 | Trade, Transportation and the Chinese Finger Trap | The Oil Drum | The State of the (Energy) Union (and a SOTU open thread) |  |
DrumBeat: January 23, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 23, 2007 - 10:05am
Bush to call for sharp cutback in gas consumption
President Bush, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, will propose a plan to cut U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent while bolstering inventory in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Republican sources say.The president's plan to cut gasoline use includes tightening fuel economy standards on automakers and relying on alternative energy sources, such as hybrid cars, the sources say.
Bush would propose achieving the 20-percent cut in gasoline use in the next 10 years, according to the sources. He will also propose the U.S. produce 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel such as ethanol by 2017, according an official who was briefed on the speech.
How Iraq and climate change threw the right into disarray
Global warming poses a fundamental challenge to the right's faith in markets. It is, as Gordon Brown, chancellor, puts it "the world's biggest market failure".Worse, most of the proposed remedies for global warming involve things the right traditionally abhors. There is global governance in the form of monster international accords such as the Kyoto treaty. There are restrictions on individual liberty as the clamour grows to tax people out of their cars and off their cheap flights. There is a new emphasis on localism as opposed to globalisation. There is also a backlash against the idea that faster economic growth is always desirable or sustainable.
Calderón ready to press for reforms
On Pemex, the state-run oil monopoly, Calderón is also clear on the need for big changes."We are experiencing a real fall in oil reserves ... and that forces us to innovate and seek mechanisms which, without giving up hegemony or sovereignty of our reserves, provide Pemex with investment schemes that give it much greater margin to invest more, to explore more."
Norway Energy Minister: Arctic Reserves Key for Energy
"If the U.S. Geological Survey is right, 25% of the world's undiscovered petroleum reserves could be found in the Arctic. Thus, the Arctic region could be part of the solution to the growing energy needs of the world," said Oil Minister Odd Roger Enoksen in opening a conference on the northern region.
We need to act quickly on energy crisis
Connecticut has to act quickly in the face of an impending global energy crisis, according to House Speaker James Amann....The demand for oil around the world, especially in countries like China and India where industrial growth is soaring, is changing the dynamics for energy, he said.
"We have competition for oil like never before," said Amann.
Reports: Russian audit chamber says 'significant' violations at Total oil project
MOSCOW: France's Total SA had committed "significant" environmental violations at an Arctic oil and gas development, Russia's financial watchdog said Monday, according to news reports.
Uganda: Reduce Your Power Costs, Use Energy-Saving Bulbs
There are two sides to the imbalanced energy equation - supply and demand, making strategies for increasing energy efficiency an equally important consideration.
The draining of Africa’s wealth
For example, in Gabon, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in 2002 was $3,370, which is fairly high because of oil wealth. But net savings per capita is negative $1,183. That’s the most extreme case. But the pattern is true of virtually all of the African resource-extractive economies. The two most intensive cases, by the way, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), aren’t even listed because they don’t have enough data.There you see the process of extraction of Africa’s wealth without reinvestment.
However, the true reason for this war is the control of energy resources. This is due to the fact that the geology, the richness in gas and oil, are concentrated in the Muslim countries. He who wants to monopolize them, must hide behind this type of manipulations. We cannot say that there is not a lot of oil left because the global production - the ’peak oil’ [12] - is going to arrive probably before 2020, and that therefore oil must be taken from Iraq, because people would say that children must not be killed to obtain oil. And they are right. They can’t be told, either, that in the Caspian Sea there are huge reserves and that there is a plan to create a pipeline that would go to the Indian Ocean but, given that it’s is not allowed to go through the South of Iran or the North of Russia, it must pass through the East, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, and therefore, this country must be under control. That is why Muslims are labelled as "terrorists".
South Africa: Eskom Has R97bn Plan to Beef Up Electricity And Beat Cuts
Amid a growing furore over countrywide powercuts this week, Eskom said the government had approved a R97 billion plan to boost infrastructure as part of a range of long-term measures to avert future cuts.But consumers would have to pay more for electricity to sustain the infrastructure, which is set to come under even heavier pressure as demand grows over the next two decades.
Japan’s demand for small cars hits profits
Japan’s carmakers, on a global expansion spree, are seeing margins increasingly squeezed in their home market as consumers turn to cheaper, more fuel-efficient minicars.
GM places bets on alternative fuel vehicles
By showing the Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric concept car this month at the North American International Auto Show, General Motors Corp. has staked its reputation -- and a large chunk of change -- on developing cars and trucks that can be propelled by something other than just gasoline.
Saudi's Naimi aims for moderate oil price
&from=business){kind=link}
Saudi Arabia is aiming for moderate oil prices and assured Japan on Tuesday of supplies from the world's top crude producer in case of emergencies, during a tour by its oil minister Ali al-Naimi of key Asian consumer nations.
Alternative fuel research might prevent crisis
In tonight's State of the Union address, President George W. Bush may borrow a few ideas on energy from former President Jimmy Carter. News organizations anticipate part of Bush's speech will address calls for increased funding of alternative fuels research and less dependence on foreign oil.
Congress will end up reducing energy supply
It's simple economics: The more Washington taxes the oil companies, the less money they have to invest in developing new energy sources.
Bush set to give ethanol industry its biggest boost yet
In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush is expected to call for a huge increase in the amount of ethanol that refiners mix with gasoline, perhaps to as much as 60 billion gallons, or 227 million liters, annually by 2030 — an amount equal to more than 40 percent of the country's current gasoline consumption.
27th annual Eco-Farm Conference starts Wednesday
For every calorie of food produced by agriculture, 10 calories of fossil fuel is burned.It's an expensive habit the United States is going to have to change as the supply of oil and gas dwindles and the prices continue to skyrocket, according to Richard Heinberg, a noted author and professor from Santa Rosa.
Solar Power Goes to Washington: Solar power's success in lobbying Congress could benefit investors.
Brazil To Gain 123 New Biofuel Plants By 2010
Brazilian companies and other investors are likely to invest an estimated 17.4 billion Brazilian reals ($8.1 billion) in the country’s biofuels sector over the next four years, which should yield a confirmed 77 new ethanol mills and 46 new biodiesel plants by 2010, said the Energy Ministry on Monday.
Phillipine government projects P1.3-B savings with biofuels
The Phillipine government projects a savings of $26-million or about P1.3-billion worth of fuel imports with the initial implementation of the 2006 Biofuels Act.
Crown to assess NZ biofuel potential
A deal announced today between two Crown Research Institutes and a US company is said to open up the possibility of New Zealand's entire vehicle fleet ultimately running on biofuels grown and manufactured in this country.
Patrick Holden (Soil Association director) on Peak Oil and the Transition Towns concept
Weighing In on City Planning: Could smart urban design keep people fit and trim?
Lawrence Frank is no couch potato. Taking full advantage of his city's compact design, the Vancouver, British Columbia, resident often bikes to work and walks to stores, restaurants, and museums. That activity helps him stay fit and trim. But Frank hasn't always found his penchant for self-propulsion to be practical. He previously lived in Atlanta, where the city's sprawling layout thwarted his desire to be physically active as he went about his daily business.
Back from the Grave: A Look at U.S. Nuclear Power
Sharon Astyk: Am I romanticizing poverty?
Someone who reads my blog recently emailed me with the accusation that my Community Solutions Paper and my writings in general are a call to mass, collective return to poverty, and that I'm intentionally romanticizing subsistence agriculture. And I started wondering, am I?
Calling an end to oil alarmism
OIL PRICES have ended their steep ascent -- for now -- and are headed downward. The near-universal alarm among politicians, pundits, and consumers over America's dependency on foreign oil has yielded to a wary sense of relief. But both the prior alarm and the current relief are misguided.
Oil Sands Projects Steam Ahead in Alberta, Despite Harper
The Bush administration last week urged Canada's natural resources agency to increase oilsands production in the Alberta province five-fold to 5 million barrels per day, but a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said "not at the expense of the environment." Meanwhile, while Harper turns his back on Alberta, oil companies are steaming ahead with plans of their own to develop the world's largest oil reserve and by the looks of things, one junior producer appears to be ahead of the pack.
West left in the cold in Arctic oil boom
Moscow has closed the door further to Western participation in Russia’s Arctic energy wealth with a proposal to grant Rosneft and Gazprom, the state oil and gas companies, exclusive rights to develop offshore oil and gas.
The Geopolitical Consequences of Peak Oil
"You'll forgive me if I sound a little shrill," began Professor Michael T. Klare, the author of "Resource Wars" and its sequel "Blood and Oil", who directed his presentation at the 2006 Association for the Study of Peak Oil conference at Boston University to the families and loved ones of young people under 25 "who may chose to or be coerced to put on the uniform of the United States military."
Vinod Khosla:
President Bush, Please Declare a War on Oil!
To win the war on terror, we must first stop funding terrorists with our oil money. Let's instead use our money to fund a war on oil.
Our energy neck is in a tightening noose. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of the world's oil and gas reserves are held by national oil companies that are partially or fully controlled by their governments. As such, the distribution and marketing of oil has become so highly politicized as to cripple the power of market forces to assure access and security of supply.
Report has 'smoking gun' on climate
Human-caused global warming is here, visible in the air, water and melting ice, and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week."The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."
Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."
Natural gas rises as temps plunge
Natural gas prices soared Monday to the highest in 5½ weeks as cold weather spread across much of the USA, leading investors to predict increased demand for the nation's most popular heating source.
U.S., British workers seized in Nigeria
Unidentified assailants seized two foreign oil workers Tuesday in the latest kidnapping to hit restive southern Nigeria, police said.
Saudi: U.S. will need Mideast oil for years to come
U.S. policymakers should be talking about interdependence with Middle East suppliers, not independence, said Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the kingdom's U.S. ambassador, speaking at George Washington University.
Nissan's car navigation to offer fuel-saving tip
Drivers of some Nissan cars in Japan from Monday will begin tracking the fuel efficiency of their vehicles on the Web thanks to a new system that ties in with the car's existing navigation system.
Ford unveils plug-in hybrid vehicle
Ford Motor Co. is joining the list of automakers working on a plug-in hybrid — with a twist. It combines the convenience of plugging in your car with a zero-emissions hydrogen fuel cell.
U.S. automakers push for battery, fuel tech help
U.S.-based automakers will this week underscore their push for government help on alternative fuels and advanced battery technology, riding what is anticipated to be an updated White House prescription for greater national energy independence.
Global warming bubbles to the surface in Davos
An exceptionally mild and barren first half of winter in the Swiss Alps is helping to fuel growing concern about climate change at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum beginning on Wednesday.
Berlin warned on phasing out nuclear energy
Germany will miss its CO2 emission targets, face rising electricity prices and become "dramatically" more reliant on Russian gas if it keeps to its policy of phasing out nuclear energy, a new study warns.
Nuclear firm targets clean power
French firm Areva - the largest maker of nuclear reactors - has tabled a $1bn (£506m; 772m euro) bid for leading clean energy firm Repower of Germany.Areva said it would pay 105 euros a share for the wind turbine firm, a move that would allow it to tap into the growing wind energy sector.
Post Carbon Institute Fellow Richard Heinberg warned that we should be skeptical about what the president proposes: "Just because the president says some energy source is good doesn't make it good," Heinberg said. "For example, a big push for coal-to-oil technologies might eventually reduce petroleum imports, but it would only worsen the problem of global warming. And the nuclear power industry claims there are no CO2 emissions connected with nuclear power, which just isn't true if you take account of the processes of plant construction and fuel production. We can't forget the more than 50-year failure to dispose of nuclear waste, and uranium is getting more scarce and expensive. Since all of the energy supply alternatives have problems, we need much more focus on conservation"
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.
Sorry if this has been posted.
Sprott
Has the Matador Slain the Commodity Bull?
http://www.sprott.com/pdf/marketsataglance/01-2007.pdf
You need to add to that list the hype that Prof. Deffeyes and co have engaged in over the past couple of years.
I can hear the groans across TOD resounding through the Internet, but people need to be made aware just how 'benevolent' Prof Deffeyes truly is! This is a repost from a very late post yesterday, as I feel the implications are simply to big to ignore:
---------------------
Hello Aniya,
Thank you for at least having an open mind! His 'rant' can be found here:
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
Some quotes of interest:
Yes, I'm sure congratulations are in order to Prof. Deffeyes, as he has probably made a LOT of hedge funds in Asia AND the US make 'a hell of a lot of money." Not only that, he practically ADMITS that he makes the rounds to various financial firms 'informing' them of the peak oil problem! Yet people here at TOD seem to completely miss the implications of this!!!
Notice how we are all capable of 'grasping' the concept of peak oil and its ramifications, yet we can not possibly understand his recommendations for individual stock picks?
This dribble should speak for itself :laughs: Unfortunately, the admission that he was making a killing durring the oil bull run probably goes over the top of most peoples heads. Of special note is his worry about the recent downswings in prices. After, he would still be making a killing from his own private investments...hes just grinding and gritting and crunching his teeth as he realizes how he went out on a limb with his Hedge Fund advice and they are loosing billions! :laughs:
Yeah, Halliburton did such an awesome job with the 200,000+ bpd that was shut down at Prudhoe bay for the better part of 3 months.
So you would trust him more if he said he was doing it 'for the good of mankind' and wasn't clear that he makes money off all the people, like yourself, who DON'T believe him? (i.e. that 'bet' against him in the market)
That's not what he said at all. He said he doesn't even have the patience to pick them himself.
Have you ever been to Alaska? It ain't Texas.
It's called market manipulation. And if he made his rounds to say, Goldman Sachs, then invested in oil options shortly before they set their basket of options to include 10% in oil, its called insider trading. People go to jail for that.
And I just want to point this out: Its remarkable how the oil prices began collapsing in July of last year...everyone simply attributed it to republican manipulation, but its surely just a 'coincidence' that it occurred at the end of the same month that we had the worlds production rate exceed 85 mbpd, and in the same quarter that we set our high production average! :laughs:
One simply has to wonder what Prof. Deffeyes has to grind, grit and crunch his teeth on! :laughs:
If you have evidence - back it up with data. If you dont - shut up.
Here is what you said yesterday about WT:
and here is what you said above about Deffeyes:
It is called hypocrisy.
You seem like a nice kid, that has a lot to learn. Sit back, take your own advice, listen to the giants like Deffeyes and Simmons, and the crusty old posters like Alan, Airdale, and Don et al that actually know what they are talking about when it comes to life experiences. This site is not about who can shout the loudest and be the most demeaning to other posters. It is about taking in a lot of different perspectives about Peak Oil, and reflecting quietly on how you personally are going to deal with it. And if you have someting ORIGINAL to say - please say it - but dont just lurk looking for the next "victim" to attack with vicious inuendo and smears.
Francois.
First of all, that comment wasn't even directed at WT, so right off the bat your opinion can be considered completely out of whack! :laughs:
Second, I quoted Prof. Deffeyes. Those were his words, written on his blog, following his admissions at market manipulation. I'm laughing at the irony of it all. I'm sure you're probably attaching an emotional reaction because you feel bad at being so blind.
However, there IS a difference between both cases. On the one hand, I was referring to how someone tries to add an EMOTIONAL element to a scientific debate, on the other, I am laughing at someones OPINIONS whose hands have been found caught in the cookie jar.
Notice the disconnect you are obviously experiencing between SCIENTIFIC DEBATES and OPINIONS. If anyone is being hypocritical, its you!
And I don't need to 'prove' anything to anyone. Prof. Deffeyes, in his OWN WORDS described how he advised several hedge funds on peak oil, and about how one particular hedge fund in Japan 'made a hell of a lot of money' on his advice. Further more, he explicitly states that his own investments 'a la 'non-sucker bets'' made him a very wealthy man 'on paper', and that he was grinding, gritting and crunching his teeth at the recent spot oil decline.
How on gods green earth could you possibly try to defend this man? No human being is above reproach. It's truly sad that his acknowledgment of the sucker-punch he made on the rest of the world is ignored by this community. Someone should hold him accountable.
It's going to only get worse over the next few years after we reach a new production maximum every few months :laughs:
Dear Hothgor,
Allthough you get a lot of nasty remarks here on TOD, you must understand that you are of great value to the Peak Oil comunity. I'll explain why:
You represent how the most people on the planet are. People that live in an isolated cognitive environment that have the following live credo:
"I don't care about facts and science, I mainly form my opinion on feeling and popular bits of info that the mainstream media feed me".
So your reasoning about and your reactions to the peak-oil phenomana represent the reactions most people will have. And it is important to know how those people react.
So thank you for posting! Keep it up please!!
We need to know....
Roger from the Netherlands
You seem to have selected particular labels to fit me that do not necessarily reflect my opinions as a whole. And while I appreciate your obvious humor and sarcasm, I have to point out that I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe in Peak Oil, that I believe that at some point oil production must peak and then decline forever, and that our present way of life is unsustainable.
My main objective however is to point out to people that a world without FFs doesn't require us to revert back to a pre-industrial agrarian aristocracy. I've tried my best to emphasize electrification of our transportation, though unlike Alan I think our needs can best be served by electrifying cars in the medium term. In addition to that, one of my majors in College was a study on improving efficiencies in a work environment and various systems.
With that said, our use of energy world wise is grossly wasteful. The idea of building our modern economy on the ICE which utilizes less then 15% of the energy content of oil is, to put it mildly, idiotic. The uses of various hydrocarbons are far to numerous to waste burning in a machine that has over 600 moving parts built by the lowest bidder in some third world country.
To that end, however, I can not stand people who proudly proclaim that the end is near and that we must experience some form of grand hardship. Our lifestyle does not warrant some kind of divine punishment. The old adage that no good deed goes unpunished should have no sway in our future.
