 | Key Questions on Energy Options | The Oil Drum | The Future of (Natural) Gas from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin? |  |
DrumBeat: January 25, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 25, 2007 - 11:43am
California bans dirty power sources
California regulators approved rules Thursday banning power companies from buying electricity from high-polluting sources, including most out-of-state coal-burning plants.The rules _ aimed at reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming _ could have a far-reaching effect on the energy market across the West.
Nuclear energy's French connection
With help from the allies it funds in Congress and legions of highly paid lobbyists, the U.S. nuclear power industry won billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for its promised “renaissance.” But the biggest winner of all could be a French firm that most Americans have never heard of.
Is there enough corn for Bush ethanol plan?
Of all the proposals in President Bush’s State of the Union speech, the call for massive increases in subsidized ethanol production stands the best chance of winning Congressional support. With the campaign season getting under way, both parties are eager to boost federal funds to the Farm Belt.But even as the president hit the road Wednesday to highlight his plan at an ethanol plant in Delaware, some were already asking: Where is all the corn needed to make that ethanol going to come from?
Bodman: U.S. Needs More Ethanol Imports
The U.S. "will need to have more imports of ethanol," if it is to meet the new mandate to cut gasoline use, the Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Thursday.
Creating Myths About Oil Production is Easy, Too Easy
On 18th Jan 2007, the news agency the Associated Press issued a story which stated that Saudi Arabia intends to increase its oil production capacity by 40% by 2009. In fact, it intends to do no such thing.
Climate change 'fanning conflict, terror'
Global warming could exacerbate the world's rich-poor divide and help to radicalise populations and fan terrorism in the countries worst affected, security and climate experts said today.
Climate change: Public concern is rising fast
Thirty years ago, global warming was an issue restricted to a handful of climatologists who, clamouring in the wilderness, warned that uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels would damage Earth's climate.Today, opinion polls in many countries say climate change is now a concern that citizens often place just after unemployment, terrorism or a similarly key issue of prosperity or survival.
Developing nations dig in heels on climate change
Developing countries stand to suffer the worst effects of global warming, and should not have to pay for a problem created mainly by the rich, executives and experts said on Thursday.
Leaders not sold on global warming
Despite warnings from President Bush about global warming -- and in the face of what many experts and even industry leaders describe as overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue -- top leaders in Texas have continued to question the validity of man-made climate change.
Stern favours world carbon tax
Sir Nicholas Stern has spoken out in favour of a global carbon tax, warning that global warming represents "the biggest market failure the world has ever seen".
Harper: Canada won't follow Bush on reducing oil consumption
Canada won't follow the Bush administration's lead in setting hard targets for reducing oil consumption, but will instead impose tougher emissions standards on the auto sector and other industries, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Merkel calls for tough emissions controls
The twin demands of action to prevent climate change and enhance energy security requires Europe to commit to challenging mandatory controls on greenhouse gasses after 2012, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said on Wednesday.
ConocoPhillips' Woes Mount in Venezuela; 'A Difficult Situation'
U.S. oil major ConocoPhillips (COP) is licking its wounds in Venezuela as President Hugo Chavez tightens the noose on two of the firm's showboat projects.
Is the sun setting on oil sector's heyday?
Global pledges to slash use may put long-term pressure on prices.
Shell Canada Announces Plans for Oil Sands Growth
Shell Canada on Wednesday updated its long-term oil sands growth plans to increase minable bitumen production to approximately 770,000 barrels a day, while increasing upgrading capacity to approximately 700,000 barrels a day.
Militants kidnap oil workers in Nigeria
LAGOS, Nigeria - Gunmen attacked a Chinese oil company in restive southern Nigeria on Thursday, abducting at least two employees and stealing a large amount of cash, police said.
California agency sues over air pollution
The South Coast Air Quality Management District sued California public utility officials, claiming the liquefied natural gas that officials approved for use in the state could worsen air pollution.
Ford posts record loss of $12.7B in 2006
Ford Motor Co. lost $5.8 billion in the fourth quarter amid slumping sales and huge restructuring costs, pushing the fabled automaker's deficit for the year to $12.7 billion, the largest in its 103-year history.
After unlocking the secrets of the human genome, the controversial scientist Craig Venter now is trying to engineer a microbe to liberate us from our dependence on oil.
Eat To Live: Food or fuel in future?
Already, land for food is competing with land for biofuels. The decrease in land available to supply the food chain will result in global food shortages, which in turn will force food prices to rise.
Bush wants America to reduce its oil consumption - but subsidising ethanol production isn't the answer.
South Africa: Biofuel Demand Good for Farmers
One Planet Agriculture – preparing for a post-peak oil food and farming future
The Soil Association is the UK’s leading campaigning and certification organisation for organic food and farming. This recent interview with Soil Association director, Patrick Holden, talks about the potential impacts of peak oil, the role of organic food.
Bangladesh: Quick Remedy to Energy Crisis Not in Sight
No light is seen at the end of the tunnel immediately for the solution to the current severe energy crisis, which has already taken a heavy toll on the country’s economy, according to sources.
An energy crisis is steadily approaching, and swift and decisive action is imperative.In the 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush said "America is addicted to oil."
One year later, we are just as hooked.
Though poisonous when eaten, the jatropha genus and its species hold immense potential for improving human life in this new age of biologically-derived fuel.
Higher Angola Oil Output Not Seen Affecting Oil Market
A move by new Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries member Angola to raise its crude production to record levels is unlikely to have a long-term impact on the group's production quotas or the West African cash crude market, traders said Wednesday.
John Michael Greer: The Hesperotechnic Phase
The neoprimitivist movement seeks to replace the myth of progress with a myth of fall and redemption in which technology plays the role of original sin. It’s a clear and compelling narrative, and has the advantage of recasting our current predicament as a cause for optimism. I’m far from convinced that their myth makes any more sense of our actual situation than the myth of progress does, and a myth that defines the mass death of six billion people and the loss of every trace of eight thousand years of human culture as good things has obvious problems of its own, but at least they have taken the mythic dimension seriously.
Declining oil reserves will impact hugely on energy prices and the way we eat and farm. Is Britain ready for a new agri-culture?
Russia's oil habit hampers economy
Oil prices have been falling and western European customers, rattled by disruptions of Russian supplies, are looking for other sources of oil and natural gas.That might be a wakeup call for Russia to stop relying almost exclusively on hydrocarbon exports as the backbone of its economy. Yet Russia is doing little to diversify -- and analysts say its dependence on energy resources is only getting stronger.
Nigerian Oil, Curse of the Black Gold
The Niger Delta holds some of the world's richest oil deposits, yet Nigerians living there are poorer than ever, violence is rampant, and the land and water are fouled. What went wrong?
