DrumBeat: January 19, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 19, 2007 - 10:05am
U.S. petroleum demand dipped in 2006
While oil companies reaped gargantuan profits in 2006 amid high prices, U.S. demand for petroleum dipped for the second year in a row, a trade group said Friday.Total U.S. petroleum deliveries, a measure of demand, fell by roughly 1 percent to 20.6 million barrels per day, down from 20.8 million in 2005, which was below the 2004 level, according to a report by the American Petroleum Institute.
The analysis was released one day after the Paris-based International Energy Agency estimated that oil demand in the world's industrialized countries declined by 0.6 percent in 2006. Global demand rose in 2006 due to the strength of consumption in China and the Middle East, but the world's appetite has grown at a slower pace for two straight years.
OPEC cuts estimated growth of oil demand in 2007 to 1.5 percent
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has revised downwards its estimate for growth in world oil demand this year to 1.5 percent from 1.6 percent.
U.S. drilling & completion estimates hit 21-year high
U.S. oil and natural gas drilling estimates for 2006 show that activity remains robust with nearly twice the level of activity recorded during the lows of the early to mid-1990s, API said.According to API’s 2006 Quarterly Well Completion Report: Fourth Quarter, a 21-year high estimated 49,375 oil wells, natural gas wells and dry holes were completed in 2006. The fourth quarter’s estimated 12,439 completions were the highest since first quarter 1986.
Can the Saudis Back the Boast and Increase Crude Oil Production?
But since when has reality stopped people from trying impossible things? “Saudi Arabia plans to increase its crude oil production capacity nearly 40 percent by 2009 and double its refining size over the next five years to keep pace with growing global demand, the country’s oil minister said Thursday,” reports today’s International Herald Tribune. Take that, peak oilers!
2007: Renewable Energy Gets Real, Part Two
According to the IEA, in 2007 the supply growth outside of OPEC should roughly balance out the demand growth, which it will have to do, because OPEC production remains flat at 28.8 mbpd. Many peakers have observed that OPEC’s announced production cuts, particularly Saudi Arabia’s, may be simply a way to hide the fact that they’re in terminal decline and can’t do much about it.
Will 2007 be China's Year of Gasoline imports?
With a new car sold every six seconds in China, gasoline usage is set to accelerate to nearly 7 percent or 80,000 barrels per day (bpd) this year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said. That is about as much as it exported in 2006.
Fears over Russia move to form Opec-style gas cartel
Russian Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko will visit Algeria this weekend, a trip that is likely to fuel European fears that Russia plans to co-opt other major gas exporters into forming an Opec-style cartel.
India needs diversified energy to fulfill requirements
India needs to tap diversified energy sources to fulfill its requirements, as nuclear power in itself is not sufficient, Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal said on Thursday."India would require around 3,00,000 MW of power by 2020 and nuclear would contribute, at best, around 10 per cent in the supply. Nuclear energy by itself is not an answer," he said at the Petrotech conference here.
Malaysia: Act now before oil reserves deplete
Sherritt, Ontario Fund Plan C$1.5 Billion Gas Project
Sherritt International Corp., a Canadian metals and oil producer, may join with Canada's third- biggest pension fund to build a C$1.5 billion ($1.28 billion) plant that would produce synthetic natural gas from coal.
No one seriously doubts that oil security is behind the American move into the Gulf, the American bases in the ex-Soviet Stans, or the sudden interest by Washington in oil-rich regions of Africa. However, the US is in direct competition with booming China, rich Europe and Japan, newly assertive Russia, and a gaggle of other more or less developed nations, including fast-growing India.This is not the “all boats are raised by the rising tide” situation of globalisation, but closer to old style naked imperial competition.
Viable Investment in Energy Complicated
Interesting moves are being played on the energy chessboard. While Hugo Chavez and Ahmedinejad are out to create a block of energy rich, "anti-imperialist" forces, it is now being reported Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a "controversial law" to be shortly introduced before the Iraqi parliament.
Bulgaria: Nuclear re-opening attempts must continue
Bulgaria should try to re-negotiate the closure of units three and four of Kozloduy nuclear power plant, Economy and Energy Minister Roumen Ovcharov said.On Thursday January 25, the Council of Ministers will examine an action plan of all the measures that could be undertaken to request the re-opening of the reactors, Focus news agency reported.
Iran Discovers New Onshore Oil Field
Iran has discovered a new onshore oil field with an estimated reserve of 2 billion barrels, state-run television reported Thursday.
North Korea: Let’s Share Electricity!
While North Korea’s electrical power supply worsens, North Korea’s Premier Park Bong Ju pushes for the expansion of energy supply and civil electrical support only to receive a personal punishment from authorities or in actual, his position changed.
Kazakh PM Calls for Tighter Control of Oil
Kazakhstan's new prime minister criticized foreign oil companies Thursday and ordered the government to tighten control over their activities in the energy-rich Central Asian nation, the government said.
Pakistan: Wind-power firms back out of tariff deal
With the energy crisis deteriorating, wind-power producers (WPPs) on Thursday backed out of an agreed power tariff of 9.5 cents per unit for sale to Pakistan, saying their input costs have increased substantially.
New Alaska Governor Pushes for Gas Pipeline
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told lawmakers Wednesday to soon expect legislation outlining the process for a natural gas pipeline...."This gas line, it's going to fuel our homes, our economy, and careers for Alaskans -- for generations," she said. "This gas line is critical not just for our future, though, but for the nation's future."
Global warming 'just a natural cycle'
Global warming comes and goes in 1,500 year cycles which may have more to do with cosmic rays than fossil fuel emissions, according to a new book.
Bush resists growing pressure to curb global warming
The battle over global warming is heating up, with President George W. Bush refusing to limit greenhouse gas emissions despite growing pressure from the Democrat-led Congress and around the world.
Global warming becomes hot topic on Capitol Hill
Facing the loss of the committee gavel he used to block global warming legislation, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) urged corporate executives late last month to keep up the fight against greenhouse gas emission limits.
Companies press Bush, Congress on climate: reports
Major corporations are joining environmental groups to press President Bush and Congress to address climate change more rapidly, news reports said on Friday.The coalition, including Alcoa Inc., General Electric Co., DuPont Co., and Duke Energy Corp. plans to publicize its recommendations on Monday, a day ahead of the president's annual State of the Union address, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Roscoe Bartlett: Peak oil production - Text of his speech.
A Light Bulb Goes on, and China Starts Thinking ‘Alternative Energy’
China has voracious energy needs and “the most serious environmental problem in the world,” said Jerry Li, a consultant in Beijing who matches venture capitalists with entrepreneurs. “There is a huge demand for investment” in alternative solutions, he said.
EU bio-fuel demand threatens Indonesian forests
Growing European Union demand for bio-fuel could threaten Indonesia's last remaining forests as the government approves new palm oil plantations, environmental group Greenpeace warned Thursday.
Weekly Offshore Rig Review: Washington Wishes - a rundown of how the House energy bill will affect oil companies.
Traffic disaster towers over L.A.
"I no longer go to Dodger games, or the L.A. Philharmonic…. I only go out to dinner at restaurants within two miles of my house."
Traffic calming can make Bangor a better place to live
Looked at from a larger perspective, can we plan for a city of truly calm neighborhoods in which we can walk to work or the grocery store — a city with less than 2.1 cars per family? Peak oil will occur in 2020. The days of affordable gasoline are limited. Some of the city’s traditional neighborhoods are well suited to life without the automobile. We need to preserve them and return neighborhoods to neighbors while supporting economic growth.
Oil Will Dominate for Next 100 Years, Predicts Shell: Nothing in the pipeline can replace oil
Mr. Macias said the worldwide infrastructure designed to explore, extract, and refine oil is so vast and established that virtually no economic force could justify its replacement. Oil companies like Shell think a more realistic outcome is that more efficient fossil fuels will take up more of the functions at those plants.
Blast causes partial disruption at Kuwait refinery
KUWAIT CITY - A fire sparked by a gas pipeline blast caused a partial disruption at one of Kuwait's three oil refineries but exports by the oil-rich emirate were not affected, officials said.
Power players warm to Feinstein bill
Plan to reduce electric utilities' greenhouse gas emissions by 25% gets industry backing.
Texas view on environment is 18 lanes wide
HOUSTON - As President Bush readies a new plan on global warming, environmentalists say an 18-lane highway going up in Houston speaks volumes about how people in his home state of Texas view the planet.
Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change
Professor Hawking said that we stand on the precipice of a second nuclear age and a period of exceptional climate change, both of which could destroy the planet as we know it.
Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting
[Joe] D'Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.
House passes bill forcing Big Oil to pay
With the price of crude falling, Big Oil faces another big headache on Capitol Hill.The House passed a bill Thursday evening to raise nearly $15 billion in taxes through a combination of higher royalties, added fees and a reversal of tax breaks handed out by the Bush administration and Republican Congress.
White House Attacks House Offshore Royalty Bill
The White House yesterday came out against several tax and royalty provisions in House energy legislation expected to pass today, warning that the measure as written could delay future oil and natural gas lease sales.
Iraq: Kerosene shortage spurs thriving resale market
Lines at the stations often stretch for blocks, and fuel can take all day to get.That's why many Iraqis are willing to pay a premium to buy their fuel from men such as Moayid Ouda, Sha'alan's owner, who sells a liter of kerosene for around 80 cents.
"The fuel and kerosene crisis drew a lot of people to this business," Ouda said.
So many, in fact, that prices for donkeys and horses have soared since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Hardan Karrar, another kerosene vendor, said he has been amazed by the flood of new vendors trying to break into the trade.
Karrar's horse, which could be sold for $100 to $250 before 2003, today would bring $8,000 on the open market, he said.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Hello TODers,
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/23061.html
--------------------------------------------------
Pemex predicts production drop
The progressive decline in Mexico´s capacity to produce oil is rapidly becoming more worrisome than the slump in global crude prices.
The first symptoms of a genuine oil crisis are becoming more and more evident.
Documents acquired by EL UNIVERSAL indicate Pemex will be forced to cut back on exports to the United States. The reduction could reach 150,000 barrels per day in the next four years. In the final two years of the Calderón administration, the reduction could reach 500,000 barrels per day.
---------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Keep those Latin American updates coming, Bob, they're fascinating.
Mexico looks like it'll be the first big peak-oil victim.
Expect to see more and more new stories like this in the months ahead.
BTW, David Shields is putting the decline in Pemex production this year at least 800,000 bpd, apparently from 12/06 to 12/07. IMO, the only real difference between Pemex & Cantarell and Aramco & Ghawar (other than production rates) is that Pemex has (grudgingly) admitted to the production decline at Cantarell, while still trying to hide their true estimate of the production decline.
A question regarding oil prices
The most commonly quoted oil price in the US is West Texas Intermediate, or light/sweet crude oil. So, why is the Total Liquids production number used so widely?
It's like pricing meat based on the steak price, but when you ask how many pounds of meat a butcher has, he gives you the number of pounds of beef, chicken, pork, soy protein, etc.
If we are going to talk about dollars per barrel of light/sweet crude oil, why don't we stick to barrels per day of crude + condensate? Or, if you are going to talk about Total Liquids, shouldn't you talk about the prices of crude oil, propane, butane, ethanol, Orimulsion, etc.?
Edit:
I think I made a mistake on the David Shields reference. I thought I heard this NPR story in 2006, but it looks like it was on 1/2/07, so I think that Shields is talking about a 800,000 bpd drop from 2007 to 2008.
NPR story:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/01/02/PM200701024.html
Pemex faces change or drying up
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Hello WT,
The key question is:
Does Bush & Calderon believe Pemex, or David Shields on who has the more accurate depletion rate, and what are they planning to do about it?
Either way, learning Spanish could be a big plus here in the US in the years ahead.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az ¿Son los seres humanos más elegantes que la levadura?
I don't think that it is a coincidence that just as we see accumulating evidence of contracting net export capacity worldwide that we see a massive expansion of the US military presence in the Middle East.
From 2004 to 2005, it looks like Mexico's domestic total liquids consumption increased by 5%. Shields is estimating a one year decline in production of about 25%.
If Shields is right, Mexico's net total liquids exports could drop from 1.7 mbpd in 2005 to 500,000 bpd in 2008. This is consistent with the WSJ article last year. I think that they said that Mexico could cease to be a net exporter by as soon as 2010.
WT,
Do you know roughly how much oil the US imports from Mexico? I thought it was a good sized chunk.
Here are two tables. Crude & Total Petroleum Products. Sorry for the crappy formatting. u can get see the originating tables at EIA:
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Nov-06 Oct-06 YTD 2006 Nov-05 Jan - Nov 2005
CANADA 2,065 1,704 1,778 1,756 1,609
MEXICO 1,462 1,481 1,606 1,658 1,542
SAUDI ARABIA 1,444 1,322 1,417 1,267 1,445
VENEZUELA 1,069 1,125 1,146 1,009 1,246
NIGERIA 919 1,049 1,046 1,163 1,068
IRAQ 589 505 567 572 540
ANGOLA 505 506 504 658 458
ALGERIA 253 449 352 265 230
KUWAIT 253 234 180 273 223
ECUADOR 243 315 274 264 270
BRAZIL 156 171 134 65 88
UNITED KINGDOM 119 74 131 229 241
CHAD 118 109 93 33 78
NORWAY 81 120 97 103 124
AZERBAIJAN 77 88 23 0 0
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Nov-06 Oct-06 YTD 2006 Nov-05 Jan - Nov 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 2,584 2,144 2,291 2,305 2,149
MEXICO 1,571 1,646 1,730 1,777 1,650
SAUDI ARABIA 1,489 1,382 1,459 1,370 1,543
VENEZUELA 1,234 1,354 1,418 1,258 1,529
NIGERIA 972 1,088 1,124 1,248 1,158
IRAQ 589 505 567 572 545
ANGOLA 521 536 526 675 476
ALGERIA 462 813 648 500 485
VIRGIN ISLANDS 327 335 325 303 327
UNITED KINGDOM 275 205 276 504 410
KUWAIT 259 239 185 289 239
ECUADOR 248 322 281 264 277
RUSSIA 223 381 370 217 423
BRAZIL 182 221 195 151 148
NORWAY 165 181 196 232
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_l...
It's not that I speak Spanish really well, but using those web based translators doesn't always work. It translated smarter as smartly dressed. So it comes off like, "Are humans more elegant than yeast?" That's also a good question. But for the next post on a Spanish web site try, "¿Son los seres humanos más inteligentes que la levadura?"
Hello Brianf,
Thxs for the correction! I just quickly plugged my tagline into Babelfish-- it didn't seem quite right to me either, but I had to leave.
"3.3 million barrels a day. We can expect production to fall to 2.5 million barrels a day."
Thats a 24% decline!
Leanan
Your links are such rich sources that when I try to read what is interesting there is no time to actually contribute to debates in the comments anymore.
I really appreciate your efforts as well, Leanan. It is a better source of energy related news than any pay site I subscribe too. Thanks for your daily toil.
I second, er... third that. Thank you.