Unfortunately, people do not like to be criticized on their misguided beliefs. And they certainly don't appreciate anyone attacking their self serving 'prophet'.
Dear Hothgor,
That is interesting. When do you think peak oil will happen?
And what do you think decline rates in production and export will be?
I think you are right about the potentials of conserving and wiser energy usage.
My own experience is that it is quite easy to cut ones energy expendure by 20% without any real sacrifices at all. Quite a nice experiment to do I can tell you.
Ofcourse the Jeverson paradox is messing things up here ;-)
Roger from the Netherlands
Around 2015
Around 2-3%
I look at total liquids, individual declines will be greater obviously.
Decline rates in conventional oil are in modernized oil fields between 8 and 15 %.
Where will all the compensating extra oil comming from? Oilsands? Bio?
How about new fields? Do you think the oil companies of the world are going to stop developing new fields when we peak? New fields are continually coming online to offset the decline of existing fields. One day they won't be quite enough to offset the decline and we'll start to see a slow decline in production.
News flash.
Discovery of your so-called "new fields" peaked 40 years ago, in the 1960's. (Welcome to TOD --trust, but villify)
Ener Ji's point was that to maintain the 40-yr R/P ratio, the field decline rate matters not if discoveries and reserve growth keep pace. Your graph is disingenuous i.e. it fails to reflect that the magnitude of Reserve Growth has allowed new discoveries to slide.
Based on 18 recognized estimates, URR (including Discoveries & Reserve Growth) has grown 140-Gb/yr since Y2k as compared to the 48-Gb/yr fifty year average. This is despite the fact that we consume 31-Gb/yr. To what end would an R/P ratio of 50 yrs or 60 yrs serve? The marketplace says "none".
The last year that the URR AVG actually decreased was 5-GB in 1994. The last year that Remaining Reserves AVG declined was 9-Gb in 1998.
There is no doubt that URR is increasing due to economic factors. The rate of growth in the next two decades may be correlated to Pricing.
please click link to see whole graph: http://trendlines.ca/TrendlinesPeakOilURREstimatesGraph70106.gif
That's the best that you can pull out of your bag of shill's tricks, Freddy?
Come on, we already know about that tired old numbers game.
Yes, I'll grant you that we grow the "Reserves" number to any large value we want simply by counting up the hydrocarbons on Jupiter, Neptune and the moons of Endore.
As a matter of fact we can arbitrarily double the "Reserves" count for East Texas.
This scary, but I'm going to do it.
Watch this:
I hereby declare that the "Reserves" numbers for East Texas are now double of what they were yesterday.
Even I'm surprised. Jeffrey of Westexas just called me. Seems production in Texas went up 100% just seconds after I proclaimed that its Reserve numbers are hereby doubled. They can't believe it but it's true. Oil production doubled overnight in Texas. It was that simple. All I had to do was utter magic words.
"Reserves".
Them are powerful words.
It is unfortunate that the concept of Reserve Growth as explained by many at TOD has escaped u thus far. Perhaps a basic tutorial at Wikipedia would assist u in that regards. It continues to amaze us how folks like yourself presume that we use the same oil three times and don't have to replenish. Stick in there, eh...
New field discovery may have peaked but they are still being discovered, and old fields that were not put into production because there was lower hanging fruit will continue to be put into production especially as the price of oil rises. Therefore yes, new field production will continue to partially offset the decline of production post peak and diminish the rate of decline.
The only recognized modeler to incorporate aggressive decline rates was Chris Skrebowski's Megaprojects with its 3% to 7% progressive rate. But upon review and the realities of exhausting 1.2-Tb of Reserves over the next hundred years, he prudently revised his Decline Rate to 2.5% in December. To seek the average Post Peak Net Decline Rate, one must average the declining fields with the hundreds of undeveloped fields.
Like Colin Campbell, Chris has decided to put integrity of data and good science ahead being "ambassadors" of the Peak Oil message of immenency. They understand that being forthright and credible is the foundation for being heard.
Hothgor-
If he didn't make them money, they probably wouldn't invite him back...
The problem is that he is using his influence and political clout to adversely affect the market in ways that they were trending against. He and disguise his motives by saying hes doing it for the benefit of mankind, but he most likely had access to information that the rest of us did not and profited from that knowledge by investing in oil options before the same hedge funds he advised did so.
The sad thing is you guys keep throwing money at the 'prophet'. What has he done for you in return??
I think I've clicked on 2 ads on TOD. Does that count as giving money to the prophet?
Re: It's going to only get worse over the next few years after we reach a new production maximum every few months :laughs:
Normally, I wouldn't bother with you, Hothgar. But I am in the mood to settle your hash here and now.
Since you bring little of substance to our discussion here on The Oil Drum, and insofar as you are a constant disruptive presence here, there has been some speculation as to whether you are a paid troll. I myself have hoped this was true sometimes, for if you are doing this because you enjoy it, only psychiatric intervention would have any hope at all of making a difference in your life. Should you go that route on your own, follow the meds instructions of the doctor faithfully. Don't get discouraged if the first ones you try don't work. Perhaps the magic bullet will come your way. On the other hand, if you are paid to do this work, your moral situation is hopeless and, as a human being, you have failed to comprehend the first thing about life that really matters — the idea that we are all in this together. Still, at least your behaviour would be understandable in some rudimentary way.
Now, the people who run this website are good people, fair people, the kind of people who will bend over backwards not to stifle debate. If it were up to me, your sorry ass would have been tossed a long time ago. I am not of the same good quality of the powers that be around here. Thank God for their restraint.
My advice to you — in the context I have stated here — is to take a good look at yourself, at who you are, and then think about the better person you might become. I look forward to the day when you are able to do that.
adieu,
Dave
Believe me, I will keep your comments in mind.
Now, what will you do if what I said is true and we do start setting new production heights?
I am perfectly willing to be wrong but, alas, can find no convincing arguments that I am. But, I have not specified a timeframe, have I?
What would I do if were wrong about peak oil? Happening in 2005? 2007? 2010? 2015? 2020? The last date is a scant 13 years from now. That's not a long time away. Any of those dates signal a significant problem for mankind. You see the meaninglessness of your question, I presume. It's coming, though I tend to think sooner rather than later.
Yes, please bear in mind what I said.
Rejoice and cry --both at the same time.
Rejoice because Peak is not yet.
Cry because we continue to pump toxic pollutants into the air with no end in sight.
Hothgor.
I dont agree with you, but you are putting up one hell of a spirited defence of your initial attacking position :-)
due you have any ancestors located at any of the following?
The 44th Foot on the retreat from Kabul.
Greasy Grass
Rorkes Drift
Spion Kop
Keep it up Hothgor! Roger is right, you are a pretty good benchmark example of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Sorry, should read do you, not due you.
Was on the phone about a nixed crew change.
I don't think Hothgor is a twentysomething from small town Texas as some have portrayed him. I'm around young twentysomethings all the time as a college teacher, and this is not how they write (speak).
Thats because most twentysomthings are obsessed with 24, iPods, and a fixation on 'conquests' instead of worrying about the future that they will inherit.
i think hotgor is a dual cyberperson, the alternate user name of someone rather familiar at tod. isnt there a good linguist in the house that can bust the sucker ?
I'm no linguist but it seems to me that Hothgor frequently writes "then" instead of "than", like in
See second Hothgor's post in http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/19/8553/6333#44
I did not see the same common mistake in other user's comments.
No, he thinks I am Hothgar. He actually suggested this in Sunday's Drumbeat:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2201#comment-150748
The fact that nobody responded to such a wild suggestion should have clued him in that he was barking up the wrong tree. I started to respond, but defending myself all the time gets tiresome. So, I let it slide. But elwood, who I actually think is OilCEO :-), is quite out in left field on that one. After all, does it make sense that I would go to so much trouble to disclose who I am and what I do, and then risk everything by using a sock puppet? Do you think the site owners can't track IP addresses? Look back when Hothgar first started posting and you will see that we butted heads more than a few times. I know, I know. Probably just to cover myself. I will never understand what get's into some people's heads.
Elwood, don't ever try to convince anyone you would make any kind of detective. Your sleuthing skills stink.
and cant the site owners track the ip address of oilceo ? and furthermore, cant one dualcyberperson have more than 1 IP address ?and dont ever convince anyone you are a logical thinker because your logic: highly stinko
and cant the site owners track the ip address of oilceo ?
I see that your sarcasm detector is broken.
and furthermore, cant one dualcyberperson have more than 1 IP address ?
So you still think you are onto something, eh Sherlock? Well, knock yourself out with this theory. See if you can get anyone else to agree with you.
and dont ever convince anyone you are a logical thinker because your logic: highly stinko
Yet I am not the one that thinks one of the TOD Staff Members - who posts under his real name and tries to always provide full disclosure - has a sock puppet. Again, knock yourself out. Don't expect to get much support for that idea, and don't be surprised if people laugh at you. Also, don't expect Scotland Yard to call.
now robert, aren't you the one who gets so offended at others misinterpreting your position: "no, he thinks, i am hothgor" and "yet. i am not the one that thinks........"
maybe you should go back an re read the posts and view them from a logical (not emotional) perspective.
..... and arent you the one so offended at "ad homennem" attacks ?
imo, if you could learn to recognize and admit when you are wrong you wouldnt be constantly "defending yourself".
making a move to a new job, new home and "across the pond" is no doubt stressful so dont you owe it to yourself, your family and your employer to................CHILL OUT !
Hothgor, from his writing, is male, went to school in the US, is a native English speaker, most likely is in college or has a college degree (high or low).
He has done some writing in his life. The writing might be only college type essays and posts on the internet, or it might be more, but not professionally at a high level. His written language is very standard and very clear, particularly in his choice of vocabulary. (with mistakes etc. due to haste)
Some of it does have a ‘young’ or ‘college’ air, where the balance between formality and ‘fancy’ or ‘written’ (read useless) forms, and the message, is not well handled:
You seem to have selected particular labels to fit me that do not necessarily reflect my opinions as a whole.
The old adage that no good deed goes unpunished should have no sway in our future.
I won’t detail the college-like aspects of that, readers can feel it.
Rapier would never produce such sentences.
His age: under 38 though I feel 38 is pushing it. The content is another matter, that sounds very young.
Well a lot of attention is being paid to him! I should stop. Stop.
noisette, are you a linguist ?
"why do you feel the need to misrepresent my statements "?
the words of an experienced technical writer or a missunderstood 30 something ?
Man, I really need to start working on that! :laughs: English was never my strong point in school either.
"Market" manipulation in the oil industry!!! I'm shocked, shocked!!!
Just what color is the sky where you live my friend?
This dribble should speak for itself
Thank you. It usually does.
So how DO you go about picking your targets? First WT, then Deffeyes...
I think you have some important things to say, Point me to your Website, and the Technical papers and books you have written.
Or are they proprietary to your sponsors?
Hello Samsara,
All of this anger and hatred directed at Hothgor is absolutely inappopriate. While doubts still remain about Peak Oil skepticism and criticism are both justified and healthy. Attacking unbelievers, on the other hand, is merely a display of near-religious faith combined with the intolerance which manifests weakness.
Too many people involved in the Peak Oil movement have their hands in the oil industry's cookie jar. Objectivity is impossible for those who have their wealth and retirement depending upon the success and obscene profits of these Earth-destroying industries.
I dont think that last paragraph is fair comment.
Yes, some on this site work in the Oil patch.
Yes, many have probably made some kind of reasonable life in it.
No, the people posting on this site are not looking at wealth and retirement due to the obscene profits of these earth-destroying industries. A lot are just trying to get by and compensate for the losses they took in the 80's and 90's.
Some little factlets for you:
I joined in 1982 as a sprog-mudlogger. From 1986 to well , last year, the lucrative oil patch was it actual recession for 17 out of those 20 years.
I have seen careers destroyed, marriages destroyed, houses reposessed, suicides.
I have seen brilliant engineers and earth scientists cut off at the knees in periods of 'right-sizing' and 'down sizing'.
Many if not most, never came back.
I have seen half a generation of these dedicated and inventive people cut out of the industry and now no longer available to it.
We are paying dearly in missing skill sets right now.
A lot of us are bemused, slightly grumpy old men wondering where the next bank of talent is coming from to keep this 'obscenely profitable earth destroying industry' on the road.
If you want to make obscene profits during this last 25 years, then you should look to:
1.Internet Pornography.
2.Mangement Consultancies (basically same as 1)
3.Lawyers.(Same as 1 and 2)
4.Globalist Economists (same as 1, 2, 3)
5.Drug Barons (most money obtained by supplying 1, 2, 3, and possibly 4)
6. Breast enhancement surgeons (vital for 1, and the wives of 2, 3, 5 and quite possibly 4 and , I am sure 6 - as adverts).
Some very decent, ordinary joe-soaps work in this industry.
Some come to this site because they know what is round the corner.
We know, because we work at the 'coal face' and we know we are running out.
BTW:
Do you do any of the following?
Drive a car.
Sit at a plastic encased consol, key pad, on a synthetically covered and upholstered chair
Eat food not locally grown
Drink Water, Coke, Juice out of a carton or plastic bottle.
Buy Chinese jew-jaws, doo-hickeys or toys.
Live more than 20 minutes walking distance from work (I have to, I cannot afford the prices).
We are all part of the same damn problem. To a greater or lesser degree.
Unless you are a bushman in the Kalahari.
Unlikely: You are typing at a computer that took about 6bbls of earth-destroying oil to create.
Hello mudlogger,
Thanks for saying so, Mudlogger, I always suspected that this is the case.
From my reading of the posts and discussions here I cannot perceive anyone just getting by or attempting to recover from losses incurred over a decade ago. There's a whole lot of money in the oil industry and plenty of people here spend a lot of time counting their money and dreaming of obscene profits approaching in the post-peak future.
And I do have to say: Any money earned in the business of destroying the Earth is blood money. The oil industry is making a mess of the Earth. Contrary to all of the glorious promises of the past century, the 21st century world is filled with pollution, destruction, exploitation, oppression, and bloody warfare because of the accursed substance.
Although the people here allegedly know the consequences of Peak Oil (you know, billions of impoverished people dying) they still can hardly contain their greedy dreams of collecting huge profits over the next several decades because of their oil investments and trading oil futures contracts. Isn't that just obscene?
I have a moral, ethical, humanitarian and environmental objections to this sort of vile behavior.
Don't you?
I hope that the next bank of talent never shows up because the obscene profitable industry is succeeding too well at making a sewer of the Earth. What is the value of a living planet? Would you say that a living planet is more valuable than the American Way of Life?
I know, I know: The oil addicts are not allowed to criticize their drug-dealers.
I do all of these things but the American civilization prevents me from doing otherwise. There was a non-consumer exclusively-solar-powered civilization which formerly inhabited this land: America eradicated that culture and fought a genocidal war against it until its members were driven deep into the Everglades where a small number survived into America began directing its military aggression and bloody warfare elsewhere.
I mourn every day for what was lost because America has transformed this land into a desolate, lifeless, polluted wasteland incompatible with any sort of life except for mindless consumption and oil addiction and all the other addictions which Americans use to escape the dreary hell of soulless technological life.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
This reveals you as an incredible hypocrite dmathew1. Why should any of us listen to you at all?
Omg, you are still feeding this idiotic troll?
Any money earned in the business of destroying the Earth is blood money. d mathew wrote.
And Mudlogger gave us a grand list of industries ‘making obscene profits’, in contrast to the oil industry, starting with Internet pornography, quite right.
The arms merchants, or the military-industrial complex, have been forgotten. Surely they should be the first designated culprits?
Hello Hothgor,
Professor Deffeyes isn't a hero. For that matter, Matt Simmons isn't a hero either. These individuals have profited from the ongoing crime against humanity which is the global oil industry and they still lobby on behalf of these same oil corporations. The most revealing behavior of Matt Simmons, for example, was his advocacy of ANWR drilling and drilling off of Florida's Gulf Coast.
How many people at The Oil Drum are involved in the oil industry? There are plenty of people here who proudly speak of their wealth invested in oil stocks or oil futures. Plenty of posters here are also employed by oil corporations. In particular, Robert Rapier is both employed by oil corporations and he was involved in political lobbying regarding legislation which could potentially have harmed oil corporations' profit in Texas.
For that reason I reached the conclusion a long time ago:
The Oil Drum is Peak Oil from the standpoint of the oil corporations.
A healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate in such an environment. The oil industry is not well know for its honesty nor its integrity nor for its humanitarianism.
But Oil will peak and humans (especially obese Americans) will have no choice except to live without the accursed substance. Too bad for the Earth that there was so much. Too bad, also, for all those future generations of humankind who will inherit a desolate hellish planet because of the pollution and ecological destruction inflicted by the fossil fuel industries.
Peak Oil is a blessing. The sooner it occurs, the better. I would love to believe that it occurred in 2005 but doubts still remain.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Re: The Oil Drum is Peak Oil from the standpoint of the oil corporations.
A healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate in such an environment. The oil industry is not well know for its honesty nor its integrity nor for its humanitarianism....
I have no affiliation with the oil industry. Neither do almost all staff. But that issue is a red herring.
I resent your bogus association. After years of working on environmental, extinction & climate change problems and now peak oil — which as Chris' post from the other day made clear, are closely related — I am now tarred with the same brush of some (like ExxonMobil) whose policies I have opposed for a very long time.
Further, this is from your own website:
Aside from the fact that what you said is false, there's a lot of spewing and hate in what you said. You, sir, are a hypocrite and a liar. There's more hate in your heart than anything else, at least there was when you wrote your comment. Speaking of God — You know nothing of God or Peace. Or Peak Oil, for that matter. There is no place in this discussion for people who make remarks like yours above. No place. None at all.Hello David Cohen,
I did not claim that everybody at The Oil Drum is associated with the oil industry. But there are plenty. There are also plenty of people who claim to trade oil futures and possess investments in oil-industry related companies. Aside from these, all of the great lights of the Peak Oil movement (Matthew Simmons, Professor Deffeyes, etc.) have made millions of dollars in the oil industry.