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.
How about a "Don't Feed the Trolls" moratorium day?
Resist replying with non-value added arguments with Posters that only take up thread space.
(Yes, Including this post)
Only a moron would suggest something like that.
Please inform yourself.
:laughs:
If it weren't for the trolls what sort of conversations would occur here?
Hothgor and Infinite Possibilities seem to make the same arguments every day and experience the same results:
Hothgor: You're wrong about Peak Oil.
Anyone else: You're an idiot, Hothgor.
or ...
Infinite Possibilities: Technology will save us!
Anyone else: You're an idiot, IP!
Certainly not enough changes from day to day to justify repeating the same argument over and over again. It makes no difference if these two individuals actually believe what they repeatedly affirm: An argument which was not resolved yesterday will suffer the same fate today.
Time will resolve these arguments in a more effective manner than perpetually engaging in the same arguments ever will. The only significant contribution of the daily threads is the news stories which Leanan and others provide throughout the day. The news is interesting and occasionally very important (such as the reports coming out of Mexico today, the world certainly is changing).
These daily debates which degenerate into insult exchanges don't benefit the Peak Oil movement at all. Do they? Does anyone seriously believe that they help?
As for myself, I believed in Peak Oil from the first moment that I heard that it is an approaching threat. The only real argument is about the timing, and that argument is irrelevant within the time scales which concern me. Undoubtedly Peak Oil will occur within this century, perhaps before 2010, possibly it has already occurred. Regardless of the various opinions about the matter there is no possibility whatsoever that information gleaned from the news today will resolve the issue conclusively either for believers, skeptics or the disinterested public.
Why then go through the trouble of repeating the same tiresome argument every day?
The Peak Oil controvery cannot help but resolve itself in time. Patience is a virtue, incessant strife a vice.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
It is rather ironic that you say this, seeing as you exhibit the same kind of eristic tendencies, over-attachment to baseless and opiniated rhetoric, and compulsive urge to post that mark, say, IP and some others.
Leanan, we had a hint of the rot in a certain aged poster and his plentiful off-topic references to the prowess of his dong (now thankfully a habit he has grown out of - and about time, at seventy-odd years of age), then OilCEO, who was banned (correctly), then IP, and now it appears dmathew. All these are, unfortunately, symptoms of a wider ill - the urge to talk complete BS to the wider public on what is, ostensibly, a Peak Oil site. Yes, I have done it myself. So I say unto you and the rest of the Oildrum crew: SHOOT US ALL! Disable the comment feature and spare posterity all this. Or let the comments show only RR and Westexas duking it out, and similar. The rest is dross, and should be confined to oblivion.
(For our non-American friends and young people, FYI re Nancy: In days of old, When knights were bold, And Ronald was our White House Resident (circa 1980-88), Good ole' Nancy came on TV with great fanfare and show, To suggest to all our addicted young people a simple Just Say No.)
yea i am getting tired of the same arguments too..
For those interested in hearing a scientist speak about the future of humankind and life on the Earth in a serious fashion with an appropriate mixture of doomsday and naive techno-salvationism, visit the Princeton University Webmedia page:
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/
Listen to Peter Ward's lecture series, "The Undesigned Universe", and in particular the first two lectures (January 9 and 10). Peter Ward also presents a substantial argument against human space exploration in these lectures, too, so we pretty much can forget about any sort of Star Tredk-type future for our species.
For another scientist's view on the approaching catastrophes facing humankind, there is the eminent Tim Flannery. He advocates:
Ending the coal industry is an excellent idea but these alternatives won't provide the energy-intensive lifestyle that prosperous people demand. Too bad for the consumers, or (more accurately) too bad for the environment because that means that humans will keep on burning coal until civilization itself collapses.
How could civilization collapse? Tim Flannery provides a chilling scenario:
But no one should imagine that humankind is wise or honorable enough to cease all of these self-destructive activities until the oceans actually do rise and take away the world's coasts. At that point the climate change skeptics will concede that the climate has changed but they probably will still deny that humans bear any responsibility for the change.
The destruction of the Earth continues ...
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Thanks D. Mathews for the headsup and link.
That lecture series by Peter Ward is excellent. I watched the first two last night (stayed up waaaaay past my bedtime ;) and look forward to watching the last one tonight.
There were several other interesting lectures in that list that I look forward to hearing - e.g. "Department of Physics Steven Chu, Director of Lawrence Berkeley Labs: "The energy problem: our current choices and future hopes."
And try not to feel too badly about the possible fate of our species. Remember that jesus guy said something like, "forgive them father, for they know not what they do." Being the stupid aminalz we are I think we could switch out the "father" part and replace it with "Mother Nature" and apply it to our current situation.
Unfortunately I think that deaf, dumb and blind Girl also says, "ignorance of The Lawz is No Excuse."
D.Matt,
ditto,
thanks for the link
I couldn't stay awake thru the whole 1st lecture (1.5 hours) --but it's fascinating stuff. Here's to our current mammalian epoch.
Hello Everyone,
I have a question addressed to The Oil Drum's Editors (sort of like asking God a question, I know ...):
When you allowed Robert Rapier to become a prominent contributor at The Oil Drum you did know that he is employed as a lobbyist for a major oil corporation, right?
I had to look into this myself since I had formed my opinion of Mr. Rapier intuitively simply by reading his posts. I never actually researched it until today. Using a simple Google search I found the evidence:
I fear that anointing an oil lobbyist the primary authority regarding ethanol on the Oil Drum constitutes some sort of ethical violation. Would the editors kindly justify this decision and, more importantly, never explicitly identifying Robert Rapier as a lobbyist employed by an oil corporation?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Any of us following TOD for any period of time knows he's employed by an oil company. So what?
If you have a quarrel with his data you are free to challenge it here.
In Trollheim, it is the next day - 'ethical violation'?
I guess you approve of the name 'Self-aggrandized Trader' then, but I am not sure that OilCEO is actually an oil CEO - another case of what? Apart from 'so what,' that is.
Please, get some sort of perspective - I do not belong to a peak oil movement, and this is a forum - which means anyone who can type is allowed a soapbox, which other people then ignore.
Oh - to use something I'm sure you would approve - in the interest of 'full disclosure' - I am an expat, but that can be read a couple of ways - care to offer any insight which ones are not ethical violations?
The editors don't care, since they have better things to do with their time.
Robert has been very clear that he works for an oil company since day one. He has also described his position as being other than a "lobbyist" as you claim three times in your rant.
I suggest that you document this claim, or apologize.
I agree, Jack.
Robert is an authority by force of argument. Everyone here knows he works for the oil industry. What he says stands on its merits, even when it is unpopular (see the debate with WT, which has gone over the heads of most people posting here).