Yes. I try to skip all but the most important, but they are all important and I end up coming back to the ones I skip. Thanks for this invaluable service.
Absolutely agreed
Thank you very much. Actually it's the drumbeats i care for most here at TOD, and in particular your collection of headlines.
Hello TODers,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070119.RTORTILLA19/TP...
------------------------------------
Mexico caps tortilla price to aid poor, stem inflation
MEXICO CITY -- Mexican President Felipe Calderon unveiled measures to stem a surge in prices for corn tortillas, the mainstay of the country's diet, as eroding support among the poor threatens to undermine his 48-day-old presidency.
Mr. Calderon said retailers such as Grupo Bimbo SA, Mexico's largest baker, agreed to hold tortillas at less than 8.5 pesos (78 cents U.S.) a kilogram, about 2.5 pesos below the current top price. The country's retailers group, which counts about 1,900 members including Wal-Mart de Mexico SA, will price tortillas at no more than 6 pesos per kilogram.
"The tortilla is the principal component of the Mexican diet and a fundamental staple for those who have the least," Mr. Calderon said in a message broadcast yesterday from the presidential residence. "The unjustified increase in this product threatens the economy of millions of families and their quality of life."
Mr. Calderon, who warned in his campaign last summer that rival Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador would unleash inflation, now faces a rise in food prices that has pushed a kilogram of tortillas to about one-fifth the daily minimum wage. The jump in tortillas, a component of core inflation, may force the central bank to raise interest rates, exacerbating an economic slowdown that would leave in tatters Mr. Calderon's election pledge to create jobs.
-------------------------------------------------
Gee, didn't Pres. Mugabe of Zimbabwe do the same thing--fix prices on maize and raise interest rates till his people were starving and they had the world's highest inflation rate?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Regardless of Mugabe's poor/corrupted management choices the core source of the price inflation for food products in Zimbabwe would appear to be the horrifying drought that has been occuring in Africa.
Here's a scary discussion on PeakOil.com
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic26230.html
Here's a PDF from 2005 stating that maize crops in Zimbabwe are only 25% of consumption:
http://www.worldfoodprize.org/assets/YouthInstitute/05proceedings/Pinker...
That creates price inflation due to very constrained demand. It's a die off in progress.
Corruption might be exacerbating the effects, but it's certainly not root of the problem.
EDIT - In terms of food prices. The article you linked is horrifying, as are those in the PeakOil thread.
My impression is that Mugabe's heavy-handed land redistribution program took resources away from those who understood something about how to manage them and gave them to people who were less capable. This would seem to be another sigficant factor in the current crisis.
I wouldn't be so sure. In 2005, at the same time that Zimbabwe could only produce 25% of it's grain needs, Botswana, it's neighbor to the East (both in central Africa with no mountains inbetween, should have similar weather) was only able to grow 10% of it's grain needs.
My assumption is that Botswana is not as corrupt as Zimbabwe, or else it would be in the news as much.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=48086
I take that as a clear sign that the political sitation isn't leading the food issues. Maybe the food issues are leading the politics?
There doesn't appear to be grain production info for 2006 yet but the drought has continued as far as I know.
Mmmmm... Ominous. A reminder that we shouldn't blithely dismiss the potential impacts of climate change on rainfall patterns.
You should read "Blood and Thunder". Food or the lack of was a big factor in wars of the mid 1800's in the US SW. Interesting reading - oil-less wars
Tarzan wrote:
Jturpin replied:
Jturpin, that is just flat wrong. Botswana is not Zimbabwe. Go back 20 years, when Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa and then compare the differences between Botswana and Zimbabwe. Botswana has about one eighth the population of Zimbabwe though Botswana is about one third larger in area than Zimbabwe. But about 8.25 percent of Zimbabwe’s land is arable while only .65 percent of Botswana’s land is arable.
Botswana has one of the most corrupt regimes in Africa. The difference is, they have always been corrupt and Zimbabwe has only been corrupt since the reign of Mugabe. And there has been no genocide in Botswana while Mugabe is trying to reduce the population of Zimbabwe from over 12 million to around 6 million. The population of Zimbabwe was around 15 million just a few years ago.
The point is, Zimbabwe produced enough grain to feed half of Sub-Sahara Africa before Mugabe, now Zimbabwe cannot feed half its own population. The collapse of the most productive agricultural area of Africa can be blamed on the corrupt government and nothing else.
A side note, the life expectancy of Zimbabwe is 39.29 years, of Botswana it is 33.74 years, the lowest in the world. Aids and starvation are the two primary killers in both countries.
Ron Patterson
Gee, I thought Botswana was doing pretty well, except for the HIV thing. From Discover:
Meanwhile Afghanistan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia have a low rate of AIDS infection.
AIDS instead of being treated as a deadly communicable disease, like tuberculosis, has become hyper-politicized battleground where many people on both sides of the political spectrum refuse to acknowledge the basic medical reality of the situation. AIDS is not caused by high crime, war, corruption, poverty, or lack of non AIDS prevention related education. For example, Afghanistan has lots of crime, war, corruption, poverty, and little education and Botswana is the reverse.
How can you say a country is doing “pretty good” when they have the lowest life expectancy in the world? And the government is deliberately trying to starve the bushmen to death.
True, it is probably only the bushmen and AIDS orphans in Botswana who are starving.
But this is not the way a “pretty good” or “non corrupt” government behaves.
Ron Patterson
Hello Jturpin,
Thxs for responding. Agreed, the drought + Overshoot is the root cause of Zim's problems, but corruption and stupidity are certainly making things worse:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200701161080.html
What would be the reason for building the sewage treatment plants ABOVE the initial freshwater source? What a waste of energy! This boggles my mind because basic common engineering sense dictates that crap should flow DOWNHILL. Also, if it can be easily forseen that the sewage system is becoming dysfunctional--why didn't the civic leaders headoff problems by setting up a Humanure Recycling Program to prevent worse sanitation & pollution problems?
What will Phx, Dallas, LA, NYC, etc do postPeak if they let their sewage systems decay towards non-functionality? Imitate Zimbabwe with neighborhoods flooding with raw sewage and non-potable water sources-- or will they preemptively move to alternative sanitation systems that require much less energy to protect public health?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
We would do very well to learn from the lessons that are occuring in Africa. Instead we seem to ignore them completely (aid isn't the answer, but there isn't even awareness, and I'm certain we won't learn anything because "that couldn't happen to us").
I don't think these are lessons we can avoid, but they could be mitigated to some degree (just finished rereading part of Diamond's Collapse and now I'm into The Upside of Down per the article on it last week, great book).
It's taken 30 years for Mugabe's situation to come to a head. There's a lot more to this situation than his decisions.
Their inability to obtain/afford (doesn’t matter which in general, in this case it’s afford) energy and drought killing off their food supplies are probably the greatest factors aside from politics. According to Wikipedia the farm land transfers and such started in 1999. The Pinkerton PDF in my original post says Zimbabwe couldn't produce enough grain for the population between 1995 and 1997. So the land transfers occured after that. Again that's why I believe the drought and access to energy are the primary problems in Zimbabwe. Failed political attempts to fix the problems, as bad or misguided as they are, can't solve the problems or even start to address them.
But we never really look at the whole picture anyway. Consider how focused we are on the export situation (thank you West Texas, your export land model is excellent) that we don’t consider what happens to exporters as their exports dry up. They face the end of their riches. Iran is facing just that situation in a few years (and there’s already unrest in the country). The net result of descreasing exports will simply be the end of globalization (exports of all products will dry up as transport fuel will be in short supply, besides, the large oil exporters are not huge manufacturing bases which contributes to the issue).
I expect we will hit this wall at full speed (given current oil prices maybe we can ramp over the problem ala Evil Knievel…).
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Dave Matthews, Tripping Billies
You are entirely missing the dynamic here jturpin. It is much more fun to pin the blame on nappy headed maroons than to recognize climate change. And of course many at TOD still totally deny climate change. In any case facts don't matter.
Bob, excellent.
"one-fifth the daily minimum wage"
So, readers of TOD, how would YOU feel spending 20% of your income on food?
I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that poor Mexicans are spending 1/5 of their income on food based on the fact that a kilogram of tortillas cost 1/5 of minimum wage. That would require that they ate 2.2 pounds of tortillas a day, and ate nothing else. We don't know that either of those things is true.
In the end the 1/5 of income number may be reasonable, but you can't say that based on the facts given.
I wonder how much of Mexico's corn comes from the US, and whether the run-up on corn prices because of surging demand from ethanol production has much to do with Mexico's problems. If Zimbabwe's poor are suffering from the effects of peak oil, perhaps Mexico's poor are the first to suffer from the US' ethanol mania...
I think a lot of Americans are spending 1/5 of their wage for food, in fact, 1/5 of the earnings of a family of 6 as mentioned in the original article, isn't bad. I don't know about the American a lot of you live in, but in the one I've lived in all my life, that's not doing that badly - just jarring if food always cost you say 1/10.......
Bimbo is a huge multinational corp., it's in Spain too, and in the US. Go into any 7-11 and you can find Bimbo treats, and I'll eat the Mexican/Mexican style stuff before the American stuff, less sugar and junk. I was in the Hotal Alfa in Barcelona once and looked out the window, and there's this large building with old-fashioned stand-up letters on the roof, that say: BIMBO. It was quite a laugh.
I listened to an awful lot of Coast To Coast AM junk hoping to hear Matt Savinar as promised, but nope, no Matt.
Hello Rose Selavy,
Perhaps you missed my article from yesterday, but Mexico is building ethanol plants in Sinaloa too:
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=6862
According to this link:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=590505
------------------------------------------------------------
One can understand why Mexicans, the largest component of illegal aliens, come to the U.S. In Mexico, they are typically paid only $5.00 per day for their labor. When wages for Mexican workers rise, the peso is conveniently devalued to keep Mexico competitive with foreign countries like China and India. The owners of Mexican businesses often keep their money in dollars in American banks and escape the devaluation of their currency. Between that and the thoroughly corrupt government, the common people are forever doomed to poverty. Without a revolution in Mexico, America is their only hope.
The influx of illegal immigrants has effectively "imported about 10 million high school dropouts into the United States," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow in welfare and family issues for the Washington, D.C.-based think tank.”
---------------------------------------
So if your income is really low to start with [$5/day], spending 1/5 of your income or more for just for 1 kg of tortillas really hurts [$0.78]! I think many SUV-owning Americans can outbid the poor Mexican on a fuel vs food basis, and wealthier Mexicans will do the same--I expect many Mexican farmers to quickly switch from growing white corn to General Motors motto of "Go Yellow" corn. I wonder if Calderon wants to subsidize the Mex. Ethanol industry.
From this link:
http://www.coha.org/2006/07/26/corn-versus-sugar-based-substitute-fuels/
--------------------------------------
According to the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service’s report on 2006 corn exports, Mexico receives about 15 percent of the U.S. commodity while other Latin American countries such as Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Guatemala take in another 15 percent.
Warren R. Staley of Cargill, a multinational U.S. agricultural giant, expressed concern about corn supplies in a New York Times interview, “Unless we have a huge increase in productivity, we will have a huge problem with food production … and the world will have to make choices.”
For example, corn farmers from the state of Sinaloa in northwestern Mexico have been growing corn comparable to that of the U.S. product in quality, but Sinaloa is located quite far from most corn buyers in Mexico. Because of this, transporting the grain is expensive, and when Sinaloan corn finally reaches the market, buyers find that the price is much higher than U.S.-imported corn. However, if the price for U.S. corn continues to increase, shipping Sinaloan corn may become the cheaper option.
----------------------------------
The article fails to mention that the most likely destination for this Mexican corn is the US. Consider:
Converting this Mex corn to ethanol, then selling it to the Gringos into nearby California, Arizona will be much more profitable than trying to truck the grain the thousands of mile south to Southern Mexico [check out a map]. The Southwest US doesn't grow much corn compared to the Midwest. Cheap mexican ethanol vs expensive Midwest ethanol--a no-brainer! Cargill & ADM have made their choice--poor Mexicans will be forced to grow their own corn, immigrate, or starve. Such is life.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
This result was predicted long ago before NAFTA became law and was a primary argument against it. Massive amounts of subsidized US corn were dumped on the Mexican market, driving campesinos off their land into the cities and over the border to El Norte. Now that their production no longer exists, less corn is available as prices rise due to corn ethanol production in US.
I predict Calderon will be destroyed by his support for the parasitic economic relationship he was installed in office to protect. Ultimately, the only course for the Mexican elite to pursue if they want to retain any vestige of power in the longterm is to withdraw from NAFTA and halt Plan Puebla Panama ASAP; otherwise, the already existing revolution will expand even quicker, which might actually be a good thing considering Mexican history.
You sir, are 100% correct. Mexico's status as a corn producing nation has nothing to do with US corn ethanol production. In fact, now that the price per bushel is at a realisitc level (thanks to ethanol) the Mexican agro-economy might actually return to the levels of self-sufficiency -if not profitability- that it's people had enjoyed for generations prior to NAFTA.
In fact, now that the price per bushel is at a realisitc level (thanks to ethanol) the Mexican agro-economy might actually return to the levels of self-sufficiency -if not profitability- that it's people had enjoyed for generations prior to NAFTA.
Be sure and keep us updated of reports of Mexicans flooding back across the border, returning to their farms.
Hi Robert,
During my many years in the Hotel/Restaurant/Hospitality Industry, I had the opportunity to work with and supervise probably one thousand Mexican nationals, and thanks to my Spanish skills was able to converse in-depth with most. What those conversations revealed was a great desire to return to the families left behind and escape the daliy terror of La Migra and other manifest uncertainties of being undocumented. What is wholy unfair and inhumane is we allow goods and capital to easily flow over borders while labor is not.
When I became a Community College Instructor, I asked this question to students: For their back-breaking work, shouldn't farmworkers receive a living wage; if yes, then are you willing to pay 200% or more for food at the market?
Hello Syntec,
Without fossil fuels from Pemex crashing: Mexico's Overshoot will find that to be 'a tough row to hoe'--Recall my earlier postings on Mexico needing millions of wheelbarrows, bicycles, and other biosolar goods in large, contiguous biosolar habitats. Probably too late to get these goods into Zimbabwe to optimize their decline, maybe not too late for Mexico. Time will tell.
[quick edit for hitting post instead of preview]
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Robert Rapier posted some soil loss numbers yesterday from a Byron King article and, after some initial confusion, I think we all agreed that Byron's estimates for soil loss (King quotes a reader who reports that "The annual yield of one bushel of corn is at the sacrifice of 1,800 pounds of topsoil down the wind and the river due to erosion.”) were much too high.
Later, airdale seemed to insinuate that none of us knew what we were talking about, that soil erosion was a problem of the past and that by bringing up the subject, we were defaming the farming community. So, I dug this up from a text book that I have and hope that it is useful to someone here at TOD.
The book is an update of a classic -- The Nature and Properties of Soils, 12th edition, by Nyle C. Brady and Ray W. Weil. 1999.