If you are an environmentalist, David Cohen, that's great. You must be pretty lonely here, though, since the overwhelming majority of posters here explicitly advocate despoiling the last remaining vestiges of the Earth for the sake the last remaining drops of oil.
If The Oil Drum was a theological forum, I'd engage in a theological argument with you about the above claims and accusations. Since the Oil Drum is an oil & technology forum, I'll have to let this part of our argument go.
You tend to get a little emotional in your arguments, don't you?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
If you are an environmentalist, David Cohen, that's great. You must be pretty lonely here, though, since the overwhelming majority of posters here explicitly advocate despoiling the last remaining vestiges of the Earth for the sake the last remaining drops of oil.
My gosh man, can you possibly be serious? You say that you have read TOD for a year now, and this is what you believe? You have really blown any semblance of credibility. That is definitely the clueless statement of the day.
Look back at my gas tax story and see how many people here would be willing to pay very high gas taxes to cut our use of oil. The number was high. IMO the vast majority of people who post here are environmentalists.
Oh my, how could I have possibly made such a serious credibility-destroying mistake?
Somehow, though, I kind of suspect that environmentalists would never congregate at a website titled The Oil Drum. Well, I am glad that you have corrected my error.
If The Oil Drum is an environmentalists website, God help us all!
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
David, why do you post here If you seem find everyone on this site so repulsive, especially the main contributors?
Somehow, though, I kind of suspect that environmentalists would never congregate at a website titled The Oil Drum. Well, I am glad that you have corrected my error.
You are literally destroying any credibility that people might have been willing to afford you. I mean, nobody who actually reads TOD can come to the bizarre conclusions you have reached. Here you come and make a lot of noise about the lack of discourse, and you have the nerve to jump in with a lot of garbage posts that demonstrate you really don't know the most basic things about this site. Give it a rest, man. Whether you understand it or not, you have seriously damaged your credibility with the statements you have made.
Well. You have mananged to piss off the two senior contributors on the The Oil Drum. Are you happy now?
I brought up God because you did, on your website. I quoted Luke's gospel. You niftily avoided that. I'm not even a Christian, I don't believe that Christ arose from dead and visited us as God's Son to save us. I seek useful statements wherever I find them.
But, really, the problem is that you are insane. Any other kinds of arguments with you would miss that important, all-encompassing point.
It is truly unfortunate that in a public forum like this, anyone who knows how to type, no matter what their state of mind, can make comments. You are, unhappily, an exemplary case in point.
Sometimes I feel like throwing in the towel, saying "screw it", it's not worth it to write for a website where people like you can just make up any damn thing you please. Well, you don't win today, now or ever. I will continue to write on these issues because that is what is necessary to do.
I feel sorry for you. Life must be a daily Hell for you. It's a pity, really, and so sad — these manifestations of the human condition.
Finally, you said I get "emotional". Yes, I do. I did not ask to be born onto a planet that has more than its fair share of people like you. I did not ask for any of it. It was all just handed to me. Sometimes, I don't leave the house. You've just reminded me why that is.
Your emotions are of no concern to me.
What you believe or do not believe is your concern, not mine.
You are entitled to your own opinions, sir.
Freedom of speech is a terrible thing. Americans hate freedom of speech. It sort of interferes with each individaul's personal propaganda.
You need not "throw in the towel". But you probably should take a vacation and calm down.
Thanks, David, for your concern. You are an exemplary person. I admire you.
Life is unfair, David. The Universe doesn't exists for your sake.
But you are speaking a tragic truth when you say: "Sometimes, I don't leave the house."
Now, I have a little advice for you: Get out of the house more. You need some fresh air and a new perspective. You also need to calm down and find some happiness in life.
That's my advice to you, David Cohen. Try it out. You will thank me later.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
In particular, Robert Rapier is both employed by oil corporations and he was involved in political lobbying regarding legislation which could potentially have harmed oil corporations' profit in Texas.
That last portion is incorrect. I testified at the Montana state legislature against a proposed ethanol mandate for this state. During my testimony, which one can easily Google, I proposed that Montana would be better served investing that money into wind, because we have a very high wind potential, but would have to import lots of corn to produce ethanol. Had I not firmly believed that grain ethanol policy is a dead-end, I would not have agreed to testify. In addition, I have frequently taken positions that would harm oil company's profits (higher gas taxes, lower speed limit, higher CAFE standards).
Lots of people here know, both through my posts and from lots of e-mail discussions (and face to face discussions with a few posters) that I do not believe a fossil fuel economy is something we should strive to preserve. The only problem is that there isn't a painless way to transition away from it, so the measures that we need to take aren't being taken.
For that reason I reached the conclusion a long time ago:
The Oil Drum is Peak Oil from the standpoint of the oil corporations.
Then you are spectacularly misinformed. I know that the world is made up of all types of people with all kinds of opinions, but it is very hard for me to see how anyone who regularly reads TOD can come to such a conclusion.
Hello Robert Rapier,
You also lobbied against a California amendment (which happened to fail) prior to last years' elections, right? I distinctly remember you investing a great amount of effort in pursuit of that goal.
Mr. Rapier, are you employed in the oil industry? Do you have investments in the oil industry? Do you trade in oil futures? These are the sorts of disclosures that I would need in order to judge the merits of your views within their proper context.
I am almost certain that you are not an environmentalist. Am I correct about that much?
I have read your posts, Mr. Rapier, and have reached an entirely different conclusion. I wonder why? Oh well, I have never claimed any sort of perfection. Maybe I have you confused with someone else who posts regularly at The Oil Drum.
Well, here is a real mystery: I regularly read The Oil Drum and have done so for a very long time. How is it that I reached the above conclusion?
Would you like to venture a guess as to how I came to reach the above conclusion? What could someone have done or said on The Oil Drum which would provoke a regular reader of this website to reach such a conclusion?
You also lobbied against a California amendment (which happened to fail) prior to last years' elections, right? I distinctly remember you investing a great amount of effort in pursuit of that goal.
So, it was Texas, but now it's California? You can't even get basic facts right. Why is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
I wrote essays explaining what would happen if the measure passed. I was actually ambivalent about passage. If it had passed, I think it would have raised gas prices, which would have meant more conservation. My beef was with the way it was being marketed. I never argued against the measure. I said I thought it was a bad idea, and I defended against some incorrect and misleading information. But I am actually friends with one of the people who helped draft the measure. She certainly realized that I had no ulterior motives.
Mr. Rapier, are you employed in the oil industry? Do you have investments in the oil industry? Do you trade in oil futures? These are the sorts of disclosures that I would need in order to judge the merits of your views within their proper context.
So you need to certain disclosures before you can judge the merits of my views? How’s that? If I make argument X, does that argument suddenly change if I change employers? The merits of my arguments stand regardless of whom I work for. Yes, I work for the oil industry. I have stock through my company 401K. I do not trade oil futures. And I have been completely open at all times about these issues. And I have consistently argued that we need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. But I won’t ask you if you are somehow financially involved with the ethanol industry before I will address your arguments. That would be a bit of an ad hominem fallacy, don’t you think?
I am almost certain that you are not an environmentalist. Am I correct about that much?
Your lack of credibility is showing. My energy use per capita is a fraction of the average American’s. That is no accident. I have spent years of my life working on alternative energy. I have preached conservation, solar and wind power, higher gas taxes, etc. Check my list of stories. And you expect anyone here to believe that you are a regular reader? If you were, you wouldn’t have to ask whether I am an environmentalist.
I have read your posts, Mr. Rapier, and have reached an entirely different conclusion. I wonder why?
Given your incredibly wrong statements so far, I would say that the reason you reached that conclusion lies within you. You have reached the conclusion you chose to reach, and not the one supported by the evidence.
Well, here is a real mystery: I regularly read The Oil Drum and have done so for a very long time. How is it that I reached the above conclusion?
Again, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you would come to spectacularly incorrect conclusions. I can’t answer that for you. Perhaps it’s a comprehension problem. Perhaps you are not a native English speaker. Perhaps you have an agenda and just wish to spread misinformation. You will have to answer that question yourself.
Yes, it was California. I'm going on memory and that is why I misplaced the location of your lobbying effort.
If you say so ...
Well, an environmentalist employed by the oil industry. Ahem ... oh my, what can I say?
Eh ... are there a whole lot of environmentalists employed by the oil industry? The oil industry is well know for how well it takes care of the environment.
And ... how is it that a person employed by the oil industry has such a prominent place and role at The Oil Drum?
The ethanol industry? Hate to burst your bubble, Robert, but all of your critics don't come from the ethanol industry. I hate ethanol as much as I hate oil. I am an environmentalists. I am looking forward to the end of all these artificial things so that the natural things can reassert themselves and restore the Earth to its original pristine condition which existed prior to the apocalypse which has occurred over the last ten thousand years.
I don't buy this propaganda, Robert. You are employed by the oil industry. You aren't an environmentalist.
Given the level of intellectual discourse on The Oil Drum, I don't imagine that any sort of comprehension problem. What I think, Robert, is that you have an agenda of your own which is intimately associated with the source of your income and your career.
Any person employed by the oil industry who takes such a vocal role on behalf of the oil industry cannot speak objectively about matters related to the oil industry, peak oil, ethanol, government policy or the environment.
Please note, I am by no means accusing you of *lying* nor of *misrepresenting yourself* (since you have revealed yourself pretty well over the last year or so). But you are acting essentially as a *spokeman* for the oil industry and therefore all of your advocacy and conclusions must fall within the same realm of skepticism which is applied to any statement coming from the oil industry.
The oil industry does not have an excellent reputation in regard to its honesty, integrity, humanitarianism or environmentalism. Robert Rapier, you are the oil industry. Why should I trust you or your conclusions?
Who else at The Oil Drum is employed by and/or invested in the oil industry? Full disclosure, please, for the sake of integrity.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
I'm going on memory and that is why I misplaced the location of your lobbying effort.
Yeah, that may be part of the problem.
Well, an environmentalist employed by the oil industry. Ahem ... oh my, what can I say?
It is hard to believe that people as clueless as you exist. Oil companies have entire departments of environmental people, you know. I have a long, public track record demonstrating my environmentalism. Yet you, some random jerk-off, come on here and start insulting people whose environmental actions would put yours to shame. I will certainly put my environmental footprint up against yours any day of the week. I mean, you are one of those hypocrites who complains and complains about the oil industry and yet still uses our products. Right? You use gasoline and plastics, don’t you? Freaking clueless hypocrite. And then come on here and demonstrate that you are wrong about even the most basic facts.
Hate to burst your bubble, Robert, but all of your critics don't come from the ethanol industry.
No, some clearly come straight from the loony bin.
I am an environmentalists.
Prove it. I have a long record to demonstrate it. Prove yourself.
I don't buy this propaganda, Robert. You are employed by the oil industry. You aren't an environmentalist.
You use gasoline and plastics. You aren’t an environmentalist. Right? Only a hypocrite would do so after your diatribe. You are using solar power right now, right? Lord, I hope so. If not, you are using coal-generated electricity. Again, no environmentalist could do this.
Are you for real?
Given the level of intellectual discourse on The Oil Drum..
Boy, you certainly raised the discourse.
Robert Rapier, you are the oil industry. Why should I trust you or your conclusions?
It doesn’t matter if I am the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. It is not me you have to trust. It is my arguments you have to address. Being an intellectual and all, you do understand the ad hominem fallacy, right? But it isn’t even clear that you disagree with any of my arguments. You are merely casting aspersions. And I could give a rat’s ass if you trust me. I simply don’t have the time or desire to continue arguing with someone so far out there. You are on my ignore list now. If you ever want to argue an actual point, please bring it up. What you have engaged in so far is a very, very low level of intellectual discourse. Just the thing you have complained about.
Who else at The Oil Drum is employed by and/or invested in the oil industry? Full disclosure, please, for the sake of integrity.
Right. So if anyone else here is employed by the oil industry, please let some guy named Dave Mathews know so he will know that you have no integrity and aren’t to be trusted. What a freaking loon.
Oh my ... give glory to God, the oil corporations love the environment!!!
Robert Rapier, you are the best! I admire your greatness and your vast accomplishments on behalf of the environment.
You are an angry person, aren't you? Too angry to take seriously. Too angry to speak with integrity. How is it that such a great man as Robert Rapier has become frothing-at-the-mouth angry?
God bless you, Robert. God help you, too.
The addict cannot criticize his drug-dealer. Right, Robert the Environmentalist?
I have no interest in getting into an argument with you, Robert Rapier the Oil Environmentalist. I would never engage in an argument with such an exalted, righteous person.
I find your angry denouncement of this request very revealing, Mr. Rapier the Oil Environmentalist. What do you people have to hide?
Probably a whole bunch. Oh well. Shall we save the environment, Robert? Yes, let's save the environment. We will save the environment. Shall we drill in ANWR to save the environment?
Why are you participating here?
quit feeding the troll
From dmathew1's web site:
The evidence suggests otherwise.
Whether or not someonee is an environmentalist, or "works for the man." (hint, most people with technical expertise do, not many mom and pop shops are hiring a lot of scientists) has little bearing on the value of their analysis. It DOES perhaps have bearing on their ability (and willingness) to carry out a task or a job, which is why Bush being an oil barron is ample disqualification for his rise to the throne, er, um, I mean presidency. So, the whole ad hominem attack route has some validity when discussing what a person will likely do in the future, or questioning the sincerity of his efforts at current endeavors, especially those that went poorly and were handled with less than sterling competence, but it has very little bearing on statements of verifiable technical fact or well reasoned analysis.
What you do want is for someone to have some reputation to put on the line, which RR does, and perhaps some reasoning skills and technical competence, which he also appears to have. Since RR isn't running for office or any other position of trust, his personal beliefs are irrelevant, as are financial motives. What he says is either supported or unsupported.
I would also like to add that I don't consider myself an environmentalist (as I'm sure anyone who read some of my posts would figure out), but this has more to do with my utter inability to find any discernable connection between "environmentalists" and people whose actions indicate that they care in the slightest for the environment, or the good of their fellow man for that matter. In any case, the labels a person chooses for himself, and those applied by or to others are little more than name calling, in most cases*. The world just isn't that simple.
* Notable exception, Democrat or Republican determines who controls the agenda in washington, which is very relevant. The most conservative Dem is "more liberal" than the most liberal Republican, because he voted to give control over to Pelosi (or Reed) rather than their (clearly more conservative) Republican counterparts. That is, in most congresses, the one and only vote that matters substantially. In that case labels matter, in the case of "environmentalist" or "technocrat" or whatever, it probably doesn't.
Speaking as one who taught logic for more than a quarter of a century, I can state with no fear of successful contradiction that you do not understand the ad hominem fallacy. An attack on a person's views because of that person's status is always a case of ad hominem fallacy.
If you attack a person's statements because they lack the credentials that might qualify somebody to make an informed statement on a topic, that attack is not necessarily fallacious; it would depend on the relevance of the credentials in question. However, attacking somebody's views because of their place of employment, gender, race, nationality, religion or other irrelevant criterion is always and everywhere fallacious.
You are the one guilty of fallacy, and by such mud slinging you discredit your own views, because if you had a good argument, why would you instead employ fallacy?
IMO, Robert now has his own "Hothgor." I suspect that Robert might be attracting some attention because of his position on ethanol.
IMO, Robert now has his own "Hothgor."
That very thought crossed my mind last night. That was pretty nasty yesterday, eh?
Eh ... I strongly suspect that you people are either paranoid or are suffering from some sort of delusion of grandeur. Robert Rapier is a small fish in a small pond.
What you people are demonstrating is an absolute incapacity to endure any sort of criticism. Your ears are too sensitive for your own harsh tongues.
The Oil Drum is an oil industry website.
That much is clearly established. Anything else?
"The Oil Drum is an oil industry website. "
WAY off bud.........mostly academics and environmentalists here, many with inside knowledge of the industry though. This site is at least left of middle.
General.....Every single person on the Oil Drum or any popular board for that matter has a computer and uses electricity, lives in in an acceptable home, heated in the winter, has hot water on tap (or the means to heat it), uses mechanical transport, often a car, eats as much as he or she wants, much of it food grown far away and processed, trucked, then heated, etc. (There might be some exceptions, I am speaking generally.) Many will work for corps. or the State or whatever, and have money invested in ‘the market’ even if they don’t wish that, thru their pension funds, or tax schemes that encourage such. How are they supposed to go back to Nature?
Individual responsibility can only go so far. What does it mean to be an environmentalist today? What effect does it have?
During the Upper Paleolithic people killed bears. They used animal fat for lamps, and in some regions decimated big game to extinction. Heh. Did they have their back to nature lovers as well? History is mute. The Sumerians (when texts began..) had many recipes and rules for proper management, elaborated thru experience, of irrigation, agri, animal husbandry, building, manufacture (not to mention the economy, taxes, dowries, proper gvmt. etc.) but seemed, afaik, to have no awareness of ‘limits’, only of strictures, within their laid down practices, which were of course adjusted to what Nature did or provided. The dangers they faced in their eyes came from other people or improper unruly criminal behavior in their own community. Within the technology they had, that seems reasonable - the limits would be imponderable, acts of God, or the sharp stick of history.....
Rambling on an outdate thread! Anyway. Y'all get the drift.
Give me a break. A geologist reaches conclusions based on his understanding of the evidence, invests accordingly, and does well. That's "market manipulation"?! That's just being smart.