You are asking for trouble if you think you can easily win an argument with RR. Or perhaps you are banking on the fact that he will be too busy settling into a new role in Scotland to bother replying...
Hello Franz,
I have no quarrel with Robet Rapier's argument against ethanol. What I am pointing out is that The Oil Drum is functioning as a lobbying - public relations device for the oil industry. His presence and prominence indicate that The Oil Drum itself is a website which is working on behalf of the oil industry.
If Robert Rapier is lobbying on behalf of the oil corporations, how many other people here are doing the same? Was The Oil Drum established specifically for the purpose of lobbying on behalf of the oil industry?
How can anyone trust anything said on The Oil Drum if the website serves only as a tool of propaganda on behalf of big oil?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0701250028jan25,1,5110...
You would probably need a tax around 2-3 dollars per gallon. That'll get you kicked out of office.
The most cost effective way to reduce GHG emissions is to ban future coal plants and streamline nuclear licensing.
So,
put it in place now.
Get kicked out.
As the raw, untaxed price rises, the tax can be reduced by a corresponding amount , thereby easing pain over time.
Sure, in 100 years time, the President that gets kicked out will have schools named after him and statues in (walkable) town squares.
Probably a few railway stations as well...
But naaah....
Nobody has that level of bottle or vision.
What schwarzenegger's team have picked up on is the meat and bones of the presidents remarks. "Other alternative fuels" unequivocally equals coal to liquids. His playbook is the American Energy Security Study released last July from the American Energy Security Working Group.(funded by peabody, rentech, DOD, railroad and mining groups, among others)
http://www.americanenergysecurity.org/studyrelease
Re: Canada won't follow Bush on reducing oil consumption: Harper
Regarding oil, Canada is practically two different countries, with Western Canada exporting oil and with Eastern Canada importing oil.
I wonder the outlook is for net energy exports from Western Canada?
Western Canadian oil and gas consumption is, I assume, increasing, while conventional oil and gas production is declining. To show an increase in net energy exports, unconventional production has to take care of rising domestic consumption and then offset conventional declines.
I continue to find it interesting that US oil refiners have asked (begged?) Western Canadian producers to vastly expand their unconventional oil production rate. I somehow don't think that Gulf Coast refiners are oblivious to the fact the world's second largest producing field is crashing, practically right at our back door.
I'm sure they were similarly worried about the other 13 fields that crashed/are crashing over the past 27 years or so, yet 'miraculously' we've managed to increase global oil output by over 20 million bpd!
I guess the US was 'begging' the invisible hand :P
Hothgor,
I continue to apologize, and I yield to your superior oil industry knowledge. I am sure that the near certain decline/crash of every single field that is or was producing one mbpd or more is certain evidence--nay, absolute proof!--of rising production ahead.
It has been for 10 of the 14 fields, what is stopping it from happening during the decline of the last 4 fields?
You are of course correct. We can easily replace the production from crashing giant and super giant oil fields with the production from smaller fields. After all, isn't that what happened in the US as the East Texas Field went to a 99% water cut and as Prudhoe Bay went to a 75% water cut? Aren't we setting new production records every year in the US?
I'm sure that Gulf Coast refiners are completely complacent and unconcerned over the prospect of Mexican oil production dropping by 800,000 bpd in the space of one year.
My continuing abject apologies for questioning your superior oil industry knowledge. So, given the certain flood of new oil from smaller oil fields, what kind of SUV do you recommend that we buy?
Good answer...I appreciated it.
Rick
I'm sure that Gulf Coast refiners are completely complacent and unconcerned over the prospect of Mexican oil production dropping by 800,000 bpd in the space of one year.
Thank you for using this as an example. I like to use Mexico's depletion as the center of my P.O. discussions. It works.
1) folks identify and respond to the event-next-door.
2) they can readily imagine the economic consequences as Mexico loses its largest export commodity.
3) they can immediately see the ramifications: immigration for example...
Peak Oil will not be one EVENT. It will be the sum of events. The specific event that makes it real for the United States will be Cantarell. We will have to address severe economic and social problems on our border.
Peak Oil will not be one EVENT. It will be the sum of events.
Well... this sum of events can be tracked back to at least a century ago. And per capita oil peaked in 1970-s, AFAIK. What we are about to see is maybe some intensification of these events, but nothing new under the Sun, IMO.
In fact, I think Hothgor and Freddy should be in charge of all decisions concerning energy in this country...no, no...the entire globe. They appear to have all the answers and are enlightened beyond any of us here.
I think my father was wrong when he told me the following:
"In life you will always be asking questions and you will learn something new every day...you will never know everything..this is the root of being humble...the day you think you know everthing should be the day that you die."
...I think Hothgor and Freddy are living proof that you can know everything and not be dead.
WT, regardless of your pat-on-the-back-entourage here, your beginning to make yourself look very foolish. In the 1980s, we had 14 1 million bpd fields production around the world. Today, only 4 of those 14 are still producing over 1 million bpd. Since the 1980s, our global production rate has increased by over 20 million bpd. This is all despite the fact that 10 of the fields that produced 1 million bpd declined/crashed over the same period of time.
This is your problem, WT. You think small, and attempt to apply your lessons from one very small piece of the puzzle to the entire world. There have never been that many super giant fields. Most of the oil we produce has come from a host of much smaller fields. Their combined production current eclipses the super giants by a VERY VERY large margin. For those who actually have an open mind, WT line of thought is this:
1. Look at a region where a super giant exists.
2. Drill down to focus on a small portion of this region around said super giant.
3. Project the inevitable decline of the super giant.
4. Model the production ratio for this small area.
5. Point out that when the super giant of this small area crashed, so did the total production for the area.
6. Ignore the regional production rate.
7. Apply the production decline ratio of the small area to the entire region.
8. Ignore the global production rate.
9. Apply your estimated production decline for the region, based on the small areas decline, to the entire world.
10. Project a decline in total global oil production.
Once again folks, there were 14 super giant fields that produced over 1 million bpd in the 1980s. There are only 4 that still do so today. Oil production has increased by 20 million bpd globally during this same time period. It's time for WT to stop using a very small brush to paint a picture of the entire world.
Now I am not saying that production will increase forever. I am only saying that we now have 27 years of production history that PROVES that despite the decline of the super giants, global production rates have been increasing. At some point in the future, we will undoubtedly reach a maximum in oil production, but this point most likely will NOT occur in tangent with the decline of the last of the super giants.
Hothie,
A couple of minor points.
Daqing is now less than one mbpd, with a 90% water cut. The Kuwaitis have admitted that Burgan is in a long term decline. Cantarell is absolutely crashing, with just leaves Ghawar--which only in the most hyper-technical sense do we have to describe as a "near certain" decline.