The book then goes on to talk about the Conservation Reserve Program:
A table from the same book publishes numbers from USDA-NRCS website (1994 numbers) that indicate that, overall, between 1982 and 1992, annual soil losses on all US croplands were reduced from 2.75 billions of Mg to 1.88 billions of Mg, a 32% reduction. This is a much smaller percentage reduction than the per hectare numbers in the paragraph above and what I take away from this is that these CRP lands are the most erodible and that if we put them back into production to grow energy crops, we're going to have a problem unless new techniques and cropping systems are developed that reduce the runoff and erosion.
Later, airdale seemed to insinuate that none of us knew what we were talking about, that soil erosion was a problem of the past and that by bringing up the subject, we were defaming the farming community.
I had missed this, so I went back to take a look. Airdale had written:
Topsoil is being lost to corn farming? Robert how do you know this?
How much? Where? I don't have the figures but they shouldn't be hard to discover.
How do I know? My family grows corn. I live in a river valley where corn is grown. I can see the runoff myself, and I can see the dust kicked up when it is windy. So topsoil is certainly being lost. As I stated, the question is "How much?" I did not realize that you had asked for figures, but it looks like some pretty good references were provided above. Corn is well-known as one of the most erosive crops, because a typical corn field doesn't have much ground cover over the soil. I also agree with the post above that the land set aside in the CRP tends to be more prone to erosion, but the current ethanol push will encourage that land to be taken out and planted in corn. Hence, the erosion issue is likely to get worse.
On a related topic, I am working on a new TOD essay. It will be a rundown on all the major biofuel options, including a comparison to fossil fuels. As I see it, here are the most important considerations:
1. Is the energy source sustainable?
2. What are the potential negative externalities of producing/using this energy source?
3. What is the EROEI?
4. Is it affordable?
5. Are there better alternatives?
6. Are there other special considerations?
7. In summary, are the advantages of the source large enough to justify any negative consequences?
I will attempt to answer these questions for the various options. I understand that several of those questions are loaded, and will mean different things to different people. But I am wondering if I have overlooked any major considerations that should be taken into account. Presently, I am looking at fossil fuels, grain ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. I may add in some non-liquid options, as I believe those are actually the most promising.
Thanks a bunch.
Did you happen to take a look at "Ethanol From Biomass: Can It Substitute for Gasoline?" from a forthcoming book by Michael McElroy, a professor of environmental studies at Harvard University.
http://www-as.harvard.edu:16080/people/faculty/mbm/Ethanol_chapter1
Dr. McElroy's Chapter 12 contains one of the best ethanol investigations published to date.
The harvard professor covers all the contentious issues and as many of you should note, Dr. McElroy was the author of 'The Ethanol Illusion' which appeared in Harvard Magazine and was discussed here at TOD last month.
Impressed with both works, my only concern stems from 1) the lack of analysis on thermo-chemical production paths and 2) using a conservative 4 tons per acre of biomass as a baseline for cellulose feedstocks.
At any rate, Chapter 12 is a very, very good summation and the professor gives the oft referenced Patzek&Pimental a fair shake in this investigation, however, I couldn't help but chuckle at the following:
"They disputed also Pimentel and Patzek’s approach to estimating the energy embedded in farm machinery and dismissed out of hand their decision to charge for the energy included in the food consumed by farm laborers. On this latter point, we would agree without question: after all, farm workers have to eat whether or not they are involved in cultivating and harvesting corn!"
Laughs aside, I would like to address the conclusion reached in this investigation -insofar as corn ethanol EROEI is concerned- which was as follows:
"As best we can tell with current data, the energy balance is mildly positive, by 20% or so, in agreement with conclusions reached earlier by Farrell et al (2005)."
In light of this statement, I would respectfully encourage the TOD community to adopt and adjust to the fact that corn ethanol is a net energy winner -irrespective of personal emotives- therein allowing the spirited (wink wink) ethanol discussions we've had here at TOD, the much needed opportunity to move to a higher level.
In light of this statement, I would respectfully encourage the TOD community to adopt and adjust to the fact that corn ethanol is a net energy winner -irrespective of personal emotives- therein allowing the spirited (wink wink) ethanol discussions we've had here at TOD, the much needed opportunity to move to a higher level.
A net energy winner, eh? So, we consume 1.0 BTUs to produce 1.2, presuming we count some animal feed as BTUs. You would concede then that ethanol is mostly just recycled fossil fuel? The net here was 0.2 BTUs, which among all energy sources is pretty terrible. But, in a preview of the essay I am working on, we get a lot of negative externalties. Here is a portion that I copied from my essay:
In my opinion, these are negative externalities just as serious as those posed by fossil fuel usage. Yet this is the alternative that we are scaling up just as fast as we possibly can. The real problem is that the negative externalities don't directly and immediately impact most people's lives, so they pay no heed to them. Sure, increased ethanol production might cause atrazine levels in drinking wells to increase, but it's in someone else's water. I doubt anyone personally affected by this is going to consider it an acceptable externality.
From above, it seems that, as an energy generator, ethanol is very marginal.
If true, it is almost frightening to see how popular it is and how many seem to be banking on it.
Fairly scary.
It's frightening to hear politicians talking about corn and ethanol as "energy sources".
The sun is the source.
You and I agree that the world faces a liquid transportation fuel crisis. Said crisis is essentially a collective petroleum dependency that coupled with GW, threatens to destroy our way of life unless we -North Americans in particular- peform the largest petroleum triage the world has ever seen.
The 'scalpels' if you will, simply must be measured in terms of petroleum input reduction and of all the 'scalpels' at our disposal (conservation being far & away the largest) ethanol is in fact one of them and that includes corn ethanol.
Yes - Dr. McElroy states "a 20% or so" increase in the EROEI of corn ethanol, however, if you want to get picky, his work does not include the progress that is being made to move corn ethanol away from all fossil inputs at companies such as E3, Panda, Okanogan etc. Moreover, did anyone notice what happened in Iowa recently where the successful bid went to the ethanol plant operator that will cogen ops with the local waste disposal?
Yes - GM corn production is one of the most enviromentally destructive crops in the USA but 80% of the product goes to feed factory farmed, hormone enhanced and now 'EPA Approved' cloned animals. Do you think Patzek would seriously consider supporting the position that corn production for ethanol is worse for the environment than corn production for meat? I highly doubt it.
My position is thus...
Corn ethanol is a 1st generation production path that will support 2nd and 3rd generation paths as part of an integrated biorefinery strategem.
Corn ethanol should be made from organic feedstocks - this increases EROEI by 30%, reduces FF inputs by 30% and saves the environment for a win-win-win.
The 51 cent subsidy should be removed, however, subsidies should exist for 2nd and 3rd gen processes.
E85 is a terrible fuel delivery vehicle (at this stage).
FFVs are a terrible fuel use platform and a complete waste of time - BPHEVs are the way to go.
That said, I look forward to your essay as always.
You might add a section called "Will the public buy it?"
We have had ethanol in Canada for a long time. The two closest gas stations to my home both sell it. Ethanol is 81¢/liter, regular unleaded is 80¢/liter. Unless ethanol completely replaces regular unleaded at the pumps, there isn't much of an incentive to buy it, other than feeling good about going green. While this ethic may be coming, we are not quite there yet.
If you can find any pricing information on ethanol at the pumps and the market share it is getting in competition with regular unleaded it might be illuminating.
If you can find any pricing information on ethanol at the pumps and the market share it is getting in competition with regular unleaded it might be illuminating.
John, I do cover that. Yesterday's spot price for ethanol on the West Coast was $2.15/gal. Regular unleaded spot in the same location was $1.46/gal. Since ethanol has only about 63% of the BTU value, it will take $2.16/0.63, or $3.43 of ethanol to drive the same distance as $1.46 of gasoline will take you. Therefore, before subsidies, tax breaks, etc. distort the market value, ethanol is over twice the price per BTU as gasoline.
Here in the U.S., though, the market share is mandated. This year it will be at least 4.7 billion gallons of ethanol, due to federal mandates, regardless of the price.
Thank you Robert,
I just want to make sure I understand this the way the average consumer will. Is it your opinion that, due to the federal mandate and subsidies, ethanol will cost less at the pump than unleaded regular?
I think I will check to see what has happened with ethanol sales in Canada, where ethanol is more expensive than regular.
Is it your opinion that, due to the federal mandate and subsidies, ethanol will cost less at the pump than unleaded regular?
Historically, the spot price has been about $0.50 higher than gasoline, but the subsidy brings it down to parity. But we are seriously overbuilding ethanol capacity in the U.S. right now - well beyond the mandated levels. What I foresee is a potential collapse in ethanol prices unless the mandated levels are bumped up. I expect that this increased mandate will happen in order to protect the industry. Corn prices, on the other hand, will remain high because while there may be a glut of ethanol, there will certainly not be a glut of corn. Ethanol producers will have to bid against each other for these corn supplies, so I see steady upward pressure on corn prices.
The other consideration is what happens with fossil fuels' pricing. If natural gas started to become more expensive, ethanol would have to follow because it contains so much embodied natural gas. Diesel and gasoline will affect it as well, but to a lesser extent.
Bottom line? If ethanol producers can secure enough corn to run all of the production currently being built, ethanol prices will collapse within the next year or so unless the mandated amount is increased. My understanding is that President Bush will probably call for an increased mandate in his upcoming State of the Union address.
Re: "There will certainly not be a glut of corn."
As a corn farmer I'm delighted to here this. It goes against my experience of at least 50 years of watching the corn supply. It's a funny thing how I've heard since I can remember how the topsoil is being lost to erosion. Yet the corn yield keeps setting records as well as the total amount produced. Could it be that soil erosion has little relationship to yield?
IMO corn for ethanol will come from dramatically reduced exports and hopefully a collapse of the factory hog farms. Cattle can survive on the switch grass capable land. It is ridiculous to export corn for $3.00/bu. at the Port of New Orleans, as has been happening until recently. That same corn is worth $7.00 when burned in a corn stove and about $6.00 when converted to ethanol. When the necessary shift in usage takes place, I expect there to be a corn "glut" just as there is a oil "glut" at the moment and the price of corn will fall. Hopefully not all the way back to $2.00 though.
There is concern that there will actually be a glut of high-protein feed on the market due to US corn ethanol production.
"Bill Tierney is executive vice-president of research and marketing for John Stewart and Associates, based in Washington, D.C. Tierney estimates total DDGS produced in the U.S. could top 34 million short tons within 2 years, if all ethanol capacity is being used. Add in 42 million tons of soybean meal in the U.S. alone, and North America is headed for a protein glut."
http://www.agcanada.com/custompages/stories_story.aspx?mid=191&id=1058
"Could it be that soil erosion has little relationship to yield>"
Good summary of the standard farmer position. Yield is everything. Let's not think about erosion, let's not talk about erosion, you keep bringing up erosion you must be a MF city slicker who needs to skedaddle fore I git mah gun.
Midwest farming started out with some of the richest soil in the world. Just because it hasn't been used up yet is no reason not to be concerned. I grew up on a small farm in central Illinois (Loda) and our corn/soybean fields had worse quality soil than the couple acres we had fenced in as a permanent horse pasture. The difference in soil quality was most readily apparent in the better ability of the horse pasture to both absorb and retain moisture. In very heavy rains the pasture was less prone to flooding. In periods of drought the pasture was still a little green long after the soybeans and corn had turned brown.
The soil from the horse pasture was black and rich. It grew a fine yield of alfalfa and clover without additional fertilization, herbicides or pesticides. The other fields had a crusty, cracked gray surface and the corn and beans required a lot of inputs to yield well. Every few years yields would be off dramatically due to too much or too little rain. The topsoil on the crop fields was still a couple feet thick. It was just depleted of decaying organic matter.
When the topsoil gets thin water management will become a much bigger problem. Beneath ours we had thick dense clay. In other places they have rock which would be even worse.
John, do you mean ethanol as a blend? I know of only 2 E85 stations in the country and unless you're in Ottawa...
I'm in Ottawa. I've just spent a very few minutes looking at the ethanol situation in Canada but it bears a full investigation. Drummond Gas supplies ethanol to Ottawa and I'm beginning to gather it is a 10% blend which increased the octane rating slightly for the extra penny.
I was also surprised to learn in my brief search that E85, which is 85% ethanol, requires a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) engine. The engine monitors, in some way that I will investigate, the ethanol/air mixture injected into the engine. It wont surprise me if I find out ethanol is very altitude sensitive. I don't know how many of these FFVs are around, in Canada or the US.
The last thing I was interested to find out in my brief search is that ethanol in Canada is made from wheat, not corn. Not so surprising after a moment's reflection. They can use wheat that is damaged, or otherwise unfit for human consumption. Wheat that probably would have gone to the feedlot.
Give me a few days and I'll write up what I can find out about ethanol in Canada. Prime Minister Steven Harper has announced an initiative for 5% of fuel to be from renewables by 2010. I'll be interested to learn just how feasible that is. With only one supplier in Canada at this point, it sounds ambitious. Probably just a knee jerk reaction to recently ex-Environment Minister Ambrose getting skinned alive at the Global Warming summit in Africa.
I have worked on equipment(the software and networking side) for a Chyrsler dealership.
Since moderns vehicles constantly monitor and enormous range of engine sensors and feedback systems altering the bandwidth and timing of the injectors is extremely simple.
Most automobile owners are unaware of just how sophisticated the systems are in their automobiles. Remotely and via wireless networking on the CAN vehicles I can start the engine, rev the engine, monitor every single readout possible, turn any light on and off, run the wipes and the list goes on and on. All the while I am hooked to the desktop where in an instant I can relay the data to a remote tech site , download flash updates, install same and again check performance, view the VIN history and all past repairs and work performed as well as monitor for meeting EPA requirements on emissions.
This is technology at its very best. I can also let the onboard tech tool stay in vehicle as the owner drives and he presses a pushbutton to take snapshots of all the data available WHEN a failure occurs plus total logging of the data.
CAN is for 2004 and above but the predecessor tools and systems were just as complex but now its in the form of a bus controlled environment. Much of this is Linux based BTW.
airdale
LOL thanks John but I'm in Canada already and well-versed on the topic. Stoney over at TOD Canada might like a nice write up though =]
Indeed I would :)
John, do include the biofuel superplant that the Carlyle group will build in Alberta. It'll shine a great light on biofuels in Canada.
Biofuel complex planned for Alberta
You really want James Baker and George H.W. and their buddies from one of the world's biggest arms dealers to come in and make you greener, nothing could make you feel better. Could it?
Try find some more on this morally elevated project, if you can.
Give us a couple of months and Steven Harper may be looking for a job. Maybe he can head it up.
Should be a good essay.
One of the limiting factors that likely falls into your #1 and #2 is: water. You did not explicitly mention water issues above but I hope they are in your thoughts.
An aside... WSJ's current coverage of the oil price slide contains some phrases that are remarkably similar to your words in the ever-continuing WT vs. RR jousting on SA production.
from this morning's WSJ: "High Prices Prod
Developed World to Curb Oil Use"
Robert,
I just drove to town and took the long way back home. Over many fields that I had involvement with as far as the combining,scouting and hauling the corn out of.