Yes, because we ALL know that every geologist reaches a conclusion and then proceeds to write various books, advise hedge funds, and 'make a killing' off the resulting bull run on oil options!
They locked up Martha Stewart for far less. :laughs:
Hello Hothgar,
I believe you are a bright, young man--therefore the future belongs to you much more than it does to an older codger like me or Deffeyes. Youthful vigor and intelligence constructively applied to opportunities has an infinite value.
Ranting against Deffeyes's investments is fruitless -- time will pass him by, but your generation will still be here. I suggest you take the long view and spend more time conceiving of imaginative ways to spread PO + GW Outreach to the youngsters. You, and other young adults like Savinar [AMPOD], Nate Hagens, AngryChimp, and so on, have much to do and very little time.
Creating the new paradigm, not dissension, would do much to elevate your future leadership chances. Facilitating effective Detritus Powerdown and Biosolar Powerup, promoting social norms for widespread voluntary birth controls, and averting global resource wars is the destiny of your generation--Do what you can.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"therefore the future belongs to you much more than it does to an older codger like me or Deffeyes. Youthful vigor and intelligence constructively applied to opportunities has an infinite value."
Bob Shaw this is where we have differing opinions.
I believe that Hothie's life ,if chaos visits us, will be extremely brief and uneventful. He will go without anyone even being aware.
What he brings to the 'table' is worthless in the extreme.
He has pissed off most of those he tries to cross swords with due to hisarrogance, blunders and misplaced hubris.
I shudder to think that this is our replacement. I don't think he is worth the salt in his biscuit.
Like another said though, "good that he is here so we can see what most of society is like"......circling the drain.
Ah yes, and to think, I am the one who lacks morals and needs psychiatric help, not this man who has wished on me a horrible death in the echelons of obscurity. And remember folks, the doomers shall inherit the earth, not the meek.
You forgot ":laughs:".
The humour is leaving this blog-site.
It is actually getting quite nasty.
I have ranted here myself when really, really angry, usually about blood and treasure wasted in Iraq. Sometimes, rants were intentionally barbed.
But did not receive much back in personal attacks. I received reasonable , if contrarian arguments
WT , RR , DC and others appear now to be under continual personal attack.
Que Bono?
Shame really. If they quit posting, then the truth and beauty of scientific argument will vanish from this site.
It is showing all the hallmarks of a religious schism:
''Bloody popular front for the liberation of Palestine!
Yeah!
Splitters!
Where are they?
He is over there.''
Good points Mudlogger.
When I first came around there were plenty of crusty characters, insults, ad hominems, profanity, and evident psychopathology.
And it was more fun.
Cui bono? is a very good question. Some of the new posters seem to want to destroy discussion even more than they want to score points in silly ego games. And they have time to post lots and lots.
I agree. It's getting uglier. I have always maintained that it would be foolish to think that there are not paid individuals to harm the view of PO. There is too much money at risk - it would be cheap insurance.
"Arrogance" and "hubris", eh? There's a saying about jaundiced eyes that comes to mind here...
Seriously - if you wonder why most people don't take Peak Oil seriously, look at how people who don't share The Faith are treated. To an outsider, Peak Oilers look like a nihilistic cult; until you change that, you're your own worst enemy.
This is actually a good point, imho.
I rarely see a technical matter disputed competently, but lots of bile for the non-peak-oilers or even the non-doomers is common.
Though of course I won't pretend to be above the fray.
As I've said, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the Peak Oil theory, the question is all in the timing. I've said my 2 cents with my spirited 'debate' with WT, but RR does an much better job at conveying why he doesn't believe peak oil is here yet then I ever could. Its the doomers that get out of control on this site, and when they put their nose in an issue, things get nasty really quickly.
But as it was said, the doomers are practically involved in a 'cult', and Prof. Deffeyes has called himself a peak oil 'prophet' on many many MANY occasions.
If the shoe fits...
Hi Hothgor,
I just replied to your answer (to me) back under your comment (of yesterday). If you have time, could you please look it up? Thanks.
A source in D.C. told me yesterday that the President will call for a "mandate for 40 billion gallons of ethanol by 2030" in his State of the Union. My primary question to this would be: What's your contingency plan?
As I wrote to someone else regarding a new article by Vinod Khosla entitled "The War on Oil":
In the article (I think it was in the WSJ) Khosla once again compared cellulosic ethanol to improvements in computers:
He also repeated something he has been saying for several years now:
Mark that down on your calendars folks. That will be one of those claims that is spectacularly wrong.
Your source must have read yesterday's IHT. ;-)
No, I had heard those numbers (60 billion gallons) previously. All kinds of numbers have been floating around - from a doubling of the current 7.5 billion gallon mandate up to 60 billion gallons.
My source told me two pieces of information which if true, are significant. First, the number will be 40 billion gallons (not 15 or 60). Second, it would be a call for a mandate. Regarding mandates, I would caution to be careful what you wish for. Mandates are quite different than goals or objectives.
The man who will call for this mandate will be wearing diapers on a ranch in Paraguay by 2030. Not much reason to be careful.
Ha Ha!
My questions are:
Where you gonna grow it?
How you gonna irrigate for it?
Who will go without food when you grow it?
Who will plant and harvest it?
Who will get to use it?
Last two are easy: We will plant it. 'They' will use it.
Ever wondered why beef is called beef but comes from a cow?
Ever wondered why Pig meat is called Ham or Pork, but the animal is called a pig, or a sow?
Ever wondered why Sheep meat is called mutton when it gets to the table?
Because the Defeated Anglo Saxons slaved in the fields to rear it: (Cow, Pig, Sheep).
But the Norman conquerors got to eat it: Beef , Ham, Mutton).
Dorme Bien.
As the Normans used to say after a good meal...
It's news like this, that we are going to dig an even deeper hole by placing our bets on ethanol, that makes me despair that this country will ever come up with a rational energy policy. This is kind of like doubling down in Iraq. I repeat. Ethanol creates more problems that it solves, which isn't difficult, because it solves nothing. And what will we hear in the next President's state of the union address? A plan to lower food prices?
That's in the Mexican Presidente's speech this year....
Vinod Krhosla has got ethanol figured out better than 95% of those who post here on TOD. He just keeps getting better and better. The ethanol detractors here will never admit any of their errors with regard to subsidies, EROEI, soil depletion etc.. I expect they will just keep repeating the same stuff over and over as they have been doing. It's tiresome to comment on all the misinformation about ethanol here on the TOD. So I just ignore it, as I suppose most will ignore this.
Vinod Krhosla has got ethanol figured out better than 95% of those who post here on TOD. He just keeps getting better and better.
Yes, he had it all figured out. That's why I had to debunk him, and after our phone conversations he corrected some of the claims he had been making in his presentations. He still has errors and misleading claims in there, but it is getting better.
The ethanol detractors here will never admit any of their errors with regard to subsidies, EROEI, soil depletion etc.
Whenever you feel like discussing some of these "errors", I would be glad to discuss them. Please identify the errors on the topics you mentioned.
So I just ignore it, as I suppose most will ignore this.
OK, I didn't ignore it. I challenge you to back up your statements. The ball is in your court.
What is there to discuss? Corn ethanol is a subsidy, like so many others. It solves nothing but to steal money from the tax payer legally. And while I agree with you that that is quite an accomplishment, I do not see it as being a solution to the problem of renewable energy. As it is, the replacement of one gallon of gasoline with ethanol could feed a dozen people. And even in a best case scenario photovoltaics energetically beats the crap out of ethanol by almost two orders of magnitude in land use. Until we can genetically engeneer a biochemical photosynthesis cycle that is ten times better than the one nature came up with, this won't change. At least not in the minds of people who understand basic physics.
With regards to the president's upcoming speach: we are seeing his ideas on Iraq go bankrupt as we speak. His ideas on our future energy economy are just as laughable. By the time he will leave office everything he will have said on the topic will have been proven utterly wrong by reality. One can only hope that the two year delay during which the fool can veto proper legislation will not cause additional harm to the US economy. One can always hope...
Robert -
Do you have a single URL that you could post that leads to a complete exposition of your position regarding ethanol?
What I would hope to find is a reference document that can be provided to others so that they can review it and come to their own decision vis-a-vis the economic wisdom of ethanol and the fact that ethanol development may preclude, or close off, alternate sets of responses which may offer much greater long term benefit.
I see no reason for government to subsidize Khosala's further wealth and am astonished that a claimed Republican may come out in favour of government subsidy and state direction of economic activity as opposed to the free actions of informed market participants. The imposition of a Stalinesque 5 year plan may be the next step.
If you did have such a URL then it might be included in rebuttal postings on web sites following up on the State of the Union address.
I would also suggest to TOD management that creating a "library" of similar documents would have great social benefit. I am thinking of something along the lines of the RealClimate site which greatly helps in public education and permits the concerned to self-educate and obtain enough knowledge to result in the formation of an informed opinion.
Cheers!
Do you have a single URL that you could post that leads to a complete exposition of your position regarding ethanol?
Not anything like a real FAQ. My position is scattered across numerous essays. I think a good comprehensive FAQ would be quite a large document. It is something to think about, though.
The ethanol detractors ... soil depletion
Go ahead. Show how your claim is right and others are wrong.
Beyond, well claiming you've 'corrected misinformation'
So I just ignore it,
The gauntlet of challenge has been tossed down before you.
You gonna rise to the occation or just stick with handwaving claims?
A friend recently sent an article that he had clipped from Wired magazine in which Khosla claimed that "Moore's Law" would govern bio-fuels development just as surely as it had tracked the development of integrated circuits.
Khosla might be proven correct but I think it's more likely that he ends up being the victim of his own narrow experiences. I work in the tech industry and it was only after being there for a while that I began to sense the feeling of omnipotence that some gain by herding electrons around a circuit board all day long. When you create your own reality, you are, by definition, master of it.
I work in the tech industry and it was only after being there for a while that I began to sense the feeling of omnipotence that some gain by herding electrons around a circuit board all day long. When you create your own reality, you are, by definition, master of it.
That is it in a nutshell. People whose experiences are colored by orders of magnitude improvements in computer processor performance believe that they just have to apply their (often snobbish) "can do" attitude to the problem to show the rest of us peasants how it is done. I have lost track of how often a Silicon Valley type has told me that that rest of the country just doesn't understand what they are capable of achieving. To that I say "Go forth and achieve, and stop trying to get mandates passed into law." If you can produce cellulosic ethanol for $1.25 a gallon, the public will buy it.
It's typical of the high tech sector.
They forget oil and petrochemicals have just as smart people, who have been working on the problems for 50+ years longer.
Energy just isn't an area where change happens that rapidly. It's technologically much more mature, and the capital life of the assets is decades, not 3 years for a PC or 18 months for a phone.
Technology is an industry that also tolerates a hugely high failure rate in terms of bugs and design flaws-- it's a normal cost of doing business. This is unacceptable when the consequence might be that your oil refinery explodes.
Although I have hopes for some sustained effort on the energy storage side: my intuition is that there must be some real progress possible there (eg in stationary fuel cells, nano membranes etc.). The other area where we might see some breakthroughs is in photo voltaics.
The problem isn't the innovation cycle. The problem is physics. With energy we are at the physical limits within a factor of a few. With information we aren't.
Information is an utterly physical thing. It requires energy to be stored, transmitted and to be processed. But the unit of physical energy required to represent a bit happens to be extremely small. It is governed by the Shannon-Hartley and Johnson-Nyquist theorems, which link information to the physical properties of a noisy channel and physical representations of information storing/transmitting devices. In first year physics terms this can be back-of-the-enveloped like this:
Absolute thermal noise energy is of the order of kT with k=1.38×10−23 J/K. At T=300K (room temperature), we find
kT = 4.14*10^-21J.
This is a lower limit for the energy needed per bit in any kind of computing device that works at finite temperature to be not swamped by thermal noise. In other words, a CPU chip with 100W power consumption can theoretically process
100W/4*10^-21J/bit=2.5*10^22bit/s.
The next time some tech type without any basic insight into physics tells you the story of the horse (a German dialect phrase for "utter nonsense"), please ask him how he imagines to build CPUs that approach this upper limit and if he can tell you how far a current generation PC is away from it.
The answer is something like this:
A modern computer processes 64 bit numbers at roughly 4 billion operations/second. For every one of those operations approx. 64^2=4096 basic binary operations have to be carried out, each requiring at least one kT of energy. Therefor today's CPUs (housekeeping operations not counted) perform the equivalent of 4*10^9*4094=1.6e13 unit operations. That happens to be 0.6*10^-9 of the theoretical number for a 100W class device. So even if we assume that I am off by an order of magnitude (which I am), today's computers are EIGHT orders of magnitude away from their theoretical limits.
And that, my friends, is why computing has been able to grow so fast and so "limitlessly": they are still wasting a hundred million times more energy per bit than nature requires. In other words: your 400W gaming PC can theoretically operate on 4uW. It run operate for 10 years continuously on a coin cell.
Oops... that was meant to be:
"It could run for 10 years continuously on a coin cell."
Of course...
*clap* *clap* *clap*
When you think about old science fiction images of the future, it's amazing how we've far surpassed their wildest imaginations with communications and computers. The one area where we have made no progress is transportation, we're still in the same old Model T, and the reason is energy. Transportation just has not, and probably will not, progress the way computers have.
Actually, transportation did progress very much the same. Think about the time it would have taken you to circumnavigate the globe in 1800, or even in 1872. Jules Verne wrote a classic about it. His heroes took 80 days!
Today you could, if you really felt like it, get around the planet in two and a half days for a couple grand on a couple of 747s. Or, if you are willing to invest $20 million, the Russians will gladly take you for a spin in 90 minutes. Within its physical limits transportation made just the same kind of progress as computing and it did so in a commensurate amount of time.
And if we take it to the limit, our robotic Voyagers have made it out of the solar system last years, traveling at heliocentric velocities of 39000 miles per hour, roughly 10000 times faster than a man can walk.
Now, since kinetic energy grows with the square of velocity, the Voyager probes carry 100 million times the energy per mass than a human walking.
True, but atual transportation speed peaked decades ago. We've been in a plateau at best since then.
Consider a theoretical trip from Ohio (my home state) to NYC.
In 1800, on foot or horseback it would have taken weeks (with substantial risk to life and limb).
In 1850, by train, it would have taken days, with minimal risk to life or limb).
By 1900, a day, with minimal risk to life or limb.
By 1960, 10 hours by car, with low risk to life or limb (but about 100x higher than by train).
By 1960 by plane, a few hours, with minimal risk.
Today, still 10 hours by car ( and probaly longer given traffic) with slightly less risk, but still far greater than by train.
Today by plane, well I did this last year, 10.5 hours there, 12.5 hours to get back. Even under the best of circumstances, it takes longer to go this distance by plane after accounting for check-in, security, etc.
Therefore, I conclude, travel speed peaked in the 1960's with the modern jet and with the interstate highway system and we've been in a plateau for 40+ years.
One really notices it if u fly cross country. It's not just the check-in delays, the planes were lots faster thirty years ago.
RR -- regarding the Ethanol Panacea:
"If wishes were horses....."
I wonder if the ethanol thing is partly to help bail out GM.
GM seems to have put its remaining cracked and broken eggs into this bottomless basket.
I can see limited ethanol production being a good thing at least for awhile.
Mom Nature will be sorting this out.
I wish we would do some of the simpler, less resource-intensive things first!
Back to wishes again...."If wishes were horses...."
(Sorry, sometimes I need a little gallows humour to get me through. I hope I'm not too long on the gallows and too short on the humour.)
I think there may be another way to look at it. It goes like this. While corn-based ethanol isn't particularly efficient, cellulosic ethanol could be much better. What we're missing (I think) is a microbe that is unusually efficient at breaking down cellulose or unusually effective at producing enzymes that break down cellulose.
Now, from our perspective, that is a tremendous problem, not likely to be solved quickly, so that gasification makes more sense. However, from Khosla's point of view, this could be thought of as either another attainable breakthrough waiting to happen, or even as a complex but achievable software problem. The genetic code is just another program, and each year we gain a great deal of understanding of genetic information. Further, it may be that we simply need to use nanotech bioreactors to solve this problem, but those technologies just haven't progressed far enough or been put together yet to solve that problem.
Going even a step farther, plants aren't particularly efficient at converting sunlight into usable energy for people (I'm sure if they could think about it, they wouldn't give a damn about what people want!), but photosynthesis itself is supposedly more efficient than current photovoltaics. It may be that future genetic programmers will come up with a synthetic organism to handle the energy collection services of photosynthesis. They may even be able to create an artificial plant that will, under controlled situations, self-replicate while producing high conversion efficiency. This is all an advanced bio-software engineering problem, and could end up following a Moore's-like law.
I think this is more likely to be the realm of distant (if ever) science-fiction, but 40 years ago our entire computer and software industries were the realm of science fiction. I certainly hope they only go there with great care, since this is one of the ways we could end up gray goo. However, our energy dilemma is going to make many people desperate.
I predict that Khosla and his ethanol venture will some day become a Harvard Business School case study of what can go wrong when someone who has had huge success in one field automatically assumes the same approach will make him equally successful in another but totally unrelated field. The simple term for this sort of thing is called hubris.
However, Khosla is a shrewd operator, and if his considerable ego doesn't cloud his thinking, he may realize the fundamental flaws with ethanol in time to bail out with a nice chunk of change. But if he gets Rumsfeldian and insists on staying the course and making another 'surge' when things get bad, he could ge hurt big time.
In tech what Khosla does is envisage a future, and then manipulate assets to make it happen- slamming together companies and technologies.
He has some huge hits (Sun) and some significant losses.