However, you are swinging after the bell has run. I continue to offer my abject apologies for questioning your superior oil industry wisdom. It should be transparently obvious to even a doofus like me that crashing giant and super giant oil fields suggest rising, and not falling, oil production. I don't know what got into me.
I mean why would the near certainty that every field that has ever produced one mbpd or more is in decline, combined with near record high crude oil production (down only slightly from the 2005 peak), not suggest rising crude oil production?
Keep up the good work.
Over the same time period :1980-present: we have had 7 different occasions in which global oil production has decline by 1 million bpd or more. The longest period spanned 37 months before production began increases again to set new heights. The point is that we will not know we are at peak 1 year after the projected date from the 'Prophet' until we are certainly more then 37 months into a cumulative and steep production drops.
Hi Hothgor,
Could you please state in a little bit more specific terms your criteria for determining when the world is in confirmed decline? i.e., post-peak? So, you are saying:
1) after 37 months (3 years and one month)
2) of cumulative
3) and steep - could you please specify how steep?
production drops...
then, this is your criteria for confirming peak was at the initial month?
WT, in support of your fears, the point I put to doubters here Downunder, is how was the world oil system able to pump an additional 7mbpd between 2002-2005 (a 3 year period), and yet has been unable to push above 85mbpd over the past 2 years? This is the worry for me, where down here we have been celebrating the drop in petrol prices of 5c per litre, and drop in CPI over the past 3 mths. I'm holding my breath for the next 3-6 mths and suggesting to people in govt I lobby to look at the fundamentals of what is actually being produced/decline rates etc.
Hothgor,
You make some good points. But here is my "step back" view of things.
I like to look back along the history line, to that quieter, gentler time when Edwin Drake was able to stand on flat dry land (Titusville PA) and sink a bore just a couple of feet deep and the oil came easy.
So now we've gone to offshore. And deep offshore. And to the Arctic circle. And maybe we'll find a big hit down in Antartica --I don't know.
But with each of these migratory steps, the extraction process becomes ever more complex and prone to so many more things that can go wrong: hurricanes, pipeline bust in the Arctic, etc. It's an uphill battle that is constantly getting tougher. There's going to come a point when too many things are going wrong all at once and we can't patch them all up anymore. And only then will we realize that TSHTF.
It's my hope that the electrification of our transportation needs will cause the peak in oil production, and not a geological factor. TSOHTHTF if we let it.
I know we're not supposed to reply, but I can't stay completely quiet as you totally ignore the obvious here.
The answer is that during the time period you are discussing, huge, entirely new regions opened up massive production to compensate: North Sea, Alaska, Cantarell field (a region unto itself), deepwater Gulf and Africa for example. Although these are generally in decline now, for the most part their production has maintained at a very high level until just recently.
Nothing even close to comparable is coming onstream now, unless you can prove otherwise. Some Caspian, Angolan, yes, but nothing remotely comparable to what was being developed over the last 25-30 yrs.
If you have solid information to the contrary, share it.
There are still vast areas in those same regions that have not been exploited, some haven't even been explored!
Take a look at the Gulf of Mexico. Current drilling and exploration has been limited to a very small tract along the Texas/Louisiana border for the past two decades. There is a preponderance of evidence that suggest there is still a lot of oil left to be found even in this small area, and vastly more to be discovered in the rest of the GoM.
And what about the east and west coasts? NIMBY syndrome and congressional regulation has prevented us for extensively exploring and exploiting these areas. The same goes for Alaska.
Then you have to look at the entire world. The Caspian Sea hasn't reached even 10% of its known potential. Nigeria has almost 1 million bpd offline due to terrorist attacks, and Venezuela alone has several 10s of billions of barrels of oil equivalence that cant or wont be exploited due to chronic mismanagement by Hugo Chavez and the national oil company.
To say that what we have left is not even remotely close to what we had over the past 25-30 years is very irresponsible. The overwhelming majority of oil currently in play comes from fields that were explored and exploited over 40 years ago.
Your Caspian comment is totally off the wall. It is the site of major failures since the intial discoveries and majors such as Exxon have pulled out of exploration there. You give speculation about the GoM, so far unfounded (yes I know EIA has great claims). Your comment on Venezuela the same unsubstantiated speculation in term of production potential. Yes, heavy lousy oil is there but it won't save the world. You came up with no concrete possibilities. Speculation doesn't supply oil. Even if a new area is found, experience shows a minimum of 10 years to deliver it to the world - that is 2017, 5 years past what you are saying will be the peak.
I didn't say what we have left is not remotely close, I said what we know about to develop over the next decade or more isn't remotely close.
peakearl,
I think BOTH you and Hothgor are correct at the same time.
Yes there are vast areas that have not been "explored" or exploited.
But are they worth "exploring"?
Take the Atlantic coast of Florida for example, right next to the Bermuda Triangle were so many ships have disappeared. Yes we could build platforms out there. But will they survive the Atlantic storms? The Gulf of Mexico is sheltered from most severe storms. Katrina was an exception (and hopefully not a new rule).
We could also go off the coast of California. There we face the ravages of the supposedly "Pacific" Ocean and also the ravages of the Environmentalists.
In my "step back" opinion, mankind is migrating into tougher and tougher territory. It is an uphill battle that gets harder and harder. Now is probably a good time to admit how tough it's getting and to start looking for "alternatives". After all, we can't keep pushing that ball up the hill forever. Eventually it is going to overpower us and run us over.
For the most part offshore oil fields are an extension of onshore fields. The Atlantic coast has no offshore oil fields because the Atlantic coast has no onshore oil fields. Environmental regs haven't stopped offshore development it just has made the drillers more careful in doing their job. What you are advocating is having oil companies waste money on exploring areas where there is virtually no chance of discovery.
Oops. Wrong Place.
Dear Hothgor,
I asked you the following:
1) When do you think peak oil will happen?
2) And what do you think decline rates in production and export will be?
You answered:
1) Around 2015
2) Around 2-3%, I look at total liquids, individual declines will be greater obviously.
I asked:
-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?
So, what is your answer now?
Roger From the Netherlands
Again, you need to look at the bigger picture. An individual field may decline at 8 to 15%. Hell, all the fields may decline at 8 to 15%.
But not all of the fields are exploited at the exact same time.
Because they are not exploited at the same time, the decline of one field is offset by the exploitation of another field(s). In regards to simple oil production in the US, this has resulted in approximately a 4% decline on average. However, we were not producing as much alternative fuels in the past as we are now attempting to do so in the present. In the end, I think the global production decline will come in at roughly 60% the rate that the US experienced, barring of course a catastrophic world war/nuclear exchange.