The stubble is still on the fields. The stalks were flayed quite effectively by the blades mounted on the discharge chute of the combines. The cobs were still in evidence and a lot of grass and other forms of vegetation had established themselves over the fields.
We recently had 6 inches of rain over a 5 day period. The ground is totally saturated as is my fields.
What did I see? No signs of erosion. Wind erosion IMO only occurs when the topsoil is exposed.
We call this 'dirty farming' and thats due to the stubble , beans stalks and wheat chaff and stems we leave on the ground. This IMO provides excellent coverage for the soil.
In the spring I sometimes take many soil samples and so trudge and drive over many acres, or have done so more in the last two years. Don't intend to this year BUT I can see if there is erosion. I will see the small gullies.
When the operators run the tillage equipment and I run the tractors over these fields in the spring it will be even more obvious.
Not to doubt that your family farms and raises corn but I am in the middle of thousands of acres of corn,wheat and bean fields. This is what I see.
We don't have the constant winds like out on the plains and prairies.
So if there does exist this fairly large amount of erosion then I ask how they manage to deal with it? How do they make meaningful crops?
I went thru Oklahoma last year on my bike to Tulsa. I stopped and spent some time with an old Navy buddy. He was a native Okie. He said that crops are now shot in Oklahoma. The drought has killed them and the wells are dry and Oklahoma was being scorched. This and similiar areas may be where the erosion is taking place. Its not happening that I can see in the western 1/3 of Kentucky. We make better yields than the national average of 147 or so. We generally run up to 175-185. Thats what we did last year ,where the 16 rain fall in the harvest didn't drown out the crops. Good hill ground(likely to erode but doesn't if cared for) yielded those numbers.
My soil is loess and a silt loam. If you leave it bare it will run off like melted butter. You do NOT leave you soil bare then. Yet it achieves very good results with fertilizer and has no hardpan to speak of.
I have owned land in Missouri. It is a mess except for the bootheel and the northern parts. Above the Missouri.
I have relatives in Illinois and friends who farm. This is really flat land. How can it erode from water? I dont' see it. They plant trees for windbreaks as well. They get very good yields and land I hear is going for $5,000/acre.
I disagree with your statement that corn is erosive. Corn stalks and the other residue makes excellent cover. With huge rains and flash flooding it can wash in low lying areas. What I saw today, since I was watching due the discussion here and what I have seen in the past is good control of erosion. Nationwide I cannot speak to since these are my own observations and that of many operators who farm very large parcels.
Perhaps the rest of the country has something to learn from us poor backwoods skoal-dipping rednecks. I do believe that we had a large part in the emergence of no-till farming. The Univ of Ky has some very good men in the field and in the labs.
Time permitting I will speak to somee of them on this subject and garner some more information.
There you go, don't leave the soil nekkid any more than you'd leave yourself nekkid.
No-till farming is what I was talking about, cool that you guys have been pioneers in popularizing it.
Cool stuff!
So if there does exist this fairly large amount of erosion then I ask how they manage to deal with it? How do they make meaningful crops?
You can get away with unsustainable practices for a while in some cases. If you had several feet of topsoil to begin with, you could deal with erosion for a long time before you have a problem. But in some cases with thin topsoil to begin with, the problems may manifest themselves much sooner.
I went thru Oklahoma last year on my bike to Tulsa. I stopped and spent some time with an old Navy buddy. He was a native Okie. He said that crops are now shot in Oklahoma. The drought has killed them and the wells are dry and Oklahoma was being scorched. This and similiar areas may be where the erosion is taking place.
FYI, I was born and raised in Oklahoma, and that is where my family presently farms and raises cattle. I don't know of anyone around who ever practiced no-till farming. The family farm is very close to the Red River, which has its name because of the red color caused by soil erosion into the river.
I currently live in Montana (for 1 more week) and I drive by 2 large corn fields every day. Currently, they are covered with snow, but when the corn is harvested each year they are bare dirt (and this is the case for at least 6 months of the year). This area tends to be very dry (they irrigate from the Yellowstone River) so I see a lot of dust blowing across those fields.
I have relatives in Illinois and friends who farm. This is really flat land. How can it erode from water?
Water still has to run off. Ground without cover will let dirt flow with it.
I disagree with your statement that corn is erosive.
That's pretty firmly established through a number of studies. In fact, I have read several accounts of the actual depth of soil loss in Iowa (I read about an old church that is now several feet above the surrounding corn fields).
Robert, with all due respect to you and airdale, it seems to me that you both are talking past one another to support your own contentions. I think you both have some interesting points. Specifically I agree that corn is a very errosive crop, as studies have shown as much. That said, I believe airdale's mention of different cultivation techniques may have some merit. Specifically is the terrible erosion being experienced in some areas only due to corn cultivation or is also due to the cultivation techniques. By employing different methods of cultivation and actively trying to stem erosion through the establishment of wind breaks and other measures is it possible that the current erosion could be vastly reduced, even without changing to a different crop? It seems to me this issue may not be only black and white.
As far as biofuels are concerned, I am not very optimistic about them in general. In fact, I do not understand the fixation on biofuels or even the fixation on liquid fuels in general. I am afraid that we are concentrating (and will concentrate) on these sorts of fuels simply because liquid fuels are what we are accustomed to. From what I have read, the efficiency of growing any sort of crops for biofuel is much, much lower than using that same area to generate energy using PV panels. As an added bonus you can put solar out in the middle of the desert, and not just PV but also solar thermal, with basically no water requirements at all, save perhaps for cleaning purposes.
The comparison between these two forms of harvesting solar energy really does not seem close at all, and from what I have read from you in the past I believe we may be more or less on the same page here. One curiosity I do have is how making hydrogen from PV would stack up against biofuels. While being less efficient than using it to power batteries, it would be interesting to know how it stakes up against the production of ethanol or biodiesel. It might make a worthwhile addition to your essay on these issues.
I understand that several of those questions are loaded, and will mean different things to different people. But I am wondering if I have overlooked any major considerations that should be taken into account. Presently, I am looking at fossil fuels, grain ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. I may add in some non-liquid options, as I believe those are actually the most promising.
Hi Robert, I look forward to your essay. Can I make a request/or suggestions?
1) It would be nice if the energy inputs were broken down by type (avg. crude oil, coal , NG) for the EROEI part of your analysis. The more I research I do, and the more commentary read on the net, particularly in the peak oil forums - the more I realize there are some major misconceptions regarding the energy input for these liquid fuels.
2) The current political agenda (ie supporting the parts of the industry via subsidies) and also the current negative stigma associated with diesel (in the US) could be addressed. I see both of these as potential road blocks in selecting the most efficient process since the biodiesel process looks to have a better return, as well as diesel motors being more efficient. People would be amazed at the gas mileage of what a Volkswagon TDI can get. Mabye these items go in the special considerations portion of your essay
3) Current trends in the industry. I've read several pieces of analysis addressing increasing efficiencies in the future, how they are being improved, what we can expect in the future, etc
If you don't have time or the access to some of this information I understand - just some random thoughts I had when I read your comment
airdale seemed to insinuate that none of us knew what we were talking about
Airdale also thinks the Hydrinos exist.
What is a Hydrino?
Sounds like something in shampoos or a face cream.
''Here comes the science!'' - as they said in the shampoo advert...
Hydrino Mudlogger asks:
A scientist by the name of Dr. Randell Mills has been working on a process whereby he claims to reduce the ground state of an electron in a simple hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom has one electron and one proton in its nucleus.
Others contend that the electron cannot do so and dismiss his process.
He claims that he can demonstrate this easily and has applied for patents which others who dispute his claim have been able to have squashed. As the electron assume a closer state huge amounts of power are released and a new element is created. Others have been able to use some of his techniques and report success. A rocket engine is one. Plasma is produced as well. He uses a catalyst to create the new state.
You can read about it at
www.blacklightpower.com
As to the truth? I am uncertain. He does not care to release his methods until he has had success himself else the rest of the community will just take it and run. The scientist say that he should be open and aboveboard but its obvious to anyone that scientist are many times beholden to corporations and would simply steal or do a workaround and rip him off. They ask for openness but they lie like weasels...at least many do so he goes about perfecting his processes. None have been able to stop him as yet. Some have seen the experiments and say they are real.
Dr. Mills is apparently proposing to extract some useful work from some sort of ultraviolet catastrophe that takes place in his alternative universe.
In the universe I live in, there are no such easy exceptions to the conservation of mass/energy.
POT:
Good research. Wish that I had time to do some myself but I don't. I do walk the fields and drive them as well. I see the wind and rain and judge its effects on mine and others.
What is the loss then per bushel of corn , if you can make the data produce such a value? 1,800 is not correct then? High , low or what?
Land areas being classified as HEL(highly erodable land) are required to have special handling. Of course if you had land that was not worth putting into production and the FSA asked for your CRP then you would not give them your prime land fields or areas.
A lot of our land is very rolling where I live and have my farm. I did have some HEL so I just quit farming it since it would erode without a good grass cover. I used it for horse and cattle pasture instead but did not apply it to CRP.
Its wise the farm good laying fields and use the other for cattle or just not farm it since the return isn't worth the cost. Those fields that are more rolling can be farmed but must be farmed carefully.
Again farmers will not lease or rent or share land that is eroded. They can't make a profit and just end up increasing the soil fertitlity for the owner. By the time they have improved the land the landowner might just sell it or move to someone else. So you have a big loss due to inputs exceeding outputs.
The bottom line is you need to take care of your fields. Keep the weeds under control. Keep the fertility up. Don't let it erode.
All this is obvious yet with the hue and cry about soil losses one would think that each year our crop productions would be dropping and dropping until we had a situation such as in Africa with drought and all the top soil destroyed.
Instead IMO(note IMO) what I believe is that we increase production as long as it is profitable to do so with the costs that must be born.
I see poor wornout farms on ocassion and I scout a lot of land. Those farms no operator wishs to farm on. They must lie fallow. They need to be sowed down and left to return to a better condition.
If the farmers were destroying land it would be obvious and the ag universities would be broadcasting that fact.
Farming is a very variable and hard to define endeavor. I submit that its far from what the common conception is in the public venue. Its takes a lot of experience to do sucessfully and believe me that I know some who make a very very good living from it. They wouldn't be able to if they were raping the topsoil.
Now there is water erosion along the creek banks and rivers. Soil is lost due to extremely heavy rains. Thats why we put grassy strips along with the crops to prevent this. Many are farming far better than their forefathers.
I would be interested in what conclusions you derive from those numbers you posted or have at hand.
So yes,,putting HEL and CRP back into production is not wise. IMO and from my observations.
It sickens me to look on bare ground and see rain erode it. I disced out all those areas on my farm long ago and kept them sowed down.
One year I grew a stand of orchard grass and Keenland Red Clover that was so rank and thick that the ag extension agent could not walk thru it. I baled it at a slow walking pace. I couldn't sell enough of it.
You can over fertilize. I did that time but it was cheap then.
Currently with the very large costs of fertilizer you must use what you buy with a great deal of care. That is why soil sampling saves you money. Why variable rate fertilizer is worthwhile. Its not totally accepted everywhere but its coming.
I have the ability to burn a PCMCIA card with the exact nutrient requirements for the varying levels of P,K and lime for each field. This card plugs into the TerraGator or variable rate spreader and then delivers just the precise amount required of each nutrient.
One size doesn't fit all though. Farming is a 'practice' as much as a skill. Sometimes the ag profs are wrong. Most times they are right. You have to listen and then plan.
Input Costs that I promised.
Hybrid Seed corn, Non-GMO,(no BT or RR) --- approx $106
GMO is more like $150
Anhydrous Ammonia approx $47 acre
Dry Fert 9.23.30 approx $100 acre
The above three items are required but cost is variable
With a seed populatioin of 30,000 kernels per acre and 80,000 per bag
then you can seed 2.6 acres at a cost of $67 / acre
$67 + $47 + $100 = $214
This does not include herbicides nor insecticides. It does not include
cost of diesel fuel.
It doesn't include cost of equipment, cost of combining nor hauling.
I gave $200/acre earlier and I believe that on the average its good for 2006 and maybe 2007(if costs for product do nor rise).Each year is different and increases steadily.
It also does not include cost of land or rent nor cost of labor.
The farmer/operator must send his kids to school, feed his family, pay his insurance , pay his taxes, build his farm buildings, pay for his families food, purchase new equipment,upgrade current equipment.
A new combine can cost $250,000 not counting the header.
A good tractor perhaps $35,000 or more.
Tillage equipment.
Lots more.
airdale
Hi airdale,
you asked...
"What is the loss then per bushel of corn , if you can make the data produce such a value? 1,800 is not correct then? High , low or what? "
I can't give you an answer but I think it's safe to say that 1800 lb/bu corn is an awfully high number. As you may know, most erosion estimates are not direct measurements but are derived using something like the revised universal soil-loss equation or RUSLE. If I am not mistaken, most modern soil surveys include erosion estimates by soil type and slope class and these would be your best estimates. Such information can be had for almost any location in the US by contacting your county agent or local USDA-NRCS field office.
You sound like someone who has accumulated a lot of valuable experience and who knows the value of a good piece of land. Thanks for your perspective.
-- Tarzan
Yes, this is usefull to me, as well as the responses to it.
As I commented yesterday, conservation tillage and enrollment of marginal land are our best current methods to fight soil erosion. They are not complete, ie too much erosion still is occcurring, but nowhere today near an average of 135 ton/acre for corn.
That said, rates are highly variable, depending on the field, time of year and precipitation event. Water erosion rates I'm familiar with are most often measured in the streams, by sampling the bedload and suspended sediment loads on as close to a continuos basis as practible, then extrapolating these values to the area of the watershed. With budgetary constraints, significant loss events can be missed, especially in the summer, for budget restraints push the majority of sampling to spring and high runoff. There are conversion factors to mitigate this. It's easy to see how a particular watershed may get these high rates.
Some factors relating to the increased demand for corn relating to etoh as I see it. The "new soil bank"-the set aside programs. There are 3 major ones, the CRP-Conservation Reserve, WRP, Wetland reserve, and the GRP, grassland reserve, I am familiar with 2. With CRP and GRP, contracts are set for 10-15 years, with penalties including payback of all previous money should a grower opt out. So I don't forsee an immediate problem due to high corn prices in the short term. Prices will have to stay high, and remain there, for a big change to occur. With WRP, the land is in most cases permanently withdrawn. It consists of 2 programs, one forever, the other for 25 years. IMO, this program is extremely biased to the government and would have better enrollment if terms were changed. However, the funds set aside for this program are so small that expansion does not seem to be an aim.
In my experience, the limited funding available for these programs has resulted in too many instances where the most powerful farmers in the county, not the most marginal land, reap the greatest number of contracts. Farmin' the government, we call it. Still, I think these programs are a great investment for our nation.