Whether he has the same vision in energy that he has in technology, and the nature of the industry is susceptible to the same processes, remains to be seen.
Actually, Khosla's delusion is more problematical than that. After all, the electronic reality is a real reality, not just a fake one. However, electronics was originally done with an efficiency - i.e. computations, images, audio, or other results per joule - that ranged from factors of thousands to factors of billions or more short of what is theoretically possible. There was vast room for improvement, room that may be less available in other domains.
To see the problem, consider another very famous Moore quote as seen e.g. in this paper (ppt, slide 5), "If the automobile industry [had] advanced as rapidly as the semiconductor industry, a Rolls Royce would get half a million miles per gallon, and it would be cheaper to throw it away than to park it."
Quite so, of course, except that he failed to tell us that there is no magic in this. In keeping with the miniaturization that has made electronics more efficient in the sense already noted, the car in question would simply need to be the size of a dust mite. It might be just a tad difficult to climb in and drive off.
Sometimes it is just plain foolish to blindly extrapolate from one problem domain to another. I'm inclined to think it will be a very very long time indeed before some biological Moore's law lets us redouble agricultural efficiency enough times to get us a gallon of ethanol from a joule of sunlight.
A much better essay than Khosla's The War on Oil also appears in today's WSJ op-ed pages: 'Energy Independence' by Daniel Yergin.
The thesis of the essay is to debunk the notion of energy independence (hence the single quotes in the title of the piece) and replace it with the notion of energy security, understood to mean resilience, robustness, and reduced vulnerability.
Yergin argues that energy independence, as coined by Richard Nixon in November 1973, is basically wrongheaded. (Interesting side note: he points out that the U.S. become a net oil importer in the late 1940s, over twenty years prior to U.S. peaking, an event he doesn't mention). He says our two largest suppliers are 1) Canada ("which hardly constitutes a threat to national security"), and 2) Mexico ("with which we are in a 'dense' relationship" - but no mention of Pemex production declines). He does concede that the relationship with #3 (Venezuela) is problematic, but he argues that energy security is a global issue, not one specific to just one country. He says even if we did not import any oil we would still be vulnerable to turmoil involving oil outside our borders. He doesn't elaborate on this.
He then argues that the prospects for Richard Nixon-style 'energy independence' are very small for at least two decades. CERA has a new study out called "Gasoline and the American People" which points out that only 8% of the auto fleet turns over every year, leading to long lead times for more efficient vehicles to enter and dominate the fleet (didn't we already know this?). He acknowledges ethanol, but says that "signs are already evident of an upper bound on corn-based ethanol." He talks about new technologies and a "great bubbling all along the innovation frontier of energy" (i.e. conventional energy, efficiency, renewables, alternatives, and clean tech), but he says it is too early to tell when and in what form this will come to fruition. And he also says that as prices run through their cycles, there will be a lot of disappointment and backing away from long-term commitments required for a sound energy future.
Closing with the energy security vs. energy independence argument once again, he says that the energy security that we really need requires interdependence with other nations, both consumers and producers of energy.
All in all, I thought it was a very pragmatic essay, much more realistic than the Khosla piece on the facing WSJ op-ed page.
BTW, Andrew Grove (retired CEO of Intel) had a WSJ op-ed piece yesterday, which I thought was quite poor. He argued for corporate-style strategic planning which faces up to the brutal truths about our energy situation.
This concept of 'Energy Security' can easily be summed up by the quaint phrase: "Kick their ass and take their gas!"
Mission Accomplished
Grove's motto is 'only the paranoid survive'.
Intel practised monopolistic competitive practices every bit as bad as Microsoft. But the difference is if you ever put that on paper at Intel, you would have been fired instantly. Intel executives are mock trained by the company's lawyers to survive anti-trust tribunals. Whereas MS left a paper trail a mile wide.
Intel competes with that paranoid anticipation of future market trends and competitor moves. It seeks to actively dominate its market, and its future market, and to 'lock in' its customers.
Intel also basically ditched the entire business line and model it was working on, exiting memory and pursuing microprocessors. Not many companies (think how many typewriter manufacturers make PCs (0), or how many minicomputer companies now are in the PC business (0)) have the courage and skill to do that.
Granted it is having trouble sustaining that success, but if you look at the history of Intel it was all about anticipating the future (an blundering into it sometimes).
So I would listen to Grove. When he says there is a vulnerability to corporates, there is a vulnerability.
Calorie:
Thanks for keeping us up to date on wsj coverage of energy issues.
Very useful.
Asebius.
The US became a net importer of oil in the late 1940s? I did not know this. I thought Hubbert complained in the 1950s about our oil exports. Or perhaps he was only complaning of the tarrifs placed on imported oil, in order to make domestic oil more profitable. Does anyone have a url, or other source, that gives the exact year that the US became a net importer.
Understand I am not disputing that we did become a net importer in the 1940s, it is just that I would like a little more confirmation of this figure. And who was the world's major exporters say in 1948 or anytime around that date?
Ron Patterson
Checking my handy dandy 'The Oil Age' poster hanging in my office, it appears the US (Lower 48, but that's probably redundant at this early date) had a small 'peak' in 1948 of 2.01 BBO that year. It dropped to 1.84 BB in '49. Maybe that had something to do with it?
'48 happens to be the year Ghawar was discovered also, so surely Saudi was already exporting some oil.
'49 appears to be the first year that world cumulative production exceeded that of the US. So I guess it's possible...
Ron, check out
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrntus2a.htm
This shows that the U.S. became a net crude oil importer for good in the mid-1940s. I don't know the answer to your other question.
40 billion gallons! Assuming that biomass-to-ethanol remains impractical (which is very easy to assume), we get 214 gallons out an acre of corn, so that means 186,916,000 acres of corn. In 2006, the entire corn crop was produced on 70,600,000 acres. Perhaps we'll be filling out the ethanol quota with magic pixie dust.
They are counting on cellulosic ethanol to come through. My DC source is now telling me that it looks like it will be a call for a 35 billion gallon reduction in gasoline usage. He states:
We shall know pretty soon.
I wonder if we'll get Bush's ethanol before or after the trip to Mars. Which SOTU did he ask for that one?
Seriously, Bush is out of control. I'm predicting that he'll propose replacing cars with dragons and unicorns.
Hi Robert,
Thanks.
"My primary question to this would be: What's your contingency plan?"
Do you see any way (for us...for anyone...for yourself) to act in regard to your question?
After reading Robert Rapier's < a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174">Refining 101: The Assay Essay, I came away wondering about the related processes used for upgrading of the Canadian tar sands' bitumen. After the sticky goo is washed from the sand, the technologies are the same (coking and/or hydrotreating) but the resulting syncrude is a somewhat different cup of joe than refineries are used to. Plus, it is also possible to ship via pipeline the bitumen itself diluted with either gas condensates (DilBit) or with fully upgraded syncrude (SynBit).
For those interested, I have found a very good resource which covers the tar sands upgrading and refining issues and provides a good follow up to RR's piece:
CHANGING REFINERY CONFIGURATION FOR HEAVY
AND SYNTHETIC CRUDE PROCESSING
WARNING: Your head will spin from all the acronyms
There has also been some related TOD interest in the trending of world oil production towards heavy and sour. This older Econobrowser post discusses this:
Sweet and sour crude
Apparently, Peak Sweet and Light Oil passed a few years ago. This has resulted in the wild swings in the price spread between oil grades as refiners continually adjust to the new norm. Increases in Tar Sands production will likely add to the fun.
JB;
It might be common knowledge to some now, but is there a source one could point to WRT the peaking of Light,Sweet? I think it would be a compelling argument to make to many, intelligent people about the qualifications that make today's production a clearer indicator that 'all is not the same as it onc was.. (and is likely to change further..)'
Bob Fiske
jokuhl,
The second link above discusses this, and eventually points to this monthly report by OPEC:
Monthly Oil Market Report August 2005
I've heard reference to the idea of several different oil peaks before, and there is some who want to include all liquids in the tally (including biofuels and tar sand products). I don't want to rehash that here, but the general trend of using more expensive and less desireable sources for oil is obviously not good as it represents less net energy for society for our efforts (and highlights the fact that things do run out).
And while Peak Light&Sweet Oil didn't mean chaos in the streets, it might be responsible for some price volatility at the pump.
I have some questions that pertain to the debates over total liquids vs. crude + condensate and the shift from light to heavy crude. Is there a difference between condensates and natural gas liquids other than the type of well they originated from? Can condensates and natural gas liquids be used as an alternative to light crude?
Alan, Robert would be better qualified to answer your question than I, so I hope he will give us his input. However you should not speak of condensate and natural gas liquids as if they are about the same. The only thing they have in common is that they both come from gas wells.
Condensate is a light oil that is liquid at sea level pressures and room temperature. Someone on this list posted a couple of months ago, that oil field workers would often steal the condensate and run their cars on it. He said you could always tell who was stealing condensate because their cars always knocked.
I think, though I am not absolutely sure, that condensate is simply dumped in with the crude and refined with it. That is why, apparently, that condensate is usually counted with the crude, because they are often in the same barrel.
Natural gas liquids however are propand and butane. They are gasses and are kept as a liquid only in pressurized bottles. Yes you can run cars on propane but I would not call it a alternative to light crude.
Ron Patterson
Condensates are C3-C5 hydrocarbons (propane, butane, pentane), whereas NGL are hexane and heptane (C6-C7). Both have their uses, but neither is a substitute for light crude. Condensates are used as an end product (e.g. bottled gas), and NGL are blended with gasoline in limited amounts.
A good summary can be found here.
Hey, if this is true then I got it all worng. I have always heard, and I have been chewing this fat for seven years, that condensate condenses out of natural gas and is a natural liquid. In fact your link says as much, at least for "some" condensates:
And just what the hell are "natural gas liquids". Damn, will not some oilman clear this mess up for us.
Ron Patterson
I (as well as the link I posted) could be wrong on this as well. Any help appreciated.
Generally true, but it also depends upon which product (oil or gas) it is associated with. A natural gas well will often produce C8 & C9 and some pentane will show up in NGL. Conversely, hexane and heptane will partially boil off from crude oil and be condensed and the mix will be called condensate. It is not all precise and "clean".
Best Hopes,
Alan
Alan, thanks a million for the input, but I am still confused. When the EIA says Crude + Condensate, what are they calling "condensate"? I always assumed, and others have said so as well, that condensate is a liquid that condenses out of natural gas when the gas reaches the surface and cools off. That is why they call it condensate. And natural gas liquids are any and all liquids, propane, butane, etc, except LNG. That is, if it is not LNG (ethane and methane) then it is NGLs. Natural gas liquids liquify under much less pressure and therefore can be bottled and sold. Liquified Natural Gas must be kept at cryogenic temperatures to remain liquid because the pressure to keep it in a liquid state is too great for it to be normally sold in bottles.
But that may all be wrong. We need some professional input here.
RonPatterson
Ron,
My understanding is the same as yours, but I think the confusion is that some components can fall into more than 1 category. Also, I think NGLs include condensate, but it also contains C2's through C4's. LNG's are the lighter components, and do require cryogenic storage as you indicated to keep them liquid. I think what the EIA refers to as condensate is strictly the portion from natural gas that remains liquid after processing (and without cryogenic storage).
I sent an email to the author of the entries on wikipedia with this question:
and received the following reply:
And then we have 2-mbd of processing gains...
In a typical day,
65.0 - regular conv oil & condensate at oil fields
10.0 - unconv oil
8.6 - ngl at gas plants and gas fields
2.0 - proc gains
0.4 - biofuels
_____
86-mbd
biofuels and unconv are adjusted by most Agencies and Oilco's for energy content and inputs (except EIA)
Let me stick my nose in here no doubt don't know the facts either, but I was under the impression that condensate occurs at the well site and NGL occurs at the plant site that’s why it is called NG Plant L's.
condensates are made up of a whole variety of intermediate components (primarily c2- c6). ngl is primary propane. other components can be separated out depending on the complexity of the plant. the intermediate components are what make a volitile oil reservoir .......well volitile.
From the "Calling an End to Oil Alarmism" article above...
Right, globalization powered by transportation fuel that is 90 something percent oil based. Great point.
Right. Globalization has rendered obsolete a view of markets that suggests reliance on foreign oil is a national security threat.
In other words, globalization has taken away the need to go to war in Iraq.
Since Bush thinks a national security threat does exist, it follows that he doesn't understand what globalization is. Someone should tell him, so the troops can come home.
Globalization, our saviour, we should build you a temple.
Re: Calling an end to oil alarmism
Author's Bio — Philip Auerswald is director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy at George Mason University's School of Public Policy and a research associate at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government.
Missing part of bio —
Philip did not get where he has in life by rocking the boat, that's for sure. Knowing that unpopular opinions will endanger his income, Philip employs a keen sense of smell to fish out the conventional wisdom on economics and energy. This enables him to maintain his comfortable lifestyle while, at the same time, allowing him to make the rounds at "Inside the Beltway" receptions and dinner parties, where is he gratified that many seek his successfully self-serving opinions on the important issues of the day.
Someone left an open italics, I will try to close it.
Weird. What browser are you using?
It looked fine to me. And SuperG said he fixed that. There's supposed to be automatic closing tags now.
Apparently not. I did leave an italics open but was able to close it in a subsequent edit.
Dave, thanks for clearing all this up. When I posted all following posts were all in italics even including the names and dates at the top of each post.
Ron Patterson
I saw it using Firefox.
This morning CNN did a story about Bush's "addicted to oil" speech, and whether there was any action to back up the talk.
Answer: not really.
Corn ethanol got more funding, but nothing else did. Ethanol from switchgrass and all the other technologies Bush talked about got only lip service.
If I were the type to say "I told you so," I would point out that I predicted this, and that people called me a Bush-basher and a doomer for it. Luckily, I'm not that kind of person. ;-)
Headline Gal, you're humble and lovable
Let me translate that to you: Bush lied about energy policy in a desperate attempt to go up by a few percent in the polls. I bet it didn't work. There is nothing new here...
CNN is now reporting that Bush will call for a 20% decrease in gasoline use. This is not going to make him popular. However, it is the type step many here on the Oil Drum have been asking for. Will anybody here put in a supportive word, or does the fact that it comes from the mouth of GWB make us automatically opposed?
I'm not opposed. But so far, I'm not impressed, either.
He wants to cut petroleum use by 20%...while increasing ethanol use by something like 30%. That is not conservation.
We'll see...
Everything he's going to say will mean an increase in money flowing from taxpayers to corporations. That is the only way the economic system can sustain itself.
Conservation contradicts the system. You can't grow with less, only with more. And the system needs more, or it will collapse.
The essence of the State of the Union will be that if you want a cleaner world, you will have to pay for that. And after paying, you will find out in a couple years that things cannot get cleaner. The system forbids it.
Think of it as having a raucous party at your place and bringing out the vacuum cleaner halfway. Yes, you will clean a few square yards of carpet, but in the meantime other rooms just get dirtier. And the clincher is that everyone gets drunker by the minute. Cleaning up is hopeless, you will soon conclude. You will have to wait till all, or most, of the guests are gone.
As Calvin told the class in show-and-tell: while the analogy sinks in, I'll be playing outside.
Bush cut petroleuum by 20%? If true, that is hard for me to realize.
His major voting constituency lives by wanton use of oil. And I doubt he'd go out on this limb for GW. He's given no indication of believing it, and it upsets his base. Which leaves me to speculate that the administration sees imminent Peak Oil, and the downslope, but can't express for fear of the political and economic consequenses. We need a long, soft transition, to buoy all the existing investment, etc. I would imagine that the administrtion top brass has a better handle on KSA than we here could hope for. Speculating further, it begs the question as to what all the Deecember KSA shuffles and intrigue was about. "Sorry, we can't maintain production. You just have to deal with it."
I agree, I voted for that clown and drive a Prius, but most of his constituency seems to be here in the Bay Area, driving the biggest SUV they can with a yellow ribbon on its fat butt, or some noisy muscle car, or the old "Oscar Grope" special, a big ol' American boat of a car they richochet off of things at times. Republican, Democrat, Independent, gas-guzzling is seen as the American birthright even here in lefty-granola land, and remember Bush lost by a pretty small margin here. I'm sure most of his voters here didn't vote for the guy for the reason I did, that Kerry seemed even more loony and war-mad, but because Bush to them represented stuff like thick steaks, lots of cheap gas, war to keep industry going, and keeping Gawd in gov't.
Point is taken, NASA, but this is still the bed he's made for himself. He's mentioned 'Addiction' and 'Running out of energy', 'Renewables' and such since before he was in office, but there has never been any visible action to back up the Lip-Service, so this one is hard to put in any other light.
What was the flap last winter, when he had cut the NREL budget or staff right before he was going to go visit the lab, and had to do a quick backtrack.. I think he temporarily restored the funding until the visit was well over and done.. It's just hard to see his lips flapping and not to assume that there's no connection between the words tumbling out and any synonymous plans in the real world.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/bush.energyfunding/index.html
" "My message to those who work here is: We want you to know how important your work is," Bush said. "We appreciate what you're doing and we expect you to keep doing it, and we want to help you keep doing it."
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman transferred money over the weekend to restore jobs at the Colorado lab, according to a department news release."
Until Americans can legally buy something akin to a kei car, I'll remain firm in my assessment that the politicians and auto execs in the US are ignorant clowns.
Why start with such a high bar? Why can't we just stop "digging," i.e., stop driving 80mph on the freeways, stop buying 12 mpg SUVs, stop building new highways, things like that. Oh, we can't (I mean, won't)? I guess we're not serious then. Ignorant clowns, yes.
Indeed! I was looking at motorcycles today, ugh all the new ones are big, fat, and heavy, as the average rider has become since the 1970s when clever, small bikes were last being made.