Theoratically you're right ofcourse. But then; you need to have enough new fields to begin with to ofset the decline in existing fieds.
Where do you think the new fields are now, as country after country is declining?
Just tell me; where do you think this new oil will come from? Tell me the fields or the countries that will provide this extra oil??
Roger From The Netherlands
There are too many fields to list, and I doubt even WT could muster up enough tenacity to look them all up if should choose to do so. That being said, the general categories for these new fields are:
Undiscovered fields
Previously discovered economical fields that have not been exploited
Previously discovered uneconomical fields that have not been exploited
Simple reserve growth via improved technology or evaluations of existing fields :increases of the IOIP:
BTW, the Artic is estimated to have approximately 25% of the worlds total undiscovered petroleum resources in its oceans.
False statement. The most recent research by the USGS and the oil majors themselves indicates that there is almost no petroleum in the arctic. They do, however, expect to find some natural gas, and not very much at that. Your have just demonstrated your ignorance of current data. And no, I am not going to provide citations for items that have been documented right here on TOD in the last 6 months in the daily Drumbeats. Do your own research.
hmmmmm. In my backyard, the noble kingdom of Denmark- ( Of which Greenland is a small part :-) the oil is slowing down - also according to official numbers...
see here (Danish- but the graphs are clear)
http://www.ens.dk/graphics/Publikationer/Olie_Gas/Danmarks_olie-_og_gasp...
scroll down to fig. 5.5 b and see the official oil production prognosis to 2025.
regards/And1
Correct.
BUT THE BIGGEST ONES EVER FOUND AND IN PRODUCTION OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS ARE.
Its about compensating for the loss of flow rates from these super giants which flow at 1mbbl+ / day.
The puddles, no matter how many you find, no matter how fast you flow them, will not compensate for the loss of flow from the supergiants.
To compensate for the loss of flow from the supergiants YOU NEED TO FIND MORE VIRGIN SUPERGIANTS IN UNEXPLOITED, VIRGIN, REGIONAL BASINS.
You need to compensate with 2- 3 KSA Sized geological basins.
Show me on the map where they are, laddie.
Roger, the 2-3% total decline rate post peak doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, actually it's more pessimistic than what I believe could happen if the enomomics are in place. Are you saying that you are expecting an 8-15% total decline rate post peak?
If so, how do you come to this conclusion? The way I see it individual fields could decline at this rate, but the aggregrate totals will not since new, albeit smaller fields, will continue to be brought into production. On top of that, we have trend set in motion with massive investment into other types of liquid fuels.
I'm not sure where the 27 year marker came from, but building on that same time line, URR was 1309-GB and Remaining Reserves was 900-Gb. Today the respective figures are 3010-Gb & 1936-Gb.
And the rate that our gas tank is growing is increasing...
Last summer a Supply record was set of 86-mbd. While the giant field stats are disturbing, Supply & URR numbers don't seem to correlate to the Westexas implication of a connection.
Whether its 27 :1980: years or 18 :1989: years, its more then enough to time to disprove the connection between super giant fields and global oil production.
Right on Hothgor. Crashing big fields = Higher oil production.
The connection is so obvious, who could doubt it?
Once again, WT, you need to ignore regional data and look at global aggregated data. We now have, by your own statement, 11 of the 14 super giants that have declined/crashed and no longer produce over 1 million bpd, yet miraculously we managed to produce over 20 million bpd more globally over the same time period.
And I never said that crashing big fields = higher oil production. I said that crashing big fields != absolute declining oil production.
wondering how many 1 million barrel fields hothgor has found and how many 10 million, 100 million and 1 billion barrels fields (just in the last 6 months i mean) it is obviously quite easy and a college sophmore should be able to find a few on spring break maybe
He should tell his mother or other supervising adult carer to put less sugar on his cornflakes in the morning.
I wonder why you decided to skip any semblance of a debate on the subject and jump straight into name bashing and credential trumpeting. Tell me elwoodelmore, how many oil fields have you found? How many electrical power distribution networks have you collaborated on? What about a sustainable farmer co-op? Surely you must have extensive knowledge on that subject as well, right?
I will end the sarcasm there, as I think my point is clear. You do not have to be working in a field to have a good understanding of what is going on in that field. Being a rational, logical human being, I can look at the data just like anyone else and draw my own conclusions. If Simmons can do so, why are you against me doing so as well? Is his opinion worth more then mine? Is yours?
At least get your facts straight: I'm a college graduate with two majors, not a sophomore!
well, hothgor i can tell that i am semi retired, funded in part on oil and gas royalties. and i am glad you recognize the value of knowing something about the subject you are yammering on.
to answer your question specifically, i will tell you that i worked full time in exploration from 1984 through 1987. our most succesful effort was from mid '85 until mid '87 . the team i worked on (two geologists, one landman, one reservoir engineer and a part time geophysicist) discovered 5 fields with total reserves of about 17 million barrels, an enviable achievement. and to put that in perspective, 17 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of current worldwide consumption. i tell you this hothgor to demonstrate that finding oil just isnt as easy as you imagine.
What is so difficult to understand about the situation?
We are about to leave one paradigm, and enter a new, uncharted paradigm.
Just because we all here were nurtured and achieved maturity in an age of unprecedented cheap oil on demand does not mean that today's paradigm will exist indefinitely.
We are at the point where the supergiants start to falter and splutter.
The myriad small fields will NOT compensate for the loss of flow the supergiants.
The UKCS is probably the Text Book Example.
Buzzard was the last 'big' find in the UKCS.
'Big' is now a slightly time-shifted concept.
It aint big, and nobody has yet found another Buzzard.
We are now down to 'puddle sucking' for the most part.
Looks like Brent's time is up: sale or abandon.
AGAIN:
Freddy, Hothgor
Answer my question:
WHERE ON THE MAP (OF THE WORLD) ARE THE 2-3 KSA SIZED VIRGIN CARBONATE OR CLASTIC BASINS?
Show me.
Put a cross on a map showing us useless G and G types where the next Ghawar, Cantarell or Burgan is.
Handy Hint: Avoid areas of abyssal plains, constructive margins, Fenno Scandian and Laurentian Sheilds and Siberian and African Cratons.
Another handy hint: If you hit it with a full-sized geological hammer and the hammer just bounces off and you get a few sparks, It probably isnt a good place to sink a well...
You could of course look in the cracks (intra-cratonic basins), but you may find the G and G types have already thought of that...
We don't need 2-3 new Ghawar fields to exploit to keep production rising! I honestly don't understand the doomer line of thought on this matter. It seems that no matter how logical and well laid out an argument is, you have been so indoctrinated into believing that production must decline now that you cant make out the forest for the tree your standing beside!