With conservation tillage, the earliest methods include contour farming, terrace strips and alternate fallow. (Most areas of the "Golden Triangle" in MT will alternate strips of land hundreds of feet wide by a half mile or more in length to preserve mostly moisture, and soil. In effect, only half of a farmers land will be in production in any year) Our newer tillage ideas may run into trouble with PO and increased etoh demand. With the dominant one, no-till, the erosion stoppage is considerable, but comes with a price of high herbicide cost. Without tillage, weed infestations are very high. There are degrees of no till, and other minimum till systems to leave more stubble and soil binding organic matter which minimize the more negative aspects of no till.
We agree. Varying soil classifications. Type of land and other factors indicate what practices one will use. The weather aspect also plays its role.
Those who would farm creek bottom ground had better be very familiar with the propensities of this type of ground or they will incur bad decisions resulting in low yields and loss of profits.
Most farmers around here share knowledge but some refuse to listen and learn the hard way. Also farmers are very communicative. All the time we are working the land we are chatting on the business band(vhf,uhf) and cellphones with other farmers as to what they see and do. (I also maintain the radio systems we use since I am a ham and electronics technican as well as com/nav avionics trained).
Yes no-till has a preemergence and burndown program yet the weed growth can have beneficial side effects as well. I assume it prevents further erosion during the spring rains as well as adds tilth to the soil.
The ethanol breakout is going to be bloody IMO. The plants around here are going up real fast and I believe the hits on 3rd world food supplies are not going to be pleasant.
BTW has your FSA offices gone to full GIS as yet like ours has?
This ties in very nicely with GPS precision farming. Have you known of any using tools like Farm Works?
"BTW has your FSA offices gone to full GIS as yet like ours has?"
Not that I'm aware of. Maybe we're slow. I know it's the push.
I was surprised by a story in one of Deere's magazines this winter which showed a new spreader using GIS technology to broadcast chicken manure. Looked very expensive to me-wasn't a Deere product-I don't know the actual cost. But to me it illustrates a fusion of old traditional ways with the new. Requires a nearby broiler industry, and is touted as returning a load of corn back to the hatchery for cost savings-no empty leg of the trip.
Old Hippie--
Responding to your comment upthread, I'm sure you can find instances of that git mah gun, yield over soil loss attitude, but I doubt it's close to the norm anymore. You can't farm the b and c soil horizons for long without yield decreases or exponential fertilizer bills. Most know this and want to continue farming. The trouble, which pushes both directions, is monumental spring bills must be paid with an unkown future variable-harvest, every year.
Hello TODers,
Good Zimbabwe update with photos in the link below:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-17-04.asp
From the link it states that money is now being issued with an expiration date. I am not an economist, but doesn't that add to Zim's terrible inflation problems?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Money with an expiration date? That sounds like a step toward demurrage, as described by Mike Hearn.
Though with the kind of inflation they have, I guess they really don't need incentive to spend it now...
money is now being issued with an expiration date.
People who follow money as a theory claim a benefit. It has to do with money gaining velocity in an economy.
I believe this sites 'library' section has info about why a 'consumable' currency is stimulative.
http://www.appropriate-economics.org/
http://www.complementarycurrency.org/materials.php
Other links on money:
http://www.communitycurrency.org/resources.html
http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/
http://www.solari.com/
http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?StoryId=d2bc4f36-42...
This is really interesting. OPEC points out that two of the largest exporters are hitting a speed bump. CRY WOLF got it right a few weeks when he wrote that NOrway production would be down in 2007 based on HL model despite promises for a 2007 increase. The new forecast from norway is 400,000 barrels lower or about 25% of the anticipated Increase in supplies in 2007.
I was reading Leanan's link to LA traffic woes and found this. It reads like a TBS disaster movie!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-storm19jan19,0,42371...
Yes, I saw that story yesterday. The worst storm in years hit Europe yesterday.
And here in the U.S., yet another snow/ice storm is headed toward Oklahoma. Some people have been without power for weeks.
Someone called it last summer and I'm living it. I'm talking about three power outgates in 6 months and all lasting over 4 days. Gratefully I missed all three so far and didnt lose power. I was in the storm, but I live near a substation, so I think I've been pure lucky so far, but I've had a couple people stay with us for a day or two to help them out.
And meanwhile there are still ppl who think global warming is hooey.
It's not just warmer weather, it's crazy weather as the Earth tries to work out different weather flows. As the flows that have kept the Earth so nice and liveable slow down.
And it's not just one warm winter, it's every freaking winter for the last several years being warmer than the last and setting new records.
Take this cold weather on the West Coast,, sure it was this cold 150 years ago or so, but in the midst of record-breaking warm averages?
I remembered the winter of 68 when I was little being a rainy one, and lots of power outages. That and later poverty has made living without electricity less scary for me than for the average American perhaps, but we're all going to get used to it.....
Although sad for all who died, and the families, it was just a big wind:
In the UK
We loose 3000 people per year in road accidents
We loose above 5000 per year to MRSA in hospitals. Its probably a whole lot more than that, but you know how government agencies lie.
Naah.
This big wind is nothing special.
At least in its effects.
But it IS early.
What concerns me is the almost complete lack of snow and ground frost this year.
For the 20 years I have lived in Scotland, you could count on at least some good snow-days and some deep frost.
England rarely gets a decent winter these days.
I have nephews in England who have never bunked school to go sledging. And that IS sad.
My 80 year old neighbor remembers winters where you got a metre of snow pack from November till March.
Shame. A Winter without snow is like fish and chips without salt and vinegar. Pointless.
Still,its only January.
We had actually 6 deaths in Holland.
But it wasn't really that bad, beaufort 10, not 12....
It's not pretty. But 1987 was far, far worse. And 1990 wasn't pretty either.
I think we will see far more of these events going forward. Batten down the hatches, as they say.
Last evening's BBC news featured a report on this storm that showed pedestrians in London holding onto lamp posts and street signs to avoid being blown down...
Hello TnGranny,
I am assuming you are in Europe by your post, but your name suggests Tennessee? Anyhow, how did the windturbines handle the storm-- massive damage or no big deal? For example: did huge blades break off and go flying through neighborhoods at 75 mph? Inquiring minds want to know! Thxs for any reply from you or other TODers from the across the pond.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello Bob,
I am actually an anglophile living in TN,. I just watch the BBC news most evenings since they have a slightly different cast on things.
Editorial: A monolithic view of energy
By the way, the author of this editorial is a former employee of ExxonMobil...
^/\swco
Yeah and he is there to spread the word that Peak Oil and Global Warming are just bunk. So, not really surprising IMO.
The WSJ has piece on demand dropping including:
This all raises big questions and observations, first on how accurate the numbers are, as good as they get I suppose. Second, there's been a great concerted effort in the last 6 months to talk down the price of oil in the financial markets. Have things been impacted by falling demand as opposed to increased production? If there was a decrease in demand in developed countries was this conscience effort or to decreasing economic activity? Finally if prices goes below $40 that will end a lot of alternative oil activity.
This combined with only slight growth in global demand, combined with shrinking US demand all adds up to a very striking picture that deserves extensive comment here.
It calls into question the image of runaway global demand smashing heedlessly into a wall of supply constraint.
Humans are smarter than yeast.
You're right — the world oil quantity demanded does deserve extensive comment here. Working on it.
Good to hear.
I'm a slow squeezer like your editor, Stuart Staniford. Can you get him to comment on these data?
Dave,
I am delighted to see that you used precisely the correct phrase: "quantity demanded."
"Quantity demanded" refers to the amount that will be willingly purchased at a particular price. Its meaning is much clearer than "demand" which refers to different quantities demanded over a range of prices.
A+ on your economics quiz for today;-)
Asebius: It also calls into question the assumed strong link between oil supply/consumption and economic growth (by this metric the USA has had no economic growth since 2004).
Definitely. But at the same time, as I expect Dave Cohen will point out soon, consumption of other forms of energy are rising.
The really interesting question is whether can you get economic growth with total energy stable or falling a bit.
Tall order, but I think that's possible too, for a year or two at a time, but not as a pattern.
I would go farther and say it is absolutely possible if you look at net energy gain in order to include gains in efficiency and reduction of waste. We waste a lot of power now. Everyone who leave their lights running, or their computer running is just flushing power and by connection fossil fuels down the drain. Between increases in efficiency, including higher MPG cars, power saving appliances, more consiencious use of power, and also additional alternative sources of energy, I believe that we can continue to experience economic growth even in the face of a decline of fossil fuel.
The idea that energy = growth and thus more energy is required for more growth is highly flawed. Energy is used to create growth, but it is not growth itself. If one can achieve twice the output on a given amount of energy (such as driving a car that gets 50 MPG rather than 25) then you can come to two conclusions: 1) energy use could halve without suffering any sort of contraction, 2) output could be doubled without increasing energy usage. Somewhere in the middle you get to the sweet spot where you have some small amount of growth while also seeing declining energy use.
In the very long term that trend cannot be sustained because at some point fossil fuels will run out completely or we will reach the point of diminishing returns on efficiency and conservation. However in the long run the alternative energy base will eventually grow large enough that overall energy production will level off and indeed start to increase again.
History suggests the answer is yes.
In the US, total energy consumed started dropping in 1980 and didn't surpass 1979 until 1988 (link), yet (real) GDP grew by 25% in that time (link). Again in the US, per capita energy use is about 5% lower now than it was in 1979, yet per capita (real) GDP is 60% higher (same links).
It's valid to wonder how much of this is due to off-shoring energy-intensive industries, and doubtless that plays a role. As this graph from the EIA shows, though, per capita energy consumption has been remarkably stable in the US for more than 20 years, so the loss of a few energy-intensive industries can't be the whole story.
In a country with a relatively stable population, this suggests that energy consumption could be held constant while economic growth continued. Germany, for example, has seen essentially no increase in energy consumption in the last 15 years (link), but has seen (real) GDP growth of 25% in that time (link).
So historical and contemporary evidence suggests that it is indeed possible to have economic growth with no growth in energy consumption.
I don't think that applies in the age of globalization. Since the '70s oil crisis, energy-heavy industry has been moving close to energy sources (which generally means outside of developed countries like the U.S.). It's global demand that counts.
WSJ Article on Reduced Oil Consumption
A simple explanation:
As Deffeyes predicted world crude oil production fell in 2006 (crude oil = crude + condensate). Through 10/06, average production in 2006 was down by 0.25% over the 2005 average. 10/06 production was down by 0.90% from the 2005 monthly high.
As crude oil production fell, prices rose to the highest (nominal) level in history, as the reduced supplies were auctioned off to the high bidders. We then entered into a (until recently) warm winter, with some oil consumers forced out of the market, resulting in the recent headlines that suggested that we never have to worry about oil supplies again.
Note that the WSJ article used the Total Liquids numbers.
I posed a question up the thread. Why are oil prices quoted in dollars per barrel of light/sweet crude, but volumes are commonly quoted in terms of Total Liquids. Shouldn't we match dollars per barrel of crude oil to bpd of crude + condensate? If we are going to talk about Total Liquids, shouldn't we talk about the prices of crude, propane, butane, Orimulsion, ethanol, etc.?
Many more of those "high bidders" are not from the OECD.
RE the decline in US demand (from Leanan's leading link):
Provides indication that the world biggest oilaholic can react in an orderly fashion to price signals.
I don't think anyone argued that. We have, after all, gone through this before.
The question is how long can we keep doing it. Conservation/increased efficiency works, but Tainter's diminishing returns applies.
For example, the airlines (very smartly, IMO) went from running two engines while taxiing to running only one. But obviously, there's a limit to that strategy. They can't go to zero or negative engines running.
Actually, to save fuel planes can be towed around by small vehicles--in extreme cases, even battery-powered ones can tow a 747 into a headwind, though I do not recommend this practice on a routine basis;-)
There is a company--Chorus, IIRC--which developed a tiny motor that can taxi the aircraft without turbines or external tugs. Concept hasn't caught on yet, so far.
Here:http://www.wheeltug.gi/
Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic is to conduct a trial using 13 of its planes which could cut aviation fuel use and slash carbon dioxide emissions.
By towing its Boeing 747-400 aircraft to take-off areas at London airports during December it said it could save up to two tonnes of fuel per flight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6203636.stm
Exactly.
The WSJ's underlying assumption is that we have infinite energy, in effect that Saudi Arabia is sitting on top of a giant pool of inexhaustible oil, and even to the extent that oil production might, perhaps some day decline, there will always be alternatives that will allow us to maintain something close to our current SUV/Suburban way of life.
Obviously enough, I believe that Deffeyes is correct. Assuming that Deffeyes is right, the problem is that conventional oil production just doesn't drop and then stabilize. It starts dropping and it doesn't stop.
If Deffeyes is correct (and the production data so far suggest that he is), in the next four years, at our current rate of consumption, we will consume 10% of all remaining conventional crude oil supplies.
Historically, natural gas won't be a whole lot of help. US natural gas production peaked three years after oil production peaked.
Deffeyes did predict that the price signal at peak would be disguised by increased volatility...
I do think the "slow squeeze" is the most likely scenario, at least at first. But I have wondered if it might not produce the worst outcome in the long run. Not just catabolic collapse, and all the fun stuff that entails, but the loss of resilience, as described in Stoneleigh's excellent review of The Upside of Down. The more efficient we are now, the less we can cut back (adapt) in the future.
I'm reminded of that study of U.S. bankruptcy that came out a year or two ago. Surprisingly, it found that the people who go bankrupt are not the ones who drink $4 lattes at Starbucks, buy big-screen TVs on the credit cards, and drive new SUVs. Those people, if they hit an unexpected snag (a job loss, illness, etc.), can cut back. They drink coffee at home, stop buying junk with their credit cards, and trade in their monster SUVs for used Corollas. It's the people who aren't "wasting" their money who run into trouble, because if they lose their jobs or have to quit to take care of a sick kid, there's nothing to cut back on.
I think this misses the point. The more effecient we are now the more resilience we have now. I think the value of resilience now is greater than resilience later.
I disagree. Efficiency does not lead to resilience. As Homer-Dixon argues in his book, it leads to the opposite.
Here's another example - what traffic engineers call "commuter traffic." If a road is traveled mostly by commuters, it is very "efficient." That is, it can carry a lot of capacity for its size. That's because commuters drive the same route every day, and are very familiar with the road. They drive fast, even when the traffic is practically bumper-to-bumper, which means you can get a lot of cars through in the minimal amount of time.
The drawback, of course, is that if anything goes wrong, the crash tends to be far worse than you get in ordinary traffic. Because you have a lot of cars, traveling at high speed, packed close together, there's little leeway if something unforeseen happens.
Increasing efficiency is an important tool in attempting to close the gap between what we consume and what we can sustainably produce. If we close the gap our resiliency improves. If we don't close it after increasing efficiency then we have one less tool remaining to solve the problem.
How does one compute the efficiency of the energy consumption of a nation? If we replace every light bulb in Las Vegas with leds or compact flourescents we might make it all 400% brighter for the same amount of energy and Las Vegas might generate more income per watt but it is still gratuitous consumption regardless.