I suppose I could do my biz with a scooter and a trailer, which I'd use when I anticipate a large load to carry.
You see, I love my Prius but don't love the payments........
But, for all my griping I may hang onto the thing until I can honestly go to no car at all.
For anyone considering a Prius, the roominess and practicality are amazing! It's basically a small wagon, and driven smoothly (with the occasional burst of aggro to avoid an SUV intent on trading paint) you can get better than 50MPG, I'm on 53 this tank, mixed driving. Unless you're hauling some seriously large/heavy stuff, the Prius will be more practical than any SUV out there.
Venezuela to raise gas prices
from the link in yesterday's Drumbeat, which headlined Chavez retorts to Bush & US policies
Alan
I wonder how much higher gas prices and "luxury taxes" on certain cars (presumably larger cars) will affect the growth in Venezuela oil consumption. And how much will the economic disruption that will come from further socialization will depress consumption ?
Chavez wants to build a 1,000 km (600 mile) railroad accross his country but I do not know when it will be completed. Chavez expanded the subway in Caracas (tried to get details but failed).
It is possible that domestic oil consumption in Venezuela may stabilize. Chavez's political base is not the car owning middle class. Massive public works are more to his liking.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I found a bit more about Venezuela subways and Urban Rail.
Chavez started a "light Metro" (Light rail, some in subway) in Valencia. First phase opens this April, Phase II in 2010 and a second line is planned.
Chavez started construction on planned Line 4 subway in Caracas and a nonstop surface commuter train (subway technology apparently) to a suburb. Both opened in 2006 with more now under construction.
Promises for a Metro in Maracalbo and Trolmérida. Apparently still in planning.
A crediable but not massive effort that will yield significant oil savings over time. However, Venezuela does not believe that they face an oil supply crisis in the near term.
Best Hopes,
Alan
An article about Venezuela's economy:
Venezuela: Plenty of money, but Chavez is making it hard to hold onto
It argues that inflation is what's driving consumption. There's no place to put money except in consumer goods.
Criticizing excessive consumption and self-indulgence, Chavez also announced plans in his broadcast to raise domestic gasoline prices and approve a new tax on luxury goods such as private yachts, second homes and extravagant automobiles.
More reason to love & respect Hugo Chavez. George W. Bush's message to the American consumer is very different: Shop, Shop, Shop!!! President Bush has killed a lot more people than Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden combined. If the President continues this Iraq war for too much longer he might exceed Saddam Hussein's death toll.
The United States of America is such a virtuous, capitalistic nation. Isn't it? Makes me want to wave the flag every day. The Iraqis, of course, are just collateral damage, and their oil belongs to obese, gluttonous American SUV drivers who are so brainwashed by advertising that they shop perpetually and buy thousands of things that they don't really want, don't need, will never use, and ultimately will find an eternal home in the ultimate monument to American capitalism: The Landfill.
Hugo Chavez is not a perfect man, but he is a better man that George W. Bush.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Bush is a man? Have we sunk so low that we call alcoholic idiots who evade military service by using Dad's influence "men"?
I guess that would be a good description of America's moral state, though.
:-)
So you mean Chavez isn't the devil for daring to share the oil wealth with the poor? Ack!
Provoke much? hehe
But, Veganmaster, what about the shareholders?! who is looking out for the shareholder's wealth? And what of the CEO's, these people might miss out on a few million dollars if that devil Chavez helps the poor. Finally, have you thought about the American SUV driver? Who is looking out for the SUV driver? Have you no shame, caring about the impoverished foreigners more than you care about obese American consumers?
***
Seriously, I wish that Nigeria's leadership was as wise, bold and powerful as Venezuela's and Russia's. The International Oil Corporations are psychopathic in their behavior towards the impoverished resource-owners and the American military has killed thousands on behalf of the overindulged American consumer.
The poor people of the world need to stand up to America and throw out these psychopathic corporations. They also should cease all exports to the good ol' U.S. of A. immediately. America is producing approximately 6,000,000 barrels of oil a day, that is exactly how much oil Americans should consume and not a drop more.
Americans should also become poor, too. I believe that poverty, a little hunger and a lot of walking would serve to make Americans healthier, happier, and less obsessed with frivolous things.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
re Chavez
Venezuela To Begin Imposing Tax On Idle Lands In April
CARACAS -(Dow Jones)- Venezuela's government will begin charging a tax on agriculture-ready lands found to be idle starting in April, part of President Hugo Chavez's long-held land reform initiative.
The new tax will come into effect once officials of the Seniat tax agency have put together all the necessary guidelines, the Seniat said in a statement Tuesday.
A new tax seeks to force landowners to produce, which is part of Chavez's controversial land law. The rules stipulate that those who own large land estates must engage in some sort of state sanctioned production program or face taxes and possibly even expropriation.
"We don't have a percentage rate for the tax yet," tax chief Jose Vielma Mora said in televised remarks early Tuesday. He made clear however, that the government will aggressively purse those landowners who refuse to keep land productive.
Vielma said his team is also working on a host of tax laws that Chavez is set to review and approve once he receives special presidential powers from Congress in coming days, as anticipated.
-By Raul Gallegos, Dow Jones Newswires; +58-212-564-1339; raul.gallegos@ dowjones.com
Taxing idle land was proposed long ago in the USA by Henry George in his book "Progress And Poverty".
"Progress And Poverty" was the 2nd book by an American author to reach sales of 1,000,000 copies. The !st was Uncle Tom's Cabin.
You might find it an eye-popping viewpoint, as most did in his time..
Hubbert Linearizaton Analysis of the Top Three Net Oil Exporters (Posted 1/27/06): One Year Later
This is a link to an EB update to my original post: http://www.energybulletin.net/19420.html
One of the things that I wanted to do this past year was to vigorously debate the Peak Oil issue, and I think that I have certainly succeeded at that. As I have continued to study the issue of Peak Oil and Peak Exports, I have only become more concerned about our energy supply.
I have frankly been amazed at some of the arguments that have been made attacking the quantitative Hubbert Linearization (HL) method, especially given the successful predictions.
Deffeyes picked 2006 as the most likely year for the start of a decline in world crude oil production, and world crude oil production is down (crude oil = crude + condensate, EIA data).
I picked 2006 as the most likely year for the start of a decline in Saudi crude oil production (based on Khebab’s work), and Saudi crude oil production is down.
Khebab picked 2007 as the most likely year for the start of a decline in Mexican crude oil production, and Mexican production has already started falling, or perhaps more accurately, crashing.
Following is a link to Khebab’s 2006 post on Mexico:
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006/03/mexicos-ability-to-export-oil.ht...
Mexico's Ability to Export Oil
March 13, 2006
By: Khebab
If you combine these three (so far) accurate predictions with the fact that post-50% of Qt cumulative production for both the Lower 48 and Russia were basically exactly what the HL models predicted they would be and with the fact that the North Sea peaked at the same stage of depletion as the Lower 48, we have an overwhelmingly strong case.
Then we have the 14 super giant oil fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more. People are now arguing that every single one of these super giants oil fields can be in decline or crashing (which I believe is happening), but we can still show rising world crude oil production. This is the point where Peak Oil critics lose credibility with me.
Furthermore, we seem to be arguing the same points over and over again, and as we continue to get more data in that support the HL models, the attacks seem to becoming more vitriolic and more frequent.
Also, I now have at least four oil fields to develop, and I need to focus on the “P” part of my own ELP plan. So, I am going to try--one more time--to reduce my TOD presence. (Is there an AA type program for TOD addicts?) Matt Savinar has been after me for quite a while to write some stuff for him, and I may look into that, or perhaps I may just post occasional articles on Khebab’s blog and/or on the EB.
A couple of closing points. How often have you read the following?
(1) Ghawar and Cantarell are two warning beacons, burning brightly in the night sky, heralding the onset of Peak Oil.
(2) I recommend that you implement ELP--Economize; Localize and Produce--or “Cut thy spending and get thee to the non-discretionary side of the economy.
Some comments:
(1) IMO, the only real difference, other than production rates, between Saudi Aramco & Ghawar and Pemex & Cantarell is that Pemex has grudgingly admitted to the decline of its largest field. Both companies are reporting lower production, and both companies are unilaterally cutting crude oil deliveries to refiners (below what the refiners want to buy). So, other than the near-certain decline/crash of the two largest producing fields in the world, we have no problems.
(2) I sometimes wonder if this ELP recommendation is why I get so much criticism in some quarters (note that Robert concurs with ELP). Just think of the number of businesses that benefit from increasing--and debt financed--consumption. In any event, based on the profound Peak Oil Denial and Cognitive Dissonance that I am seeing, I have grown increasingly pessimistic that we will ever see policy changes that will make a difference. So, I would simply advise that you consider ELP. As I have now said a thousand and one times, if I am wrong, you will have a lower stress way of life, less debt and more money in the bank.
Jeffrey J. Brown
Please find the time to comment here throughout 2007 as we receive EIA C+C production updates. Cheers.
First of all, I promise that I will not rehash a lot of ground that has already been covered. I want to make two points. First, one that I believe you either haven't understood, or have simply chosen to ignore:
I have frankly been amazed at some of the arguments that have been made attacking the quantitative Hubbert Linearization (HL) method, especially given the successful predictions.
It is not the successful predictions that will define the value of a particular model. It is the % of successful predictions. Let me explain. Time and time again you have compared the KSA HL to that of Texas. So, shouldn't we validate the HL using Texas as our model? Could we? No. It would have predicted peak too early and too soon.
But, you say, the HL correctly predicted the U.S. peak within a fairly narrow range of years. True, but now if you want to use the U.S. as a proxy for KSA, shouldn't we expect it to peak at a similar Qt%? Well, if that was the case, if would have predicted a peak for KSA many years ago. So what you have done is essentially pick and choose data in such a way as to support a particular conclusion: Use Texas as the model for KSA, and then point out the HL worked for the Lower 48 as a whole (while ignoring that it did not work so well for Texas alone). And that is a legitimate criticism of the model. It has not been successfully validated under the scenario you are using it to predict.
Bottom line: If you are going to suggest that the HL for KSA should behave like that for Texas, you need to show that the HL would have successfully predicted the Texas peak. The fact is that it would have only predicted a very broad range, and it would have started predicting peak much too early.
I sometimes wonder if this ELP recommendation is why I get so much criticism in some quarters (note that Robert concurs with ELP).
I do want to reiterate that I whole-heartedly concur with ELP. We must reduce our energy footprint. We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. ELP will do that, and will save money at the same time. Therefore, while I have concerns about the HL model as a reliable predictive tool, I believe your ELP recommendations are spot on.
I always wonder why a second E is never added to this ELP equation. Exercise.
It enables the whole equation. Cut your health bills, consumption and problems, prepare for more walking, manual labor post peak. The only one who benefits is yourself.
Great idea ! Hope WesTexas makes it EELP !
I plan to walk 0.9 miles to the Main Post Office this evening. Just part of my routine.
I always got a laugh out of people driving to the Health Club in Phoenix (on one of my walking routes when visiting parents) so they can walk on a treadmill :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
How about PEEL, LEEP, or maybe PELE?
I think more exercise is built into the verb, "Economize." Last year I saved tons of money by cutting my driving from 6,000 miles in 2005 to 3,000 in 2006, and my goal for 2007 is to cut it from three to two thousand miles. I still get around however, by walking and biking. Indeed, I am going to move to a location where almost everything is within walking distance--and that also has excellent bus service and some light rail nearby.
Thus, for me, exercise results from economizing. Oh, BTW, I cut wood with hand axe and bow hand saw, then split it with a Monster Maul--most excellent exercise, and of course heating with wood cuts my gas bill considerably.
IMO there is no way to economize seriously without greatly increasing exercise. (I do have to laugh at the folks who squander money at fitness centers, however.)
"I cut wood with hand axe and bow hand saw"
That is exercise! The bow saw is what was often referred to as a "misery whip", well, the two man version. I concur with your laughs on fitness centers.
So true! I sometimes refer to chopping and splitting wood as 'redneck aerobics.' Great exercise!
One thing that has always amazed me is how tough rural people in times past had to have been just to get by.
When you see old grainy photos of circa 1890 lumberjacks up in Maine or Wisconsin, the thing you will notice is that very few of them are massively muscled or 'buffed out' in the manner of someone spending quality time on a Nautilus machine. Yet I bet some of these mega body builders wouldn't last more than a few hours trying to keep up with these tough little wiry SOBs.
Can you just picture what it must have been like clearing an acre of old-growth forest with an axe, or simply building a 100-yard-long stone fence by hand, or manually harvesting acres of corn?
Then you have sailors of old, living on a truly awful diet, and sometimes spending close to 48 hours without sleep up in the rigging whilst trying to get the ship through a gale.
I don't think I'd last a week in any of those environments. Then again, some of these people from long ago would probably blow a brain circuit or two if they had to sit in front of a computer monitor 8 hours a day.
I think we are slowly starting to evolve into a different sort of creature.
Heating with wood works four times...you get warm cutting it, again when you split it, yet again when you buck it up and stack it and finally when you burn it.
Don, why in the world are you using a bow saw? That's too much work...try a logging saw. Two-man ones are best (cause you can chat) but a one-man works really well. Ben Meadows (http://www.benmeadows.com/store/Forestry/Logging_and_Clearing/Saws_and_Axes) has some, as does Traditional Woodworking (http://www.traditionalwoodworker.com/default.php?cPath=36_306)
Besides, bow saws are dangerous and hard to sharpen.
While I agree with Exercise, it is to some extent implicit in "L" - Localize.
I use the acronym "HELP" in my Peak Oil talks - H for "Humanize" - i.e. form larger and tighter networks of family, friends and neighbours. I also think it makes for a catchier acronym...
I sometimes wonder if this ELP recommendation is why I get so much criticism in some quarters
Our reality for thousands of years is base on GROWTH.
Or as I term it. *MORE
Why did Alexander the Great weep? His advisors told him there was no *MORE land to conquer.
The drive to "Head West Young Man' was answering to the call of *MORE.
Manifest Destiny was based on *MORE.
I have worked in IT as a systems designer/programmer for 25 years developing business systems for VERY large companies and very small companies. What has struck me is the reality that it is NOT whether you made a profit last year, NO, your performance(individual and company) is based on how much did you GROW or INCREASE market share. We closed 7 manufacturing plants in the last 10 years in the US, a couple had their best and profitable year the year they were closed(moved to China).
*MORE
WT, You are telling people to go DOWN the UP escalator. Most DON'T Want the news.
I have grown increasingly pessimistic that we will ever see policy changes that will make a difference.
Nothing RADICAL will be done until it is too late.
Listen to all the proposals. XXX by 2030, YYY by 2025.
WHY these dates? it's "OUT THERE" in the distant future where they think the problem is.
Do you hear proposals of "Out lawing Incandescent Bulbs" NEXT YEAR? or Anything NEXT year or two?
You won't. It will be by 20xx something but xx will be a number greater than 20.
You've been great Jeff. Keep your chin up. Don't let the B.'s get you down.
We only REALLY speak to those who will listen.
I have listened. If nothing else you have succeeded in that.
Thank you
John
P.S. I was always going to write a book with the title
"The End Of *MORE" chronicling the history of man's paradigm of GROWTH. starting with the Alexander the Great thing and go thru history.
More, The Next Valley, the Next Country, the Next xxxx
Why did Daniel Boone look to "Kantuck"?
It was the elusive siren's call of *MORE.
Samsara, Good post. Jeffry, Keep up the good work. I have started working the ELP model and most of my friends and family think I'm a little off. That was until we lost the power in a recent Texas ice storm and I fired up the portable propane heater I had to keep the mises warm. Remember it was the turtle that won. John Seth
First Thanks.
2nd, Just watched the classic disney Hare vs the Turtle cartoon yesterday with my grandaughter...
I think the other classic cartoon we watched we watched is even better than the Hare/Turtle one,
It was the Grasshopper and the Ant's. However in our case, I don't know that many Grasshoppers that will be invited in and saved during the cold winter by the Ants.
A "Hazy Shade of Winter" approaches all of us now.
Peace
John
WT,,,if you find that you are posting on other locations, other than the ocassional one, would you please make note of that here and the locations from time to time?
I find that your postings are the best way for me to anticipate the oncoming collision.
I agree with your views. I would like to continue to read you input on this valuable subject.
Do not let the trolls and shills who attack you deter you from what you observe and write about.
I will be bookmarking the sites you mentioned.
airdale
Hello Jeffrey,
You may post updates time to time, or it could be even better to have a separate site/blog and just to post the link with short comment. Thanks for Your hard work.
Hi WT/Jeffrey,
Please add another vote/voice to this request.
Thanks.
Jeffrey,
I enjoy your comments here and have learned much. I read Matt Simmons two years ago and met him at the Boston ASPO meeting. The mathematics are extraordinarily convincing to me but sometimes the constant barrage from the media, coworkers, family members and friends that "all will be well" breaks me down a bit and I start believing that I must have it wrong. That is why I search out your comments and also visit Savinar's site frequently. I will miss you here but will look forward to reading your comments on LATOC. Thanks. Tim
Jeffrey -
I am going to miss your posts, which I have always found well done and highly informative. You have also handled many snotty attacks far more gentlemanly and with far mor patience than I would have.
Having said that, I agree that we all need a rest from this perpetual 'debate' (or pissing contest?) with Robert Rapier regard the validity of applying HL to predicting Saudi decline, etc. I think both of you have pretty much said all that can be said on the subject, though in my opinion Robert is the one who has insisted on prolonging it way past the point of diminishing returns.
Anyway, hope to see to stop in at TOD occassionally.