We now have over TWENTY YEARS of declining super giant fields that proves that there is not set connection between their decline and the ascension of global oil production!!!
ONCE AGAIN:
1. In the 1980s, we had 14 fields globally that produced more then 1 million bpd of oil.
2. Today, only 3 of those 14 fields still produce more then 1 million bpd.
3. Since the 1980s, oil production has increased globally by about 20 million bpd.
I will say that again: since the 1980s, oil production has increased globally by about 20 million bpd, despite the fact that 11 of the 14 fields that did produce 1 million bpd no longer do so!
I will try to make it even simpler to understand!! Lets assume that all 11 of those fields that once produced over 1 million bpd produced exactly 1 million bpd. Further, lets assume that each of those fields now only produces about half this rate, or 500,000 bpd. Thats a net decline of 5.5 million bpd.
11 x 500,000 = 5.5 million
In order for global production rates to have increased by 20 million during this time, the effective increase would have to be 25.5 million bpd, all without exploiting super giant fields and using the 'puddles'. And this doesn't even take in consideration the decline in all other oil fields over the same time period.
Now what does that tell any rational, logical human being with a basic grasp on mathematics?
There does not appear to be any connection between the decline of the super giants and global aggregated production. On a global basis, the small fields can more then make up for the decline of the super giants!
I'm sorry, but even WT can't dispute this fact, as evident by his silence.
The paradigm has not shifted yet. It is shifting.
The Supergiants are on cusp.
Lots of dedicated men and women are trying to keep them at cusp.
We are at the top of the rollercoaster.
Lots of things are in play:
Iraq
Nigeria
Terrorists
Iran
How good really is the Caspian?
Oil Shale / Ethanol / Biodiesel / Chip fat
CAFE
Etc.
These of course are all above ground.
The real oil is found sub-surface.
And the last giant was found in 2000.
Again: Show me on the map
Hothgar.
Its time to go to bed. Kiss Mommy, take your teddy and dont forget to say your prayers.
11 of the 14 super giants are already past their prime. Yet oil production has continued to increase. Very clearly, the 'paradigm' doesn't seem to be shifting at all...
Okay. I want to speak as a peak oil outsider - a layman with doomer tendencies, who lurked this site for months convinced that _the end was near_...
But now I find myself thinking that our so-called 'trolls', Hothgor and Freddy Hutter, are winning the debate. That is, the end is not-so-near after all ...
Believe me, it is as suprising to me as it is to the rest of you. But if all we can do is fling articles of faith at them, how does that help?
By the way: despised as both these people are here, they do not actually argue with the geological reality of peak oil, only the timing. As I read it, neither Hothgor nor Freddy are 'Peal Oil deniers'. Obfuscators? Maybe. _But it is up to us to demonstrate that, with argument and not with ad hominem_. You may take me as a test reader on this. I _do not_ see that Hothgor (or Freddy) has been comprehensively refuted. Everyone keeps saying he (they) is (are), but really, I don't see it.
If they are so full of BS, please someone point out _how_, such that even an oil industry outsider such as myself can be led to ready agreement. And no, rhetorical comparisons with Hitler and WWII don't cut it, for obvious reasons... Would it count if I raised Bertrand Russell's argument against induction (where the rooster sees the sun rise every day, and hence does not anticipate the axe that will soon cleave its neck? Of course not.)
Again, I'm serious. Emotionally, I'm heavily predisposed to the doomer camp, and even I think the quality of the argument on 'our' side seems, on the face of it, very poor. We are preaching to the choir. Why, exactly, are Hothgor and Freddy wrong?
To your point, a few days ago I posted some info from a DOE news release about "coiled tubing" drilling rigs. The DOE "glowed" about this new technology. As is common in TOD, the reaction was dismissive.
The first prototypes of these rigs appear to have been built around 1996. And today, there are still less than 200 of them in existence, although they have been used to drill thousands of wells up in Canada.
Several oil service companies are saying that CT rigs dramatically reduce the cost of drilling (by 30% or more), and therefore can be used in previously uneconomic areas. Net result? More reserve growth! Perhaps *major* reserve growth is coming. The oil service companies are rapidly trying to build more CT rigs -- to the extent that the suppliers of the coil appear to be sold out of it!
Lots of TOD posters have completely bought into Mathew Simmons notion that there is no new technology. Which is sort of right, but is very misleading. CT drill rigs were apparently adapted from production equipment (i.e. non-drilling) into a drilling technology. So it's not *new*, but there appears to be nothing to prevent this technology from giving us lots of reserve appreciation.
reference:
DOE News Release
A 30% reduction in drilling costs is significant but hardly "dramatic". The climb in drilling costs in the last 30 months has been over 100%.
More wells will be drilled, yes a few more. More oil ? Perhaps reduce the decline by 0.05%, 0.1% or even 0.25%/year.
From 1973 to 1982, Texas had it's greatest ever drilling boom. MASSIVE boom (I saw pumpjacks leaving Lufkin dripping with wet paint, so great was the need), the number of producing wells increased by only 14% (many plugged & abandoned to offset new wells) and production declined -30% despite a ten fold increase in prices.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Where are you getting "Perhaps...0.05%, 0.1% or even 0.25%/year"?
From the US experience post-Peak Oil (US). LOTS of new wells, very little new oil.
Oil prices up, US rig counts up, US oil production down
Oil prices down, US rig counts down, US oil production down
Taking out the AK oil and GoM leasing (which ebbs & flows) it is hard to find a correlation between oil prices and US oil production. The ranges I gave "Perhaps...0.05%, 0.1% or even 0.25%/year" are what eye straining at the graphs seem to show as a correlation between oil prices or rig counts and US oil production.
At low oil prices, stripper wells are abandoned quicker than at high oil prices, so this is part of the supply price response. This rate of P&A is, of course, not affected by how many new wells are drilled.
So any correlation between US oil production & prices or rig counts is only partially due to more new wells. It is a fuzzy and small response.
Best Hopes,
Alan
In other words you pulled those numbers out of the air. Thank you, try again. This kind of "lick finger and stick up in the air" prognostication doesn't do anyone any good. You have a very salient point which is something that bears watching, but by throwing in unsubstantiated numbers you detract from your otherwise useful post. Feel free to speculate and draw parallels such as to the Texas situation, but please don't start making numbers up--it simply weakens your argument.
is hardly a precise statistic, it more an illustration. It indicates a range of supply response seen in the US due to more drilling rigs. And I derived this from looking at the data. The oil supply response in the US to higher prices is just BARELY there. And that increased supply response is split between better maintenance on existing wells, fewer abandoned wells and more new wells.
I cannot say that increasing the # of new US wells have a no impact on US oil production, I can say that the impact is small and I illustrated what I consider "small" (Others might consider 1% or even 3% small).