So what is the energy efficiency of the US? I imagine someone will offer up an equation involving GDP and total energy consumption. But does that really mean anything? How much of our GDP is of lasting value? What percentage is the creation of goods that will enrich the lives of our offspring? How much of it ends up in a landfill?
Exactly. And remember, the gap will be ever-widening, as population increases and oil production declines.
Big spenders with big cash flow are just as vulnerable as poor folks when their cash flow is interrupted if they have no savings and no additional borrowing power.
With nations it is much different because it's not generally possible to have a decent GDP without having substantial capital stock to produce it. Individuals can lose all cash flow quite easily whereas complete loss of GDP takes some real doin'.
That's pretty tortured logic. Your analogy is comparing the wrong people.
The person who wastes money is our current circumstances. What we would move towards is not being efficient and having nothing else to cut, rather it would be moving towards being a person who saves money and puts it in the bank. Neither one is in as much trouble if they face adversity. One can cut back, as you mentioned. The other, however, is in the best shape of all as he can not only cut back, but he can continue to pay for things out of savings.
There is no negative to us cutting back and increasing our efficiency, provided we save the money and put it to good use. We won't need to rely on cutting back to save us, we'll rely on savings and investment, which hopefully will also have helped ameliorate the problem in advance.
I agree...to a point. Remember, the families who went bankrupt in that study were putting their money to good use. Most families who found themselves in trouble got into that position because they were paying too much of their income for a house in a neighborhood with good schools. IOW, they were spending their money on a house, and on their children's education. Can't get a better investment than that, right? But it didn't work out for them.
And are we really saving energy and putting it to good use? Or are we using less while more Chinese and Indians buy cars?
Regarding the Indians and Chinese, our cutting back will probably just allowing them to waste energy like the rest of us. That said, we can't worry about everyone else does, but rather we need to get our own house in order. I am less concerned about the Chinese, Indians and other currently developing countries because they are still in the process of building infrastructure. They will be forced to create a more energy efficient society as a result of price.
Also both China and India will be forced to do so as a result of population, they cannot have a completely car-based society like we do, much as Japan has not been able to. Cars are inefficient not only in terms of energy use, but also transportation volume (although in a round about way they are based on the same thing).
My concern is primarily for the United States, not even so much for Europe. Other countries have either had other viable forms of transportation all along or started to move towards them decades in the past. We built the interstate highway infrastructure and that is what we have relied on for the past half a century. We have to move towards something different because what we have is not going to work out without modification in the future.
I guess my view is that we are already behind the game in this country. Nothing we can do in terms of increasing energy efficiency or oil consumption can be too much, because it will almost certainly be too little. What happens worldwide remains to be seen, but if we don't get our own act together it also probably doesn't matter.
Leanan: IMO, what is also happening is that at the median income level (which is most important for energy consumption) the US economy is not growing at all. All the growth is far above the median income level, which raises GDP yet causes less overall energy demand. The Goldman employee making $500000 annually is not going to use 10 times the energy of an average US worker.
Yes. The real squeeze, from Tainter's perspective is not peak oil, but when society can no longer handle the affects.
I confess I don't have a clear idea of what would show we are nearing a breaking point. Probably extreme political turbulence on the order of pre-Civil War days.
But for now, it would seem that 1% decline in consumption and concurrent economic growth are at least possible (with a little help from the weather) without directly meddling with the consumer. That's certainly not a recipe for teeth-grinding dissatisfaction on a large scale.
Maybe we need a Tainter Collapse Clock that we can adjust now and then to keep everybody's blood pressure nicely elevated. :-)
It's when we elect the village idiot to be our leader because only the idiot can keep a straight face and promise the masses that the best is yet to come.
Oops.
That already happened.
I can't wait for Jan. 20th --State of the Addicted to Union Oil Address 2007.
Any predictions?
Will we hear all about:
The Axis Of Oil Evils?
The Let's get Hydrogenated Plan?
The Let's invade Mars Plan?
How about a Post-Peak "Surge"?
Yeah.
That'll do it.
The best is truly yet to come.
From what I've heard...it's going to be ETHANOL WILL SAVE US.
And I guess he'd know. He's got a lot of experience with ethanol...
That sounds spot on.
Why, we'll have an "Ethanol Surge & Purge" Party.
Build a lot of them there fermenting plants.
Drink the stuff up so we can enjoy it a bit.
Surge & Purge.
That's the ticket.
Just like Taladegga Nights.
Call me the ... Magic Man.
I don't think Bush proves much of anything. His election was greatly a fluke, and his reelection was also a fluke. A president as unpopular as Bush was generally is not reelected. The fact that his second term has basically amounted to nothing is because he was a lame duck from day one. A few voters made a big mistake in 2004 and basically wasted four years of the country's time.
The whole surge thing is moronic, but Bush has never operated based on logic. While the American public is plenty dumb as a composite, give them some credit, hardly anyone approves of how Bush is doing things anymore.
Nagorak,
You are right. My apologies. I shouldn't make fun of Junior Bush. He is just a sock puppet for the Masters of our Universe ... for the iron triangle. I just needed some venting space and a target for my projectile expulsion of verbal vomit.
Besides, the iron gauntlet has been passed on to Give them Americans Hell Harry Reid. Harry is the new bearer of the torch for our "new
waydirection forward", for not "cutting and running" from our headlong charge of the light-headed ones towards that cliff.Here are a few excerpts from Reid's State of the Lemming Union speech:
Note: Ah God yes Harry, keep the fires of fear burning baby ...
Doh, I'm confused Harry. Are you for terrorizng the American people or again' it? What is this "transforming" bullshiite? Either you get the troops out or you don't.
Yeah. That sounds like the fierce words of a peace monger. The canary part of my brain detects Mixed Messages coming through again. say it ain't true Harry.
Oops, I left out the most important part.
Harry's closing paragraph:
Say it ain't true Harry.
You're one of 'em, ain't you?
Things we're not supposed to know about Hellacious Harry:
New boss, same as the old boss. (and just as clueless about energy)
'The question is how long can we keep doing it. Conservation/increased efficiency works, but Tainter's diminishing returns applies.
For example, the airlines (very smartly, IMO) went from running two engines while taxiing to running only one. But obviously, there's a limit to that strategy. They can't go to zero or negative engines running.'
And I think this may be the point - other people offer suggestions about how airliners could taxi more efficiently, or other ideas, etc. - and in that context, diminishing returns is completely correct - there does come a barrier in terms of conservation or efficiency.
But my perspective is, why remain fixed? At least for things which are are essential beyond any question - potable water, calories of food, enough clothing/shelter to survive in below freezing weather, etc. - this part of changing the framework is not correct - the substitute for potable water doesn't exist, for example, though how far 'potable' can be stretched is not something for the weak of stomach - in all senses, actually.
But in terms of crossing a continent or an ocean, what is the importance of doing it hours instead of days? Or why use aircraft, when other things will work as well - TGV/ICE trains in Europe have been around more than a decade at this point, and gradually, the work to create a high speed capable rail network (both the Chunnel and the Swiss project being major, long term, and expensive elements) is reaching a realistic end date. Then there is maglev, where it would be imaginable to create the 'tracks'/right of way covered in PV systems, and then having tracks run for such distances over a continental scale that the maglev system would capture a significant percent of the time sunlight is available, both east/west, north/south.
And this is where the forks diverge - whether a continental scale solar run maglev system is more or less 'complex' has little to do with whether it is feasible, or whether it is essentially just a decision made by a society - maybe a good one, maybe a poor one. After all, Europeans actually did something like what I am talking about, the last time the globe was as 'globalized' as it today - and those rail networks were part of the background of WWI and the imperial ambitions being followed by several nations. And it took almost a century for the globe to become as 'globalized' as it was in 1910.
I think in part, this argument about complexity hinges not only on a good definition of complexity and what a collapsing of that complexity means, but also whether the focus is on a choice (air travel versus rail/ship/walking etc) or a necessity (food, potable water).
America is very, very far removed from any debate about necessities - but as a society, it finds its wants to be impossible to distinguish from its needs, meaning that any number of poor choices are the result - Iraq as a gas station comes to mind. And those choices could certainly lead to a reduction in complexity, however defined.
That's kind of my point. That's why I think the "slow squeeze" may be the worst-case scenario.
If we had a bad shock - but not bad enough that we descend into cannibalism or anything like that - it might convince us to make some serious changes while we can. Localization, rail, zero-energy housing, a big push into solar, nuclear or what have you.
But with the slow squeeze, we have little incentive to make that kind of change. The changes we make will be incremental - buying a smaller SUV, not designing communities so you don't have drive. And that will eventually lock us in, because the farther we are down the back slope of Hubbert's peak, the less energy will be available for amelioration.
Hurricane Katrina darkened my outlook considerably. Not just because the response was so poor and the veneer of civilization so thin, but we seem to have taken no lessons from it. For awhile, people worried about gas prices, cut back driving, used smaller cars, etc. But they soon forgot. Gas prices are still pretty high, compared to their historical levels, but after $4/gallon, $2 seems cheap. People who were considering Priuses are back to SUVs.
For the U.S., certainly. But for a number of other societies, the planning which requires decades to implement was started decades ago, because unlike the U.S., those societies are also deeply concerned about the slow squeeze of climate change. Or what at least right now to many here seems like the terrifying future of deadly extremes - though Europeans find 'normal' North American weather to be fairly extreme, and Europe currently seems to be just starting to move in a direction which feels like where I grew up.
Sometimes, it is hard to comprehend just how unique the U.S. is at this point. Which is a different discussion than whether what we consider civilization will master the challenges it has created. In the end, of course it won't - nothing human lasts unchanged over just a moment of geological time.
It's hard to think of any country or political party which was worried about climate change before 1988 (the year of James Hansen's famous testimony to the US Congress).
Can you think of one or name any? I mean besides fringe parties that didn't hold power.
The more proximate threat was of energy shortages. The 1970s were a severe shock to a number of countries that found themselves importing nearly 100% of their energy requirements.
In particular, France responded by a massive 'go nuclear' and by encouraging diesel cars. Sweden responded by driving energy efficiency.
Japan responded by making energy efficiency a national fetish, as well as building nuclear power stations. Hence the supremacy of Toyota hybrid car technology.
Britain was too consumed by the intellectual theology of privatisation, and by what to do with the coal industry. In her face down with the coal miners, Thatcher did spend £5bn or so building our first pressurised water reactor (Sizewell B), but privatisation then prevented any further steps in that direction. She also kicked off the 'dash for gas' which has made us dependent on imported gas for 30% of our power.
And of course we pumped oil and gas from the North Sea as fast as we could extract it.
Public transport was privatised where it could be, leading to falling services and declines in numbers of users. The real price of taking the train has risen by something like 90% since the early 70s, of the bus 50%, whereas the price of motoring has actually fallen.
The only other significant British energy policy, which was more about the Chancellor raising revenue, was very high petrol taxes. But these are like cigarette taxes, they are good revenue generators (consumers are price inelastic) but they don't do much for overall consumption.
That fringe parties not holding power sort of excludes the German Greens, except that they continued to grow over the years, and were to a major extent responsible for forming the energy policy Germany currently follows, from the long term shutting down of nuclear power plants to the generation of energy from renewable sources to increased standards for insulation in buildings.
What I more remember from roughly that time was sea level increase being the major concern, not warming per se - and yes, some countries were very, very concerned about that.
Of course, we know much more now than two decades ago - the global planetary scale climate experiment we are all participating in is still in its very early stages. And a few more people seem to be actually noticing that fact as time goes on.
Dubai: Oasis rises in the desert
Im sure you saw this too.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6277613.stm
Fire in Dubai. It will be a barren land once the crude runs out.
Unless it manages the Singapore/ Hong Kong trick of being so attractive for the business environment and lifestyle it offers, that it is wealthy by its own efforts.
Dubai is a major airport, it is now a significant holiday destination (sunny and warm all year round). It is one of the best places to do business in the Middle East in terms of legal system, protection of investors, corruption (lack of), and general political stability.
That is what the Sheikh was aiming for-- a forward thinker indeed, because he knew his oil would run out, and it had to be foreigners who would develop the economy, the locals don't have the mindset or skillsets.
There are many examples in history of social excesses reaching a sort of maximum level of outrageousness shortly before things turn to shite.
The court of Louis XVI before the French Revolution and the Roaring Twenties right before the Crash are but two examples that immediately come to mind. Dubai seems very determined to follow this model.
Can you just picture how befuddled some future archeologist is going to be when, say 4,000 years hence, he uncovers the Great Pyramid, Eiffel Tower, and Taj Mahal under the sands of Dubai probaby no more than a mile apart from each other! An indoor refrigerated ski slope and underwater restaurant should also cause much speculation on what the hell was going on 'back then'.
The situation in Dubia WRT profligate consumption reminds me of EA Poe's story, The Masque of the Red Death. Dubai represents Prince Prospero's refuge from the plague-stricken world where the party goes on in high gear.... until the plague inevitably catches up with them.
I think you are taking an unnecessarily pessimistic view of these developments. Dubai is trying to establish a tourist industry for the future. This is not a true example of them lavishly wasting money. For those who are predisposed to the idea that everything is going to collapse, I suppose it may seem like a waste. But we can't all go around operating on the expectation of the end of the world and thus not do anything. This is how Europe suffered a great famine back in the year 1000 AD because everyone thought the end of times was upon them and didn't plant any crops.
The world will still be here in 50 years. It will be a different place, hopefully a better place, but it will still be here. Maybe Europeans will be getting to Dubai on Clipper ships and we'll have a return to the age of sail. Or maybe we'll have a combination of that and battery power or hydrogen driving ships, and aircraft. The bottomline is Dubai is building a tourist attraction to get people to come to their country. What better way for them to spend money than to try to develop something that will last?
Bubble and collapse.
Systems Dynamics models predict these kinds of overshoots quite nicely. In fact, they seem to be intrinsic to systems with:
- imperfect foresight
- 'stickiness' significant lags between observation and action - time lags to any implementation of change
- political or economic elites with strong vested interests in the existing system
The 3 harvest seasons one is pretty scary. There seem to be a wealth of historical examples where the harvest failed 3 years in succession (or the rains didn't come) and the civilisation collapsed in place.
Dubai did it without oil. As oil prices continue to rise, Abu Dhabi might end up being Dubai on steroids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UXKb7HPWNU
This project (one of many getting underway in Abu Dhabi) involves something like 150 skyscrapers. The Dubai Waterfront project alone will be bigger than all of Manhattan. It will be interesting as this phenomenon starts spreading into neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia:
http://www.kingabdullahcity.com/ar/
And the thing to remember about Abu Dhabi is that they aren't anywhere near peak. As the rest of the world's oil producers peak and decline, the fortunes of the UAE will only get brighter.
These places are like peak oil lifeboats for the rich.
Natural resources don't make you rich.
There is a poor correlation between natural resources and economic growth.
What happens is the elites learn to skim it off, and not to invest in wealth generation.