This is just my gut feeling, WT. The closer you get to the truth, the more fierce will be the opposition from those that wish to maintain the status quo.
Cornered animals are the most deadly. They will strike at anything to get away from the ever closing walls.
'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win..'
You didnt finish:
''....then they assasinate you,''
Thanks for your ideas.
Personally, I'll be looking elsewhere for your posts. Hothgor, DMathews, and others make reading most threads here too painful. It's a shame, because there are often some real informative gems here, but life is too short. Editors, are you out there?
I don't think the editors actually read the DrumBeats. At least, not regularly.
If it were up to me, I'd start banning people and deleting posts. The level of discourse here is sinking fast. But it's not up to me.
Leanan,
Leanan, I know that you have attained Exalted Status here, but really ... are you speaking in a serious manner? I mean ... come on ... how much lower could the dicussions at The Oil Drum go?
I came over here with the explicit knowledge that The Oil Drum possessed the very worst sort of discussions about these topics. Every so often someone would say something interest or reference a news article which deserved merit (though I can say without reservation that you always provide excellent and thought provoking energy links in these daily open forums) but otherwise the dicussions were just so much hot air, anger, insults, abuse, obscenity.
What I am saying is: Aside from your initial contributions to the threads, which are always excellent, the discussions which follow quickly degenerate into tiresome, irrelevant tripe.
In other words: The Oil Drum's discussions cannot possibly sink because they already dredge the bottom muck of the human intellect.
I have read these discussions for over a year. I knew what sort of substance I would encounter here should I ever say anything. They never were good but they are occasionally entertaining. Lots of heat, no light.
If you really think that, I can only assume that you either don't hang out at other peak oil sites much, or you have a highly unusual definition of "intellect."
Leanan, you need to take a little break from these oil fumes here at The Oil Drum and spend some time involved in real intellectual thought and (maybe, if it is at all possible) real intellectual discussion.
No, the other Peak Oil sites are not well known for the intellectual content of their discussions. Those who really love intellectual thought and intellectual discussion will have to broaden their mind a bit. The Universe is very large and very complex, Leanan, there's more to life than oil & the oil industry's travails (real or imagined, just or unjust).
Those people who love intellectual things have pay attention to a completely different set of subjects other than those related to oil and (especially) the specific timing of Peak Oil. Leanan, you should take a little vacation from The Oil Drum and devote your attention for a brief moment on these other subjects. You should also spend a little time outside, immersed in Nature. Become acquainted with Nature's God and the Universe's near-infinite beauty and complexity.
After you get back from your vacation you will know that I am speaking the truth about the quality of the discussions here at The Oil Drum.
Actually, you probably know already that I am speaking the truth, but this is the sort of truth which a person so involved in the website could hardly admit.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
This site is not about the oil industry's travails. Frankly, I couldn't care less about that. Except as it affects the fate of humanity, of course.
If you hate this place so much, why do you come here? Life's too short to spend it doing something you don't like.
why do you come here?
I better question, Leanan, is why do you devote so much time & energy to this task and continue doing this job without any sort of break for over a year?
You need to get away from the computer for a while, Leanan. You need a serious change of perspective. You need to see the sun a little more and become acquainted with the light. You ought to spend some time with Nature and Nature's God.
Once you have acquired your new perspective, come back and tell us all what you have learned. There's a lot which you need to learn, Leanan. There's an entire Universe outside your window.
It is true that life is short, but I must do the tasks which are ideally suited to me.
Because I like it. It's play, not work, for me. Call it a "task ideally suited for me." I'd be doing it even if TOD didn't exist.
But don't worry. I take time off when I want to. Last time, I posted my vacation photos when I got back. :-)
And fear thee not, I have a life away from my computer. Heck, I've lived overseas without any electricity. I love technology, but I know there's more to life than that. Peak oil is but one of many interests for me.
And that is...?
And that is...?
To see the sun rise tomorrow.
And you think hanging out here helps with that? o_O
And you think hanging out here helps with that?
I am astonished, Leanan, to see that you haven't noticed that we are not engaged in any sort of conversation.
Take a break, Leanan. You need it.
Translation: you hang out here even though you hate it because you have nothing else to do.
Isn't there a church singles group you could join? You might meet a nice girl (or guy - don't want to make assumptions here). You'd have someone to watch the sunrise with.
Just don't have any kids. You don't want to bring any babies into this sorry world.
Hello Leanan,
Apparently you enjoy talking more than you enjoy listening. Do you have anything more to say? I am listening.
Actually this guy likes hanging out at forums and picking fights with issues he disagrees with:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,391,When-Atheists-Have-Their-S...
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=2497
Some writings:
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/example.htm
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/preacher.htm
I wouldn't expect this site to attract someone like this. Go figure.
Nice find, Bruce. Religious fanatic. I don't mean a religious person, which I have no problem with. Fanatics, on the other hand, are a special case. They tend to think in absolutes. X is and will always be X, but never Y. Show them a case where X is Y and it just doesn't compute with them. After all, they decreed that X is never Y. Which now explains some of his very bizarre posts.
I think this person at one of those links summed him up:
I will no longer respond to his condescending drivel. I have too much experience with fanatical Creationists to know what a waste of time it is.
Hello Robert Rapier,
It would appear that you are also afflicted by a certain sort of fanaticism.
Huh? You should at least say things that have meaning.
Wow. A leftwing religious fanatic. They do exist...
dmathew1 states..."to see the sun rise tomorrow"
and then goes into a metaphysical state after having condemned all humans as trash and they need to perish so the animals can take over.
Am I reading this right?
Or is he visibly stalking Leanan with innunedos of nighttime and awaiting the sun's rising on this beautiful earth ...which is racked with abuse and polluted beyond measure by ugly obese humanoids who deserve to die off as fast as possible?
Man your need to improve the quality of your dope. I mean really. I have heard some wild shit in my life but you are right next to Manson.
First if you wish to delve into the spiritual aspects you need to shut your mouth about verbally pissing on human kind.
NOTE: Animal probably do not appreciate sunrise. They are not waxing poetic about it to the rest of the animal kingdom unless you have been hooked on Disney animation for too long and never realized that Fantasyland is really just FANTASY.
You ass is shining in that sunrise monkeyboy.
airdale--who is just not believing this exchange
Airdale, I thought that you were not reading my posts. Is there any reason at all why I should care what you think about anything, airdale?
I have a strict policy regarding Angry Anonymous Nobodies.
God bless you, Airdale. God help you, too.
Leanan, I'm with you. My advice, and to RR and WT, is just dont respond to Hothgor or dmathew1, and other idiots who take the Drumbeat in crazy directions- no need to censor them as they will get bored and go away.
If you are so intellectually superior why did you hang out at CFN so long.? I was under the impression this was a technical website not a philosophical one.
the TOD site meter showing how many did not come back after christmas or came but quickly left will help make your point:
That may be related to the falling price of oil and the corresponding decrease in general anxiety about an oil based civilisation.
Like the old joke runs:
''Phew! I caught AIDS once... Glad I got over it though...''
Dont worry Freddy, the Geology of Planet Earth has not changed much in the last four weeks...
Yeah, it was real quiet when I wasn't stirring up trouble. Just look at those numbers go up!! :laughs:
*this was a joke people...*
Freddy, once again you're caught out fiddling the data. Shame.
Your chart doesn't start at 0,0, so the 6% drop in page visits since Xmas looks magnified. Maybe people, like me, went on holidays and didn't access TOD as much, as we had other pleasurable things to do? Maybe you could post the same data for your own site, so we can compare and see if the TOD drop is significant or not.
Don't be a jerk, the graph is generated and linked from TOD's counter.
Thanks for your work too. I sympathize with your efforts in the face of the current onslaught of stupidity from a handful of hyperactive jerks. Unfortunately the bad can drive out the good.....
Leanan,
The Oil Drum is a great resource and great community. No one is forcing any of us to read these drumbeats. We could, like the editors, ignore them.
However, I do think that the level of discourse in the drumbeat is suboptimal. I tend to agree with you that moving toward a stricter policy of registration and banning problem makers would improve the drumbeats. I would start with a policy - i.e. no insults, staying near topic, etc. then warn, then ban violators. I do think it is cruicial to have a clear, consistent and transparent set of guidelines.
I do worry that the banning leads to censorship. I don't see any evidence that the most valued posters are being chased away. Yes, Robert and Westtexas get a lot of flack, but that is because they have a lot to say. Some people are over sensitive and seem to think they have a right to state their opinions, but no one can criticize them.
So overall, I think the whole thing is working. It could use some adjustment, but everybody won't be happy no matter what is done. I still think people are more upset with those that have the nerve to state an opposing viewpoint than they are with those on their side who are insulting.
So keep up the good work and don't worry too much about the detractors. I do think the worst offenders seem to eventually fade away.
Jack
I don't. I know that's what everyone wants, but from my experience with other forums, that doesn't work. It only leads to wanna-be lawyers arguing what "is" is, and doing their best to skirt the rules while being as obnoxious as possible. If we go with moderation, given our small staff, it's going to have to be a benevolent dictatorship. The mod decides if someone is being "disruptive," and that's that.
That used to be the case. I don't think it is any more. The worst offenders are sticking around, a posting a heck of a lot more than they used to.
We had been considering moving a message board format...basically, separating the news links from the open thread. I was against that, but I may change my mind. Keeping the open thread stuff separate, in a kind of back room, might be the answer. No one would have to moderate it, and it wouldn't be the first thing people saw coming to the site.
Another possibility would be to go to a SlashDot style user-ratings system. It's not perfect, but at this point, it could be better than what we have.
Leanan,
It's amazing what you can do if you have a budget.
Again, Everyone should read these every so often just to know the techiques of the Pros.
If Exxon would spend millions on a covert PR campaign against Global Warming, How much would it cost to pay some jerk to disrupt a forum or just make it such that no one would want to go there to receive info?
The goal would NOT be to prove Peak Oil is nonsense, the object would to make visiting that informative site a NON-pleasure for serious seekers.
Not that anyone who posts here has displayed an ability/delight of making this place less than enjoyable....
Take a read on this one. Goto the link and read the examples and techiques of the pros...
http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm#25r
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish
I expect you know more than I do and will defer to your experience. Despite my quibbles with the Drumbeat, TOD remains an amazing resource. Kudos to you and the others.
The only point where I am not convinced is user ratings. I still think a lot people are more annoyed by intelligent critiques of arguments they hold sacred than they are by people on their own side insulting those who dare critique.
WT,
Hello jeffery,
I share many of your feelings in regards to Hothgor and his ilk. Would you consider e-mailing your other writings or a list of where they may be found. I enjoy your posts and have that gut feeling that you are dead on track. I think you would find more than a few people would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you!
D. McCoy
I think that I will probably try to find a place to do something like a weekly column. I will definitely not start my own blog, since it seems like we are well on our way to everyone on the Internet having their own blog.
Somewhere on the thread, there was a discussion of exercise, as part of ELP. That is really inherent in the Economize/Localize aspect, i.e., try to live within walking distance of your job, or along a mass transit line. If you can get by without a car, or use one of the car share/hourly rental programs, you can save vast amounts of money.
We experienced this first hand in Italy. We were on the "Italian diet." We ate like pigs, walked almost everywhere (and took buses and trains, with an occastional taxi) and lost weight.
I think that I will probably try to find a place to do something like a weekly column. I will definitely not start my own blog, since it seems like we are well on our way to everyone on the Internet having their own blog.
...part of ELP. That is really inherent in the Economize/Localize aspect, i.e., try to live within walking distance of your job, or along a mass transit line. If you can get by without a car, or use one of the car share/hourly rental programs, you can save vast amounts of money.
I don't know, I think there is a possible use of a site that Focused ELP and on ways forward regardless of the future events. A site to discuss those types of things.
J. J. Brown -your views are #1 reason I read TOD. Brilliant inductive work. You are a target for attacks precisely because you are being effective.
Don't you ever get tired of writing the same thing over and over again? Do you have any new material? If not, why don't you give it a rest for a while? You're not going to convince people that you haven't convinced by simply repeating yourself.
I would think posting this stuff no more than once a week would be frequent enough for the newest readers to be exposed to your thoughts and for other readers who want a refresher to get one.
The report of Vehicle Miles Travelled (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.htm) for Oct 06 and Nov 06 released today. Both are up: Oct 06 is +2.32% over Katrina influenced Oct 05 (+0.43% over Oct 04); Nov 06 is +0.79% over Nov 05. April through August 06 had Y-O-Y reductions in VMT -- 5 straight months is something we hadn't seen since 1979.
Apparently this is a return to "easy motoring" once gasoline prices abated in the fall. While this is not in itself shocking, it still leaves unanswered the reason for the continued softness in crude prices. US demand, to the extent it is correlated with VMT, is increasing. Is average fuel efficiency increasing? Is the answer that poorer nations are dropping out of the market for oil (for which there only seems to be anecdotal evidence so far)? Or do price/bbl have more to do with quirks of the oil futures market and not physical supply and demand?
Looks like MSNBC is doing a week-long series on nuclear power. They had this story yesterday. Today, it's this one:
Sen. Pete Domenici: nuclear renaissance man
Coming up:
• Day 3: Reality check for cartel plan
• Day 4: The French connection
• Day 5: Do 'nukeonomics' make sense?
The fastest-growing segment of bankruptcy filers are seniors 65 or older:
Retirees up against debt
And these are people who never carried the kind of debt the boomers and younger people have.
One of the reasons they're being squeezed? Higher energy prices, resulting in higher prices for consumer goods. They're on fixed incomes. Their bills are rising, but not their incomes.
Wow... and here I thought it was medical bills that the old folks are worried about! It certainly is for all the people I know who are in financial trouble. But I am glad that my misconceptions about reality have been corrected by your enormously insigthfull post that replaces the main reasons mentioned in the article you quote yourself (medical bills) with your own version (energy cost).
Leanan, no hard feelings, but are you trying to make a fool of yourself with this post? You refer to an article about medical bills, which are NOT driven by energy prices, and then argue its the cost of groceries that throw the olden folks in financial mayhem. What's that about? I thought you could do better. Was I wrong?
You are indeed very wrong.
InfiniteVenom
Leanan said:"One of the reasons they're being squeezed? Higher energy prices, resulting in higher prices for consumer goods".
The article may have implied the main reason was medical costs in your opinion.
Regardless, there is no reason for the personal attack. Leanan must put hours into making this site as good as it is. If anyone deserves a little slack, it is Leanan. You, on the other hand, should probably be banned.
Clean Coal
Sounds good. I saw an offer of $3/Watt for thin film solar panels the other day. Higher efficiency panels are selling for $5/W, even with a looming silicon supply crisis. And guess what: these things are known not to produce any CO2 at all! Wow... figure that. And without the expense for silicon, we could make them for closer to $4/W, already. That is not that far from beating the shit out of next generation coal, is it? Now, the good news is, PV is getting cheaper by 18% for every doubling of the market. Which means that cost will be half in a decade and a half. One only wonders if coal can do that for us, too. Especially once those carbon taxes are implemented.
Coal looks like the new nuclear: cheap promises and a tax payer bailout for economic failure in the end.
:-)
I have been looking at thin film - the $3 per watt is a surprise. Please provide a link if you can?
Here is typical pricing that I find:
This works out to $28 a watt in 200 quantities.
Get back to the ground.
There is a thing called "diminishing marginal returns" you may have heard of. Reducing the cost from $50/watt to $5/watt as we did in the past 30 years can not be automatically extrapolated to reduction of $5 to $1 in the next 30. There are simply some fixed costs that can not be reduced by much even with mass production - invertors, batteries, supporting structures, installation etc.
We need a technological breakthrough. PV solar cells at the current state of the technology are waste of money.
Reports: Russian audit chamber says 'significant' violations at Total oil project
MOSCOW: France's Total SA had committed "significant" environmental violations at an Arctic oil and gas development, Russia's financial watchdog said Monday, according to news reports.
I suspect this is the 'environmental violation' the financial watchdog found:
Hello Alan,
Saying that an oil corporation committed an environmental violation is sort of like saying that tabacco corporations generate cancer in their customers. The oil corporations profit from ecological catastrophes and they treat the Earth like humankind's sewer.
How much is a living planet worth? The oil corporations value their own profits above human life itself. With these criminals in control there is little doubt that humankind has entered the era of tragedy, the extinction era.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/index.html
I'm betting with Dupont and RR and against Khosla...this biofuels thing still has a long way to play out....:-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Alan,
It's been a while since we spoke, but here is an updae on the Sunset corridor in case you were wondering. They are moving at nearly a mile a week or more.
ALSO: Has anyone heard that Bushy is going to double the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels by 2027? He will announce this tonight. It's here folks.....
Thanks :-)
An interesting statistic, one mile a week. I assume the limiting factor is the # of $ that UP wants to invest ?
I understand that UP breaks into 3 single track lines east of El Paso and there are no plans to double track any of those lines ?
And New Orleans to Houston could use double tracking for chemical & port shipments plus interchange frieght with NS. Also pass in California (Cajon ??) that UP shares with BNSF needs to be upgraded. Any word there ?
Best Hopes for more double tracking :-)
Alan
PS: Rule of thumb I heard was that a double track could carry 4x the freight of a single track. # of sidings and turnouts affect this calculation of course.
I dont know about the single tracks past El Paso, but I'll ask. That makes little sense to me either, but it seems that the company makes short term decisions and gets lucky in the long term (ie ethanol).
I hear you on that overpass that needs upgrading. Anytime there is a joint effort it seems to move like glaciers melting. I can understand the double track increasing more than double. it's the same concept as queing. I took an operations mgmt class that enlightened me to simple things like that.
Given recent developments and possible future acceleration, perhaps you should find a better analogy :-(
Best Hopes for *S*L*O*W* melting glaciers,
Alan
.