Best Hopes,
Alan
It's been a rather short period though. The oil business moves very slowly, and it's an enormous business. I'm under the impression that oil reserves are booked around $30 to $40 per barrel -- if the "book price" goes up to $50 to $70 we'll see reserve appreciation for that "top-line" price adjustment, plus we'll get more reserve appreciation if CT rig technology cuts the "bottom line" cost adjustment. Roughly a 30% cut in costs would be the same as a 30% hike in prices.
This just goes back to the thread about reserve appreciation.
To your point, the rig count went up, but it was predominantly the same kind of rig. My point is if you change the type of rig then you could get a different result. If the US had 1990s technology rigs (suddenly appear!) back in the 1970s then things would have been different. The peak perhaps would not have arrived then but would have arrived later (notwithstanding what the downslope would thereafter look like).
The CT rig looks like a new kind of straw to stick in our "Big Gulp" -- suctioning drops of oil/gas out of the pockets left behind by the big straws -- and there is a LOT left behind. This will generate a new round of reserve upgrades and workovers and change the slope of the production downside.
The big question is how much? I've been looking for an industry evaluation of the impact -- but you can already go to the websites of the oil service companies, pull up their quarterly reports, and see them proudly featuring pretty pictures of CT rigs.
We agree on that !
IMHO, New technologies can increase production and make money for those involved, but not enough extra new oil to change the direction of trends or make a significant difference.
I look forward to any more details that you can find.
Best Hopes,
Alan
"any more details..."
Oh yeah, one last thing. Supposedly one of the oil drilling majors (Nabors?) began their quarterly conference call recently by playing the Carpenter's song "We've Only Just Begun" -- to drill. The size of the reserves at $50 or $60 may surprise many here at TOD.
Further, it's hard to say what's possible. One Schlumberger article in "Oilfield Review" (Spring 2004) stated that reentry to certain types of wells was previously not possible, so they developed a tool using CT equipment. In the *first use* of this tool in two wells with lateral branches, it cost 65% less than a conventional rig and production increased by 11% in the first well and 30% in the second well.
I guess with experience things have improved because Schlumberger has case studies where CT technology has improved resevoir production by 160% to 500%. Maybe that's after production has already fallen a bunch, but the Coiled Tube Drilling Market has gone from $25M in 1999 to about $250M in 2006 (that's 39% per year growth). The customers are Apache, Encana, EOG Resources, Shell, Schlumberger, etc. These guys appear to be on to something.
Hothgor writes
"It seems that no matter how logical and well laid out an argument is, you have been so indoctrinated into believing that production must decline now that you cant make out the forest for the tree your standing beside!"
specifically "indoctrinated into believing that production must decline now"
Hothgor do you agree with the following statements? Yes or no only please!
We are using oil at a greater rate than we are finding it? (Actual reserves not maybe's)
It is getting more expesive to extract because of it's locations?
Hothgor writes...
"We don't need 2-3 new Ghawar fields to exploit to keep production rising!"
The main beef I have with this comment is "how far and how fast" How far down or cold do we have to go and how fast does it deplete?
Hothgor do you agree with the following statement? yes or no only again please!
Are we having to drill in les desirable locations and the "pool"(s) depleate faster?
and related to the above question...
Are the wells' production volume(s)that are coming on line smaller so we need more of them to increase production?
Does it cost more to drill multiple small "pools" than 1 big one?
Are the highest grades of crude oil are slowly running out?
Does it costs more to refine heavy grades of crude?
Has the lower 48 declined?
Has Alaska(north slope)declined?
Has the north sea declined?
Hothgor writes...
"Now what does that tell any rational, logical human being..."
and
"I honestly don't understand the doomer line of thought..."
(and yes hothgor the above quotes of yours I cut short,on purpose, in case you didn't notice)
I think what you are missing by a wide mile is we do not have a history with global depleation to where we can say "been there - done that" we must look at what we know...but first some more...
Hothgor writes...
"There does not appear to be any connection between the decline of the super giants and global aggregated production. On a global basis, the small fields can more then make up for the decline of the super giants!"
specifically "the small fields can more then make up for the decline of the super giants!"
OK you need to understand that is past history, where that oil was there to be found. That oil is gone now(or will be)and we need to find some more. You cannot bring it back into your equation like you are trying to do. We face a future of ever increasing drilling into smaller and smaller finds(is this not proven over and over?) and increasingly expensive or hostile areas to drill in, is this not proven over and over as well? Unless...UNLESS... I'm missing something that I have never seen posted on this website or any other.
You want to bring up 20 years worth of data bring it all up. The increasing well counts and the decreasing "pools". Past history of a FINITE resource is just that - past - gone for good.
So Hothgor...
If you have the "perponderance of evidence" on your side that we are in great shape and I should go out and buy 1) a Hummer, 2) a big boat, 3) a 50' motorhome, and the economy is going to sail through the next 20 years with no problems so I will be assured that I won't have stupidly blown a big wad of cash that I will never replace...I want to see it.
So show me how we are going to sail away without problems in our motorcar economy.
You have failed miserablely to convince me of anything (seriously) other than you like to argue.
Does a "doomer" have the more correct vision? At some point Hothgor he does and there is nothing in this world you are ever going to do about it - nothing.
This is my last response to you sir Hothgor, I have been very blunt, if you don't get this you never will.
This post is just hilarious. I can see Delusional and some of the TOD cheerleaders reading the National Geographic in 1976 and telling the wife and kids "sorry, no trip to Disneyland in California", King Hubbert told me we're running out of oil in 19 years.
But teotwawki does not come in 1995.
Are we there yet? asks the wife and kids.
No. Can't go to Disneyworld in Orlando either. Colin Campbell says no more oil.
But teotwawki does not come in 1997.
Are we there yet? asks the wife and kids.
No. Can't go to World Series. Jean Laherrere says no more oil.
But teotwawki does not come in 1998
Are we there yet? asks the kids. (ex-wife with her boyfriend)
No. Can't go to Superbowl. Patterson, Bakhtiari, Simmons & Deffreyes said we're out of oil.
But teotwawki does not come in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006 ...
The above argument appears to have some legitimacy insofar as predictions have failed numerous times in the past.
But no one should assume that failed predictions of the past prove that Peak Oil will not occur in the future.
There are analogies:
* How many years did Europe tell itself that World War II would never happen before the first bullets were fired?
* How many years did the residents of New Orleans confidently live as if a hurricane would never come along and wipe out their city until Hurricane Katrina came along and created a doomsday scenario much worse than predicted?