If you look at the places that have transformed themselves in the last 50 years, it is not Saudi Arabia (less than 1/3rd as wealthy per person as it was in the early 70s) but Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea.
None has any significant natural resources. They have rule of law, political stability, and hard working people.
We covered this already.
About three months ago.
General consensus? - Maybe global warming and oceanic expansion has some positive traits.
The Idea of Rod Stewart singing for help on his drowning island has some merit.
I can hear it now:
''I am sailing / I am sailing / noa am not / i am sinking / below the waters / i am sinking / gurgle , gurgle / gurgle, glub....''
It's an ill wind that blows no good :-)
Feel sorry for the blonde bimbette of the month though. Still, thats Darwinism for you...
Re: Sherritt, Ontario Fund Plan C$1.5 Billion Gas Project
I posted a question concerning this to yesterday's Drumbeat, and at TOD Canada, and I would really like to know:
1/ What is the EROI for syngas? Got to be much worse than natgas.
2/ How does that affect the EROi for tar sands?
3/ Isnt that last one bad enough yet?
R2, you seem like the man to shine some light on this?!
PS: also still think that a teacher's pension plan fund has no place in these environmental disasters.
And then there was this gem from Canada yesterday:
U.S. Oil Industry Urge Canadian Oilsands Execs to Step It Up
But no matter how silly it gets, Shell doles out ever more of its cash to buy more tar (they have money, but no oil reserves)
Royal Dutch eyes boosting Shell bid
1/ What is the EROI for syngas? Got to be much worse than natgas.
It depends on how you measure it, but I would say that the EROI of syngas is pretty good. When I had a GTL lab, we mostly made syngas. If you put in a mole of natural gas, you can get back out better than 0.9 moles of CO and 1.8 moles of H2. The other 0.1 moles of carbon produce a lot of heat, which is usually turned into process steam.
Without the process steam step, the EROI would be 10 or more. With that step, it is probably pushing 20. Ah, but then you also have to subtract back out the energy required to supply pure oxygen to the reactor, and that is not trivial. Off the top of my head, I am not sure what that number might drag the EROI back down to. I would be very surprised, though, if the overall EROI of producing syngas was less than 10.
Ok, point taken, but in this particular case, you'd have to compare it with natgas on a 1 to 1 basis, because the EROI of the tarsands is based on the EROI of that natgas input.
For syngas by irself it may well be "not too bad", but that doesn't address the difference bwteen the two, if you still follow me. The spread between natgas and syngas may tip the (lousy) EROI for tar sands over the cliff. Even if the syngas one, taken separately, looks favorable.
If syngas is 10:1 and natgas is 30:1, there is a (potentia)l problem.
And Robert, did you include mining and transporting the coal?
(I realize this is not necessarily included in natgas effiiciency either, but let's try and do it well)
I also realize that the article is a bit odd, the writer suggests that coal is cleaner than natgas, for instance :
Alberta Communities Not Benefitting From Oil Sands Revenues
Nice. Overpopulation in a nutshell. I like it.
Hello TODers,
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/136905.php
---------------------------------------------------------
UN report: More than 34,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in 2006
The United Nations reported Tuesday that 34,452 Iraqi civilians died in 2006 as a result of bombings, extra-judicial executions and other forms of violence.
Iraq’s population is 27 million. If violent deaths occurred at the same rate in the US, with a population of 300 million, the toll would surpass 370,000. This would be equivalent in terms of numbers to the annihilation of an entire city the size of Cincinnati, Ohio.
The UN report, which acknowledges that its tally underestimates the actual number of Iraqis killed last year, paints a horrific picture of a society wracked by military and sectarian violence and a collapse in the basic conditions of life. It is a social catastrophe with few parallels in modern history, and a direct consequence of the US invasion and occupation of the country.
---------------------------------------------
This is tragic enough, but I was originally seeking POW headcount #'s and info on kill/capture ratios. After 4 years of war: shouldn't the US Army have roughly 1,000,000 POWs or more in camps somewhere in an effort to stem the violence? Where are the POW camps, how are the POWs being treated, etc, etc? My search at the International Red Cross website didn't reveal any details. Suggestions of better links?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
search at the DoD & Pentagon website came up empty-handed too.
Hello TODers,
Did find this old link:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/07/iraq8560.htm
------------------------------------------------------
Iraq: Background on U.S. Detention Facilities in Iraq
(May 7, 2004)--Human Rights Watch has repeatedly tried to gain access to U.S. detention facilities in Iraq but U.S. military officials in Baghdad have denied requests for visitation rights.
According to information that Human Rights Watch obtained from the U.S. military’s database in January 2004, the U.S. is holding detainees at ten major facilities around Iraq. The largest is Abu Ghraib Prison, also known as the Baghdad Central Correctional Facility or BCCF. Two other major facilities are Camp Bucca in Umm Qasr and Talil Airforce Base south of Baghdad (also known as Whitford Camp).
The other seven are:
1) Al-Rusafa (formerly the Deportations’ Prison or Tasfirat) in Baghdad
2) Al-Kadhimiyya in Baghdad (women only)
3) Al-Karkh in Baghdad (juveniles only)
4) Al-Diwaniyya Security Detainee Holding Area
5) The Tikrit detention facility
6) The Mosul detention facility
7) MEK, or Ashraf Camp, near al-Ramadi
The total number of detainees whose names appeared on the database on January 24 this year was 8,968, but the figures may fluctuate substantially from week to week.
----------------------------------------------------
This link documents that many detainees are not being treated well, but I still have not found up-to-date incarceration numbers...Fog of War, I guess: http://hrw.org/reports/2006/ct0406/
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Only 34 000?
Seems like another spun figure.
ANYWAY. For those of you colonials who dont get access to uncensored telly.
Try this:
http://www.channel4.com/more4/drama/t/trial_tony/index.html
I was hoping the whole thing was on youtube by now, but I could not find it.
Classic lines:
Tony Blair and Cherie Blair at breakfast in 2010. - reading the papers:
TB: Oh God, George is in rehab again.
CB: George? - George who?
TB: George ! George W Bush !
Pause.
TB: Apparently they found him comatose at his ranch.
CB: I am surprised anyone noticed.
"Cool Congregations" is a global warming workshop to be held on Feb 3 at 10 am at St Paul Episcopal in Des Moines, IA. It is part of the Iowa Interfaith Power and Light program aimed at cutting fossil carbon use by church facilities and by families by 10%. Participants will measure their carbon footprint then choose steps to reduce it by 10%. There is no charge for the workshop and lunch will be provided. If interested call 515-288-7297 or e-mail muffy007@aol.com. Also checkout www.theregenerationproject.org.
I intend to discuss the Terra Preta concept as a personal carbon sequestration activity. The amount of real estate owned by faith communities in houses of worship, schools, colleges, hospitals, nursing homes, and campgrounds is significant.
I'd like to preface this comment by saying that I'm in the camp that thinks we are at or near to peak oil. However, it seems to me that the weekly U.S. inventory data is one piece of data that does not exactly support the idea of peak oil or even Robert's "peak lite". Inventories seem to be comfortably high in most areas.
I'm also beginning to wonder if we should ever expect the inventory data to give a peak oil signal. Rising oil prices over the last five years were probably due partly to the shrinking of worldwide spare capacity in oil production. Yet I think U.S. inventory levels over the last five years did not correlate very well with rising oil prices - does anyone have a graph? Trying to imagine the future, if world oil production declines 10% in five years - a very serious development if it occurs - would U.S. inventories decline any? They only contain about three weeks worth of crude. One might suspect that unless there is a complete collapse of the oil market system, the U.S. would always have three weeks of crude available. In fact, in a crunch, hoarding might drive the inventories up a bit.
I notice that Westexas usually focuses more on the import numbers, which might be a more meaningful data point than inventory levels. Still, if one supertanker can hold 2 million barrels of oil, even the import numbers will jump around based simply on whether four supertankers docked last week or five.
I'd be interested in what the rest of the TOD community thinks about this.
I think looking at inventory numbers to try to gauge when peak oil will hit is about as useful as stumbling through pitch black darkness, trying to find a cliff by tapping with a cane.
That said, I've heard the argument many times that one would expect inventories to rise if TPTB are aware of peak oil and are beginning to hoard.
I myself have from time to time raised questions as to how some of these numbers are generated. However, I'm not sure I'm much more enlightened on the subject than I was before I asked.
For example, is a load of oil counted as being 'imported' when a) a firm contractural committment for said oil has been made?, b) when it is loaded unto a tanker and the tanker departs?, or c) when it arrives at its destination and is off loaded? Which one it is determines whether that load is counted as say a January import or a February import.
The huge size of these supertankers can also mask whatever short-term trend there might be. If oil is counted as imported when the tanker arrives and is off loaded, and if three tankers come in on January 31 vs February 1, it is going to make January imports look correspondingly larger than February imports, when in actuality the difference is nothing more than an artifact of the counting method. Of course, yearly import data will be much more smoothed out.
I still don't have a good feel for how reliable these import and production numbers really are. I don't think it's a nit picking concern,because many individuals here at TOD often draw various conclusions based on what appear to be small differences between large numbers.
For the U.S. I believe the date of the import is that of documents from the Customs Agency. This document is generated when the oil is fully ashore into storage tanks, has been sampled and the volume determined with a correction for tempature. Any duties and fees must be paid then before the oil is released to the owner.
Thanks.
OK, so it's when the oil has actually arrived and has been tranferred to storage tanks that it is logged in as an 'oil import'. That makes the most sense of the several possiblities I spoke of.
However, what we seem to have here is about a one-month time lag (roughly the time it takes a super tanker to make the journey from the Persian Gulf to the US at 15 knots) between the time an import is 'demanded', i.e., a purchase order issued, and the time it is actually logged in as an 'import'. This time lag must surely have some effect on the ability of various analysts to draw firm conclusions from the import/export data.
If one knows both numbers, then there is no problem, but I don't know whether the orders for tanker shipments are made available at the time they are made. If we only have the arrival numbers, then the time lag would appear to still hold.
It will be hard to measure peak if you're only focussed on inventories of crude. As crude oil plateaus and begins it's decline, it's likely that inventories will go down while other total liquids in storage increase. The are are a couple of reason for this:
1) Declining crude imports and exports. This is one of the few areas where I agree with many around TOD. Many entities/countries are realizing the profits that can be made if the crude is processed at home, and subsequently exporting the finished products. This, coupled with total crude output across the world platueaing or even being reduced in the future because of depletion, results in the simple fact that US based refineries will not be processing as much - therefore having less in storage.
2) The increasing percentage of non c+c liquids being produced. There are major projects and more importantly trends set in motion that will increase the total liquid supply across the world for at least the near to medium term.
Although I'm more optimistic in regards to peak than most around here, my due diligence has made me re-think some of my investments in regards to some of the bigger companies in which derive a big percentage of their revenue and income from refining.... I see the potential for a major downturn in profit margins in this area. It may also be why many US companies aren't currently scrambling to build new refineries and invest in major refinery expansion projects even though fuel usage within the US is forecast to continue to increase in the future.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1994071,00.html
Surge in carbon levels raises fears of runaway warming
David Adam Environment correspondent
Friday January 19, 2007
The Guardian
UPDATE: The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has now told us that the story below is based on preliminary data for December, which it should not have published. It has withdrawn the data pending further analysis. As a result, the provisional annual growth rate for 2006 displayed on the Noaa website now does not include December, which means it is now lower than the 2.6ppm we reported. Pieter Tans, the scientist in charge of the data, said: "It doesn't affect the trend, there is definitely something there. CO2 growth in 2006 was still higher than average and four of the last five years have been higher than average."
Article continues
Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere much faster than scientists expected, raising fears that humankind may have less time to tackle climate change than previously thought.
New figures from dozens of measuring stations across the world reveal that concentrations of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, rose at record levels during 2006 - the fourth year in the last five to show a sharp increase. Experts are puzzled because the spike, which follows decades of more modest annual rises, does not appear to match the pattern of steady increases in human emissions.
That update is interesting. Not cleared by the Bush censors, maybe?
The data, including December 2006, is still available at http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/web/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
This data only shows an increase of 2.14ppm (average of 2006 - average of 2005).
??
It's all from Mauna Loa (the longest series) instead of being an index based on many sites around the world.
Good observation, Leanan.
And also, the third time in one week that I can say the same thing: the climate models are faulty. That by itself is OK, but not that they're all off in the same direction. It all goes faster than "science" predicts, and you need the brackets, because science that's consistently off in the same vein is not science.
I can tell you what's causing it, David, it's been there all the time, and you were just looking at a screen of a model with far too limited inputs.
Wow, that sounds bad.
Is that the result of methane hydrates beginning to be released, or some other positive feedback?
Is the co2 growth rate out of control? u be the judge:
Is methane ch4 out of control in the arctic? u be the judge:
Is atmospheric methane growing or reducing globally? u be the judge:
Freddy,
This is the warmest Northern Hemisperic winter yet recorded by man.
1. By record
2. By Anecdote.
Now, last time I bothered with these things, the belt of permafrost stretching across northern latitudes contained undecayed vegitation trapped in cold stasis.
(Hence the Ice Age Mammoth dinners) Ice is pretty good at creating stasis.
That Ice is melting.
Siberia is not having a Siberian Winter this year.
Bears are getting quite sulky: They cannot get a good nights sleep.
The Siberian Summer was once about 3-4 months, now, it is about 5 months.
As Siberia and Canada warm up, the net mass balance transfer of CO2 will change. From locked in Carbon to Carbon release.
It only takes a couple of mild winters to set it off.
Forget the graphs: You need to get out more.
Take a walk.
Go look at the budding trees and spring flowers...
Observe the lack of ice on ponds.
Listen to the bird-song
In January...
Any Dutchmen out there?
When did you last run an eleven cities race?
The great thing about graphs is that they protect anyone interested in what is really going on from idiots like yourself that use anecdotal tales or use interannual weather stats to argue climate related subjects.
IPCC 2001 silenced many idiots. Much new science has surfaced since the late 90's data it was based on. It has allowed the idiots to flourish as the pick and choose the news that they want to disseminate. Next month, Working Group 1 will release the first of four Reports on IPCC AR4. Some will shock folks. Most will put the problem in much needed perspective. Even at TOD we see many statements on events that imply immanency, that are clearly hundreds or thousands of years away...
You're still here, proven liar? Still clinging to the hope that no-one will ever look up your many lies?
What about telling us again that this has been the coldest winter since 1944 in the Yukon and in all of Siberia(!)
Or that exports are just 3% of the US GDP?
How about some of your leetspeak and random capitalisation? Maybe that will add truthiness to your lies!
Oligophrenic scumbag, why are you still here?
Actually hes right on all of those accounts.
Thats gotta suck, doesn't it?
Are you too lazy to look any of them up, fuckwit trollboy, or can't you read?
If you have the 'proof' necessary to debunk what hes saying, please, by all means, present them before all of us to see.