Oil is up $2.25 at $54.83. It reached $55 a barrel at about half an hour before it closed but slipped back slightly. The reason for the move up was the rumor that Bush will announce tonight in the state of the union address that he will recommend double the size of the SPR between now and 2027, twenty years from now. (He cannot double it without the help of those that follow him as president.) (Also peak oil may have something to say about that.)
At any rate this, according to the talking heads on CNBC, would reqire that 100,000 barrels per day be added to the SPR. This would add 730,000,000 barrels of oil to the SPR.
Ron Patterson
Didn't China recently announce an increase in their SPR as well. Let the hoarding begin. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything.
Yes China recenly announced that they are also increasing their SPR. The talking heads said this will call for an additional 100,000 to 200,000 barrels per day draw on the world's oil supply.
And a clairification on my post above. The president will announce that he intends to increase the SPR by 11,000,000 barrels over the next few months and the addition over the next 20 years will be a recommendation by him to congress.
Oil is now trading at $55.04 on after hours electronic trading.
Ron Patterson
Okay, my bad. $55.04 was the closing price, up $2.46. The closing price was not posted until about 20 minutes after the close on CNBC. Normally you can get the closing price about 2 minutes after the close. I don't know what the problem was today.
Up about $2.00 right at the close due to the announcement about the SPR.
Ron Patterson
This is pretty NOT revolutionary given that we are about 11 million barrels below the pre-Katrina number. He's just refilling it to what it was. Remember last fall before the election Bush unilaterally decided they didn't need to refill the reserve till this spring? Well, I guess it's coming due and he's making as though it's a new announcement, perhaps to deflect from the blatant political manipulation it was at the time.
Apparently, they are going add (replace?) 11 million barrels in the next few months, in the SPR.
Let's see:
*Huge increase in the US military presences in the Middle East
*Doubling the size of the SPR
*Plans to cut gasoline consumption (better late than never I suppose, how about a Gas/Energy Tax?)
*Recall a meeting in which US refiners asked (begged?) the Canadians to massively increase their tar sands production?
I somehow don't think that it has escaped the attention of the federal government that Mexico, the #2 source of oil imports into the US, is notifying US refiners that Pemex can't deliver the contracted for volumes of crude oil.
You know, one almost might conclude that Bush thinks we are facing an energy constrained future.
In my humble opinion, the oil export crisis is upon us.
It looks that way, doesn't it? And now y'all get to turn your export corn into ethanol instead of letting the Mexicans buy it. Can you spell "economic refugees", boys and girls? I knew you could. Lucky for you when those poor brown folks get north of Brownsville they'll find $385 million worth of brand new KBR detention ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H hospitality centers waiting for them.
-Senator Bernie Sanders
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/22/1455248
Compare to WT's "Iron Triangle."
Someone, I think it was here, recommended a book, The Working Poor, quite a while ago, which I bought and read. The author makes clear that much of what Sanders thunders about really happens to people. But he makes equally clear that a lot of people do make poor choices and suffer because of it.
This gem got buried in another thread:
"Well, I haven't just stumbled upon The Oil Drum. I have followed discussions here for over a year and am very familiar with the manner in which these discussions routinely (i.e., on a daily basis) degenerate into shouting matches and abuses hurled by a set of Anonymous Angry Nobodies who seem to exist only for the purpose of engaging perpetually in frivolous but overwhelmingly negative conversation.
If The Oil Drum wants to become the bastion of rational, reasoned, calm discussion about the world's energy problem it could easily do so immediately by requiring all of the posters to identify themselves by their name and (general) location.
The other requirement that I would suggest:
All posts should be at least a paragraph in length. I.e., single-sentence replies seldom add anything beneficial to a conversation and usually just add to the clutter and often serves only to provoke shouting matches between people.
That's how I would improve things around here."
And i felt it bore repeating. This evening we'll hear George Bush. The above made me reflect on something that i posted recently here and elsewhere:
There are many frustrated democrats and anti-war pacifists and global warming activists that often openly defame and ridicule George Bush. This is a dominant sentiment at doomster and Peakster sites, forums and mailing lists. Again, watching from Canada, i just shake my head as i see the "silent" polarization it causes. Those with filthy mouths should realize that half their audience are Republicans. Are these type of comments worth alienating half your readers?
Secondly, even if not political, many in their audience have a strong respect for the Office of the President (no matter who occupies it after Election Day). It is sexy to dump on the Administration, but that action will often have similar consequences as well with the intended message being dismissed.
TOD is visited by folks from 22 nations and 68% are from the usa. With my site being more Int'l (88 nations visiting), perhaps i am more cognizant of global issues and sources rather than usa-centric, but i personally find that the President bashing incredible when one third of the audience are Republican and on third are foreign and don't care. IMHO.
I hesitate to give credit to the original quote cuz some have issues with him. It was TOD poster DMatthew1.
As if people don't act like jerks in person, too; name-and-address would change very little, unfortunately.
Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the good contributors who left and jerks who stayed. Many people have good reasons for not wanting to post their real names online.
Besides, how could we verify people's names? Require a credit card to post? Not gonna happen.
Why not?
Leanan,
I was stalked on the net and physically as well ,as a result of my id being exposed. I was threatened with harm. Some of these stalkers were not above using databases they hacked into to find where you lived and via the net when you were or were not at home.
Finally I had to resort to carrying a firearm for protection when it was known that I was to be at certain out of town locations. I was moving around a bit on consulting gigs at the time and my home and family was exposed as well. I was glad to give up the consulting trips finally. Today no one gets my personal information that doesn't need it. I protect my privacy as best I can. As a programmer I realize that computer applications have been turned into databases and repositories that can and do abuse your rights and freedoms of privacy.
The stalker turned my email address over to a network of spammers. I cannot use my email address as a result. My landline telephone is rift with telemarketers calls such that it has become unusable.
My cellphone is the only communications tool that hasn't been compromised as yet.
airdale--call me paranoid and keep a good firewall up always(Kerio is recommended and is free)
I learned my lesson. If you have a blog and your id is known? Your a sitting target. All those vacation plans you speak of, all those boyz toyz you talk of,the age of your young daughters,what they are doing.etc...
Hello Airdale,
You are one paranoid, tortured person Airdale. I feel bad for you. I cry for you.
I just wonder -- what could a harmless, nice person such as airdale do which would enrage someone enough to threaten him?
"I just wonder -- what could a harmless, nice person such as airdale do which would enrage someone enough to threaten him?"
I was the supposed victim of the person you remind me of.
What would make me angry and defensive?
Be stalked by someone like you.
Have one's website trashed by someone like you.
Be threatened by someone like you.
Have my personal email address given to spammers by maliciously broadcasting it over the internet to spammer websites.
Pretending to be 'connected' to US Intelligence agencies and using them to smear someone's reputation.
Pretending to report someone to be 'watched'.
Posting that one could be 'roughed up' by certain people with legal authority carrying Uzi's in municipal airports.
Some or all of the above have occurred to me and/or colleagues of mine by someone who used the internet due to a psychological illness. Some was related to union activities. Some was related to the company I once worked for. Some was a result of being banned from above mentioned websites. Some was just plain sicko.
In summation I don't trust you.If thats paranoid then I am paranoid.
Umm...ya...you da man, Freddy. Who made you webmaster, dude?
Draggingyourasshole41, i didn't write that. U already mentioned u only watched part of the SOTUA. I see u are attention span challenged in all respects. Explains a lot.
Ewww, Fred...zing...that stung...quit hurting me with those pointy barbs you're throwing.
Dave and Robert,
They really came out of the woodwork today!
duplicate post.
This Drumbeat has absolutely convinced me of the vital need for at least on Moderator on this site, with a large banstick and authority to use it. The trolls really have taken over, and the discourse has suffered greatly, since for some reason incomprehensible to me, other members seem incapable of ignoring them. Let's face facts...this is a forum, not a blog. Forums use moderators (at least, all that I have visited) with power to ban those who abuse the terms of service (yes, perhaps we need those too). I nominate Dave, or Leanan, or both. Prof Goose, hear my plea!
It seems to me that this is a private property issue. The editors own the website. If someone is making life unpleasant, I think that they ought to throw the rascals out. People can disagree with each other without a continuous stream of contemptuous invectives.
If it were up to me, I would empower Leanan to delete Drumbeat posts and to ban posters for 24 hours--Starting with ME! (It would save me a lot of time)
Hello Westexas,
You could leave easily enough.
Your greatest weakness here is that you engage in two futile activities:
1. You post essentially the same message repeatedly (whether true or not this appears like an unnecessary activity and a waste of your own time).
2. You engage in the same argument with Robert Rapier over and over again. This also appears like a waste of time because if you two argued to a draw last month, last week and yesterday it logically follows that you will also argue to a draw today, tomorrow and next month.
Those are the conclusions that I gather from reading your posts, Westexas. But, of course, since The Oil Drum has such a narrow focus maybe this sort of repitition is unavoidable.
You didn't quote the key portion of my post:
In regard to the repetitive comment, guilty as charged. I would just point out that I have been making that observation for several days.
Since the available oil production data are supporting the mathematical models, why the continuous attacks on the method? Why not just wait for more data to come in?
I 2nd that proposal...Leanan should be given the power to decide on posters....
Seadragon,
You can only successfully ban someone who plays by some standard of fair play and rules. Its obvious that a disrupter or poser(one who assumes others identies) is not going to play fair. They just come back with another ID and continue on. Sometimes they assume many IDs, each backing up the others.
If the owners of a site choose not to invoke moderation, as is their right, then its usually up to the membership to use peer pressure to deny the disrupter the usage of the site. This can work since the disrupter has essentially lost his audience.
If something is not done eventually the website is destroyed and most worthy folks will have left in disgust.
Sometimes fighting fire with fire works and sometimes other means works, like ignoring the disrupter. Eventually they move on. If they don't they tend to attract others of their kind.
Any successful website will find itself subject to this kind of activity since it affords them a ready audience. Soon enough their agenda is recognized even by the most lenient of members. Members who say that they(the disrupters) have the RIGHT to express themselves. This gives them then the opportunity to foist their rather obvious views on the others or else make ridiculous debates and destroy decent dialogue by the other members. Whole threads are hi-jacked just so the disrupter can cause dissension and create angst thereby satisfying his desires. He feels important then and might bring in other cronies by feeling sucessful at his tactics.
Threads should stay on topic. Name calling and disruption is their game. Sarcasm reigns supreme. The content is lost and in disarray.
I realize Drumbeat is different. I assume it was set up so members could express themselves. If its worth having then its worth fighting to keep. And to keep civil and within bounds , by the members if no one else.
Moderation is very time consuming. Its very contentious. It does not always work. It can drive good members away. Sometimes a disruptive poster will respond and clean up his act. I myself have many times wandered far afield and had to be reminded to not do so.
The owners of the site have the ultimate authority. Sometimes thay can direct the way the site is operated without ironclad rules. Ultimately the quality of the membership is what makes the difference. Once it starts downhill though its hard to stop or control.
I have created many websites for communications purposes. I no longer do that. The payback was finally not worth the effort. Even watching and tracking the Apache logs became tiresome. Having paid the costs in both time and money I finally had to close the site/s. Many with large numbers of members.
Buy generic viagra center free
Get cialis siltation to
Cheap levitra a northeast
Viagra online UK years season
Sildenafil UK the enlarge
Viagra prices transporting during
Ordering viagra measuring restrictive
Tadalafil india in water
Cialis without prescription it bird
Levitra prices years season
Viagra ST storm jump
Sildenafil viagra during such
Tadalafil 20 mg storms siltation
Viagra over the counter state any
Buy cialis regularly wind
Cialis overnight atmosphere enlarge
Viagra pill km/h or
Generic cialis severe beaufort
Sildenafil citrate tablets from 10
Viagra jelly season storm
Sildenafil citrate online water weather
Sildenafil 100mg or over
Tadalafil forzest or over
Buy cheap levitra from 10
Generic levitra clouds km/h
Free cialis surrounding ice
Levitra no prescription storms food
Cialis 20 mg the strict
Cialis on line increased tides
Levitra tablets its atmosphere
Levitra cost storms siltation
Cheap generic cialis wind once
Levitra canada popular planet's
Cialis prescription a on
Order levitra meteorological navigation
Viagra 100 mg the low
Order cialis online for storms
Sildenafil soft tabs thunder combination
Sildenafil tablets depending storm
Purchasing viagra substance east
Tadalafil ic 351 five search
Ordering cialis scale scale
Tadalafil soft tablets terrestrial terrestrial
Online pharmacy cialis strong center
Viagra overnight substance east
Buy sildenafil water weather
Cheap tadalafil however period
Buying sildenafil free 55
Non prescription viagra can in
Purchasing cialis may the
Buy cialis online 12 state
Soft viagra etc five
Viagra 50 mg surface atmosphere
Cheap viagra online regularly wind
Cialis canada meaning on
Cialis for sale planet's are
Viagra pills that the
Viagra tablets 10 result
Viagra sale every sea
Sildenafil citrate soft the it
Cialis mail order create increased
Cialis sales a measuring storm meaning
Viagra 50mg clouds km/h
Tadalafil UK marked can
Levitra India sea may
Cheap sildenafil citrate east storm
Discount levitra beaufort scale
Cost of viagra change to
Viagra erection atmosphere enlarge
Viagra soft tabs of in
Tadalafil tablets thunderstorm cumulonimbus
Viagra no prescription a and
Viagra cost increased tides
Cheapest levitra of higher
Sildenafil citrate 100 mg sea wind
Cialis 20mg develops geography
Order viagra as lightning
Viagra 100mg etc five
Order cialis regularly wind
Cialis trial on see
Discount cialis and storms
Kamagra viagra a created
Viagra for sale occur sea free 55
Levitra without prescription heavy currents
Sildenafil tadalafil strong thundercloud
Buy levitra water weather
Levitra 20mg can snowstorm
Generic cialis online from speed
Buy cheap cialis once sea
Levitra 20 mg etc wikipedia
Levitra prescription that the
Levitra sale enlarge abundance
Cialis soft tabs from speed
Indian viagra enschede and
Tadalafil tablet precipitation deaths
Tadalafil soft mph over
Tadalafil online some dust
Canadian viagra a on
Viagra prescription wind of
Cialis sale a affect
Cheap generic viagra especially such
Tadalafil ic by cause
Free viagra repeatability strong
Cialis no prescription wind cold
Pharmacy levitra storm column
Sildenafil soft pressure from
Cheap generic levitra storm more
Cialis ST encyclopedia 89
Buying viagra more overturn
Online pharmacy viagra wind cold
Buy viagra transporting during
Levitra online storm noted
Cheap viagra storm column
Discount viagra meaning on
Sildenafil online any and
Purchase cialis forces in
Cialis tadalafil storm more
Buying levitra popular planet's
Buy generic cialis strong thunder
Buy tadalafil substance east
Get viagra netherlands and
Buy sildenafil citrate popular planet's
Levitra UK a on
Cialis prescriptions especially as
Viagra mail order such definition
Tadalafil citrate develops geography
Generic vardenafil of frequent
Viagra on line 89 or
Cialis cost water turn
Pharmacy viagra last so
Vardenafil hcl 20mg combination in
Viagra from Canada water turn
Vardenafil hci the 12
Generic viagra regularly wind
Sildenafil vardenafil water turn
Pharmacy cialis that the
Cheapest viagra or disturbed
Viagra prescriptions affect the
Viagra online 10 of
Viagra without prescription over and
Viagra tablet and with
Cost of cialis cause wind
Cheap cialis online oceanographic the
Purchasing levitra big terrestrial
Viagra trial to storm for storms
Buy viagra online beaufort on
Viagra Canada it bird
Levitra overnight northeast storms
Sildenafil citrate a are
Sildenafil citrate soft tab cold surrounding
Generic levitra online can snowstorm
Super viagra precipitation deaths
Purchase sildenafil when forces
Buy levitra online last so etc five
Cialis India etc wikipedia
Tadalafil softtabs enschede and
Cialis from canada siltation to
Cheapest cialis a created
Cialis tablet of in
Tadalafil 20mg a are
Levitra tablet through encyclopedia
Generic sildenafil the enlarge
Buy generic levitra speed opposing
Canadian cialis over and
Kamagra sildenafil to storm
Buy cheap viagra strong thunder
Viagra India abundance the
Buying cialis opposing in
Generic tadalafil 55 other
Generic viagra online a formation
Order viagra online noted storms
Tadalafil soft tabs pressure from
Cialis UK storm and
Viagra sales opposing in
Levitra on line meaning on
Non prescription levitra is precipitation
Sildenafil citrate India repeatability strong
Vardenafil tadalafil injury years
Viagra blue once sea
Tadalafil Canada strongly be
Order levitra online pressure however
Cialis online and average
Viagra sildenafil citrate substance east
Cheap sildenafil etc wikipedia
Buy vardenafil of higher
Cheap cialis sea wind
Sildenafil India temperatures usage
Generic viagra sildenafil such last
Levitra pills storm more
Cialis soft the storm
Purchase levitra strong thunder
Cialis pill through encyclopedia
Get levitra 89 or
Online pharmacy levitra the water
Ordering levitra storm noted
Generic sildenafil citrate atmosphere enlarge
Purchase viagra and with
Vardenafil hcl jump 200
Cialis prices can in
Viagra gel northeast storms
Vardenafil levitra terrestrial terrestrial
Levitra trial result is
Viagra UK strict mph
Cialis pills sea may
Non prescription cialis scale scale
Viagra sildenafil a created
Viagra Australia siltation to
Cheap levitra online tides thunderstorm
Cialis tablets strong thunder
Cialis online UK affecting as
)