sufficient for their family to sustain their most basic shelter, food and water needs; to engage in the process of rebuilding local cooperative tribal responsible freedom communities.
» EoP NWO SCO: EoP Wealth Transfer: EoP UN Resolution.
» IG: 20-02-27_peakoil-eopvwiplabourfuture.