Otherwise shut up ~_~
Just this once, I'll do your work for you, shitstain!http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXPGS/Custom?cs=Medium&crb=on&cf=lin&cosd=1947-01-01&coed=2006-07-01&seid2=GDP&cg=Go
And one which will be too tough for you, it has a map which you have to click on!
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
For the loser from the lunatic frings, schmukhovo ... This one is from NASA ... not your high school:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2113#comment-141885
Freddy Hutter on December 25, 2006 - 9:31pm
Bob, i'm in withdrawal for lack of skirts & bikinis up here. It was -44 a few days ago and november was the coldest since Yukon records started in 1944 (daily avg of -21).
NOAA used to have some awesome wwweb mapping of the submergent Gulf coastline, but methinx it got the axe 'cuz many were relating the rising waters to GW. The site also showed the emergent shorelines in Alaska where uplift is glacier related.
Lying sack of shit, you know you made all the statments I pointed out.
Why do you continue to troll this site? No-one here trolls wingnut sites.
You do realize that he just proved to the entire world once again that what he said was right, yet you continue your tirade?
And WT thinks he has it bad with me! (laughs)
While i thot i was careful to refer to the NOV record, my search of the archive today for some references on farming brought up some posts where i said "winter" as well. Mea culpa.
Looks like the methane level is currently stabilizing although I don't think the plateau indicates we are peaking and must go into decline (unlike the peak in production of a finite resource...)
But the graphs for CO2 look pretty grim. Relentless growth. Our past recessions never caused even a temporary drop in C02 levels. And even if we manage to start reducing CO2 levels we'll still have to go through a period of continued heating, much the way August is our warmest month although June is the month of maximal heating.
What exactly were your graphs supposed to debunk? The graph there plainly shows CO2 relentlessly increasing. The fact that it does not increase the same amount on a year to year basis is pretty much irrelevant. A few years where the methane in the atmosphere levels off is good, but not that reassuring in regards to the future. Methane is mostly a concern for the future in terms of Siberia melting, which hasn't happened yet obviously. Maybe those fears will prove unfounded, but you have not managed to disprove global warming in the least as the CO2 level says it all.
I suggest you spend some time looking at other charts and not the ones you cherry pick to try to debunk things. Specifically I suggest looking at the global temperature charts which show that we are regularly setting higher temperatures, and that most of the high temperatures have been set in the past two decades.
Are humans causing global warming? Most evidence points to the answer being yes. But let's say we're not, we still are going to have to figure out how to stop it as we cannot afford to give up a bunch of world land area as a result of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melting. Right now the best evidence is that CO2 is causing the problem, so we need to stop increasing CO2 and start cutting back. If that proves not to be the cause of the problem then we're going to have to get even busier to figure out what exactly is.
Nagorak, debunk is a good word. U will not find any post of mine that denies global warming. U will find that all my posts mirror evidence within IPCC 2001 and subsequent concensus abstracts.
But i do enjoy "debunking" the TOD posts that espouse sea levels rising faster than 4mm/yr, sea levels rising more than 6 feet within the next 300 years & melting of the east antarctic.
And this week's suggestions that methane is increasing (it is decreasing) and that the growth rate of co2 in dramatically increasing. Yes, 2006 may be higher, but as the evidence shows, it is el nino related as was 1998.
A Canadian team was sent to our Arctic recently to get some damaging localized co2 sampling. Guess what? They found that it was lower! It seems that all the new open ocean water is acting as a co2 sink. Contaminants and co2 were both down.
For almost ten years we've listened to folks that tell us that they know of regions that have had a high winter temp or high summer temp that is reflective of dramatic global warming. Like the 100 posts here at TOD in these first 29 days of Winter. One would think that annual global temps have risen 5 or 10 or 15 degrees in the last three decades. But guess what? They are still trying to attain that 1st full degree.
The number of posts like this reflect that most posters do not understand the difference betw interannual localized weather fluctuations and climate. And the graphs tell us what is happening in the big picture ... if we ignore the noise.
TOD is an excellent site for the sharing of very pertinent info on a plethera of topics. But unfortunately it has been hijacked by blowhards and idiots that let their agenda pollute our forum with a cornucopia of misinformation, lies and exaggerations. Some spread it innocently. Others know they're doing it.
We have many good posters and shining stars at TOD. They are worth getting past the noise.
The weight of evidence says that global warming is accelerating, not slowing.
In terms of what we do about it, the concern is that under any 'Business As Usual' scenario, we are looking at as high as 850ppm for CO2 by the end of this century.
More than ever recorded, and looking at what data we do have, not reached in the last 60 million years.
This is not some problem hundreds of years away, the damage we are doing now is irrecoverable.
Uncertainty should make us *more* cautious, not less so.
As we discussed last month during the hansen (nasa) thread, 850 would be horrific. It's a good thing we're NOT headed there:
The global avg temp will rise 2C by 2100 & sealevel will be up 40-cm from today. Over the last three decades temp has risen 0.6C and the hottest year globally on record is 1998 (el nino assist).
RE: Power players warm to Feinstein bill
I'm not sure the SFGate article Leanan posted is correct in its assessment of the bill. The Financial Times ran a piece on Wednesday that may provide a better understanding.
Subject: a group of power producers, which supply 15% of the US market, agrees to a bill to limit their emissions. But how, and how much?
The SFGate article says:
And that doesn't feel right. For one thing, how would they achieve that, by doing what exactly? Try to cut 25% of any existing facility's emissions, not easy, not cheap. And don't forget they have every intention of growing along with demand. Something doesn't add up.
The FT has a, let's say, more subtle take:
So they agree to cap the projected levels of their projected emissions.
And that is not the same at all. If Exelon sees 60% growth by 2020, and agrees to cut emissions by 25%, they still end up emitting 20% more than today. 30% growth saves just 2.5%. Not 25.
So SFGste's assumption:
is most likely simply not true. They can even rise, instead of fall, under the bill.
Moreover, these fine companies were planning wind and nuclear anyway, so they get a mighty sweet deal, especially if Feinstein made promises to support their future projects, in return for their support of her bill. There's plenty problems getting nuclear and wind off the ground, a sympathetic influential senator won't hurt. And they get that sympathy, basically, for free.
The devil is in the fine print. Always is.
If power companies in California all got together and limited electricity to cause brownouts and escalating rates, citizens and government would be "outraged" by the monopolistic price fixing. But, it seems, Feinstein has been able to achieve this windfall--legally--for the power companies while simultaneously boosting her approval rating. Amazing.
Good spot.
The President had a similar sleight of hand, restricting CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, rather than CO2 emissions in total (contrary to what he said in the 2000 Campaign).
The other thing the utilities are counting on is that when a pollution permit system is introduced, they will be grandfathered with all (or most) of the permits, based on historic emissions. This was how the European emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was set up.
The effect will be a billions of dollars subsidy from the market to existing utilities.
Not sure if I missed this info posted in the last few days, but the company EEstor which is developing ultracapacitors for energy storage has provided a press release. More info here.
This is pretty exciting stuff. In my mind the biggest disruption to our need for petroleum will be an effective energy storage device, and this one seems to be progressing very well.
For now the NEV company Feel Good Cars has exclusive rights to use it in vehicles (and expects to this year), but EEstor has already tested much larger units that would be able to power a reasonably aerodynamic vehicle for >150 miles. The benefits of capacitor storage will trump all the tweaking that is going on in chemical batteries.
Let's hope that people that will lose money on these types of disruptive technologies don't start PR campaigns to warn consumers of imagined safety issues.
Yeah, I hope they're onto something. I have to believe there will be some major battery breakthroughs coming in the next few years, as the stakes and interest have risen so much..
One of the comments below the press release was funny, though:
"Severe crashes or vehicle consuming fires would be interesting as "The bright yellow-green colors in fireworks and flares come from barium nitrate"."
-and he goes on to cite the warnings from the MSDS on Barium Nitrate..
"DANGER! STRONG OXIDIZER. CONTACT WITH OTHER MATERIAL MAY CAUSE FIRE. MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF INHALED. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. AFFECTS MUSCLES (INCLUDING THE HEART), AND CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM".
But after I read the contents of the 'Natural Flavorings' in a McD's Milkshake, while researching Natural Remedies for Sinus Infections, hearing about these Barium Burns don't even make me flinch..
"In his book Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser looks at the typical ingredients in a Burger King strawberry milkshake: amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl acetate, ethyl amyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl heptylate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenyl-glycidate, ethyl nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerate, heliotropin, hydroxyphenyl-2-butanone, a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butyrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbonate, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, rose, run ether, y-undercalctone, vanillin and solvent."
Hey.. that wasn't meant to snark on your safety issues comment. Just re-read it..
There will be safety issues to consider though, as there are with gas cars, and acid batteries, and this technology will have to be 'acceptably safe' for the needs it fills. Stands to be seen.
I'm watching the hurdles windpower is going through to get passage on a lot of proposed sites and wonder if it's exorbitant or simply 'reasonable, due diligence' to put them through the hoops like this. The installations are truly massive, industrial emplacements. There's a big turbine near Boston on Hull Island, and that thing is intimidating to stand underneath.. encouraging, but kind of terrifying, too! ('The Iron Giant', for those who saw it, comes to mind)
Bob Fiske
Hello TODers,
http://washington.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/01/08/daily39.html
------------------------------
Survey shows 7,300 homeless in Phoenix
The Phoenix total is more than the estimated number of homeless persons in some other major cities including San Francisco, San Diego, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, Cleveland, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.
The Valley's warm climate, job opportunities, proximity to California and historically less expensive cost of living makes it attractive to transients despite the hot desert summers.
------------------------------------------------
Recall my earlier posting advocating for solar heating of hot water by building numerous neighborhood community showers & bathrooms. It would seem the least a postPeak civic community could do. A person could be very poor, but at least he/she could be clean. It is awfully hard to get any kind of job if you stink, and it would end the practice of the homeless trying to take PTAs in restrooms in parks, convenience stores, fast-food restaurants, and so on. Many places in Phx simply refuse to let their restrooms be used by non-employees which can be quite disconcerting if you suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Unfortunately, many of the Phx homeless don't even do the minimum of leaving a 'trucker bomb', but instead leave a 'land mine'.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
If the API says it, it must be true:
More ethanol means lower gasoline prices
Portland, Oregon, Peak Oil Task Force draft report is out; link can be found at this site.
Thanks for the link. I am going to be sharing this with the aldermanic candidates in my ward. This should be required reading.
On topic here....
Farting Turtle Sets Off Fire Alarm After Eating Brussels Sprouts
Now if this could be scaled up...
Since TDO is doing miscellaneous, let do some stuff about TWA 800.
Friday January 19, 2007 17:18
Here's book checked out from library Friday January 19, 2007
and foreword
Criminal complaint aganist Gosler and Folley for high tech terrorism filed with DC judge Harry Edwards is one of the more interesting aspects of this 15 calendar year, so far, legal battle.
Criminal complaint was mailed certified return receipt requested July 16, 1996 and arrived in WDC on July 18, 1996.
http://www.prosefights.org/fbi/ed.htm
http://www.geocities.com/computersystemsdocumentation/don/barf.wav
http://www.geocities.com/computersystemsdocumentation/don/barf.wav
TDO? The Drum Oil?
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=759906
we think in rpn.
Cantarell--KMZ Update
A lot of talk lately about steepening Cantarell declines and whether or not Ku-Maloob-Zap will be able to make up the gap.
As noted here:
http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&stor...
Mexico is one of the countries responsible for the recent downward revision in 2007 non-opec production.
I believe the Mexican government is claiming that Cantarell production will decline by 150,000 bpd this year. As Westexas has pointed out, analyst David Shields is forcasting an 800,000 bpd decline.
As for KMZ, this article (spanish):
http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/590005.html
from December 15, 2006, details the recent installation of the $250,000,000 Ku-S platform, built by Swecomex (owned by the world's third richest man, Carlos Slim). The platform has a capacity of 250,000 bpd of oil. According to this article, the platform will lift KMZ's production from 300,000 bpd to 800,000 bpd. This obviously doesn't add up since it is only a 250,000 bpd platform. The article also states that KMZ, "will compensate in the short term for the decline of the Cantarell field which has a useful life of eight more years."
The bit of information about Cantarell's useful life is cut out of the english version:
http://rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=39238
which also states that the installation of this 250,000 bpd platform will raise KMZ production from 300,000 to 800,000 bpd.
I believe that this article:
http://www.oilonline.com/news/features/oe/20051026.Picking_.19508.asp
which states that KMZ has recently (2005) been producing as high as 363,280 bpd sheds some light on the confusion. According to this article, Pemex hopes to double production to 800,000 by the end of the decade. That must be the 800,000 number erroneously appearing in the other articles. So it seems that with the launch of Ku-S, KMZ will now be producing around 600,000 bpd. Pemex is hoping to bump that number up to 800,000 bpd by the end of the decade.
According to the above information, Cantarell production will be down between 150,000 and 800,000 bpd this year. KMZ production will rise 250,000 bpd. As Cantarell continues to decline through 2008 and 2009, KMZ will add another 200,000 bpd of production.
Additonal information from Pemex:
Note that this information was published by Pemex in late 2005. Contrary to PEMEX's prediction, crude oil production did not surpass 3.400 MMbpd in 2006. According to the PEMEX website, 2006 production was 3.281 MMbpd. As has been covered recently, forcasts for 2007 have now been revised lower again. Conclusion: PEMEX seems to be making a habit of missing their forcasts, which gives additional credibility to independent analysts like David Shields who predicts much steeper declines at Cantarell.
This article:
http://www.latinpetroleum.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=15&nu...
provides information on two of the fields listed by PEMEX as candidates to, "make up for the Cantarell production decrease."
Jujo-Tecominoacan
And the Bermudez complex
Have I mentioned ELP lately? (sorry, couldn't resist)
from December 15, 2006, details the recent installation of the $250,000,000 Ku-S platform, built by Swecomex (owned by the world's third richest man, Carlos Slim). The platform has a capacity of 250,000 bpd of oil. According to this article, the platform will lift KMZ's production from 300,000 bpd to 800,000 bpd. This obviously doesn't add up since it is only a 250,000 bpd platform. The article also states that KMZ, "will compensate in the short term for the decline of the Cantarell field which has a useful life of eight more years.
Googled the the Ku-Maloob-Zaap project
Along with the HA-HU-S platform you discussed above, there is a second platform 'HA-KU-M'.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=18346
I would assume adding both of these to the current 320 kpd they are currently producing is how they are coming up with the roughly 800 kpd estimate for this group of fields.
I saw that too. No information on a launch date though. Although it sounds like it will be producing before the end of the decade.
By the way, the Ha-Ku-S and Ha-Ku-M platforms are accomodation platforms.
http://www.kepcorp.com/press/press.asp?RID=1405&L=&Y=2006&Q=4
Anyone know if Ku-S is already producing?
dbl post
Thanx guyz for this digging. Looks like some bad reporting took on a life of its own again and were likely the background for some enthusiastic whispering of a 4-mbd extraction rate in mexico by Spring. Sorry if my comments last month misled anyone. It was not intentional, i'm sure.