Failed predictions of the past do not serve to guarantee that only good things can happen in the future. The United States of America is a country poised to collapse. Our country is losing terribly in Iraq and will probably have no choice except to retreat dishonorably from the Middle East. This is a circumstance that cannot help but place great stress on the world's oil supplies over the next five years.
A day will come in which Americans will find no gasoline at their neighborhood gas station. That is the day in which the American public realizes that the American Way of Life is dead.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Very well put and balanced.
Yes, but of course you know better and straw man arguments just reduce your credibility. The peakers say half the oil still remains at time of peak, so it is really a wildly gross misrepresentation to imply peak means "no more oil." There still remains as much as has ever been produced. However, it is true that the extreme peakers do imply very drastic post-peak consequences.
The peakers say half the oil still remains at time of peak, so it is really a wildly gross misrepresentation to imply peak means "no more oil."
Freddy is the one making the false claim that peak == end of oil.
It must serve it some purpose to create false claims.
Oh man, I'm laughing so much at your post I can barely respond at the moment. Your stream of consciousness on this matter is worthy of a host of psychiatric help. Your last questions of course was the nail in the coffin:
So...because a doomer predicts that oil will run out, or the stock market will crash, or war will be waged over a resource, regardless of how long it takes for this prediction to occur, he is correct? My god man, we're all going to die someday, I guess I'm a doomer too!!
If this is the best argument you can come up with, then there really is no hope for you.
BTW, I want to point out to everyone that this is the 7th, yes SEVENTH time that DelusionaL has stated that said post was his last response to me EVERZ1!1~.
:laughs:
Oh man, I'm laughing so much at your post I can barely respond at the moment.
You were asked questions to answer.
Instead of answering them, you are dismissing the questions of NOT worthy of answering.
Do you not know the answers? Or are you not paid to provide those kind of answers?
Apparently you didn't read what he typed, and missed the fact that others found his stream of consciousness to be funny as well. Hes not trying to engage in a debate, he wants to distract people away from the conversation in which WT was soundly defeated by playing 20 questions and hopping I make one wrong answer so that he can then ignore all else that was said and hammer away at that one mistake. He has done this before, which is why it's so funny that he is trying it again. And like I said, he already stated in his post that this was his last response to me...why should I waste my time responding to someone who, despite 7 other instances of threatening to ignore me, won't even engage me in a rational debate?
Apparently you didn't read what he typed
No, I did read what he typed.
Hothgor do you agree with the following statements? Yes or no only please!
We are using oil at a greater rate than we are finding it?
Your reaction was not yes/no but 'ha ha! I laugh'.
A very simple question that instead of answering, you opt to dodge by calling the question 'laughable'.
Rather than taking the high road of providing education and showing the readship why your position is the correct one, you instead opt to call the questioner 'laughable', then when anyone CALLS you on your unwillingness to answer, you accuse them of not being able to read.
Nice try. Failed, but at least you did try.
Apparently you failed in your reading comprehension class. Let me try to be more specific.
I will not respond to questions from someone who says that their initial post was their last response to me ever.
uh, wait just a damn minute: how much excess capacity was there "in the '80's" and how much excess capacity is there currently ?
The excess capacity in the 80's doesn't come close to equaling the lost production of the last 20-25 years so I'm not sure that's relevant, except as a reason for lack of investment in oil production in the 80's and for much of the 90's.
the relevance is that hothgor and rr are claiming increased worldwide production from smaller fields (overwhelming the decline in giant field's production) during the last 27 yrs. it should be obvious (to anyone not in the cornucopian camp) that increased production does not equal increased production capacity (and implicitly discovery)
As it was already mentioned, the spare capacity in the 1980s wasn't enough to offset the global decline in oil production for the past 20+ years. That means we must have found and brought online significantly more oil production then the 20 million bpd increase we saw over that time period.
ok what was the spare capacity "in the '80's" ? note that annual production has exceeded annual reserves found from about '86 on. not sustainable.
Thats only true for brand new discoveries. Reserve growth alone worldwide has equaled or exceeded yearly production rates for the majority of years since the 'peak' in global oil discoveries back in 1967. While its true we may only find 15 Gb of new fields in a given year, thats usually accompanied by an additional 35-40 Gb of reserve growth, leading to a net cumulative increase in oil of around 20-25 Gb. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.
I'm sure others will now start the song and dance of how reserves don't matter, only production. :yawn:
This discussion clearly goes from bad to worse. Spare capacity was 10-mbd. Whereas production since 1980 was 669-Gb, the Remaining Resource component of URR has grown 1036-Gb despite that consumption.
Again we see comments reflecting a failure to comprehend the terms of reserve, reserve growth, resource, past consumption as components of urr.
i will venture to say that i have a lot better comprehension of those terms than you do freddy.
and we see your comment reflecting a failure to comprehend that you didnt bother to follow the discussion.
be that as it may, by your numbers excess capacity was maybe 10 million* bpd in 1980 and today it is somewhat less (perhaps zero). so the 20 million bpd increase in production is clearly not entirely from smaller field discoveries.
i am not offended at all that you jumped right in to the discussion as you felt you had something to add.
* the abreviation m refers to 1000 ( in reservoir engineering parlance) mm refers to millions i.e. mcf = 1000 cubic feet, mmcf = one million cubic feet and mmbtu = one million btu, i am sure you get the picture, and yes, i know that you meant 10 million barrels per day.
i suggest that you latent cornucopians read rembrandts posts of december and january regarding the resolution of reserve growth.
dbl post
Why, in Yergin's proprietary IHS database ... where else would it be?
Freddy & Hothgor, as both of you well know, the massive URR increases reported by OPEC were NOT supported by massive new discoveries or dramatic improvements on technology but were part of a "Reserve Bidding War" within OPEC. From memory, Saudi Arabia "found" almost another 100 billion barrels without the use of a drilling rig#. An economic procedure repeated at every other OPEC member. Paper barrels created to justify a larger part of the oil production allocation pie.
So talking about URR growth "estimates" offsetting real oil produced is disingenious.
Best Hopes for Real #s,
Alan
# In 1982 (date from memory) Saudi Aramco went dark on providing details and technical data on reserves and production. Just listen to the occasional pronouncements of the Prince in charge.
Most fields in OPEC producing countries were discovered using the same techniques, and in many cases, the same companies that found many of the US oil fields of the time. As such, their initial sizes would have been underestimated. In the US, for accounting purposes, our fields are almost constantly upgraded in size over the years. In OPEC, they had no incentive for a gradual increase over time, and as more data became available, they massively increased the size of their fields.
Tell me Alan, would we even be talking about OPEC reserves if they had slowly increased in size over the past 40 years instead of over a 10 year span?
I think not.
Exactly. URR growth averages 40-Gb/yr. The OPEC quota scramble is a mere blip on my graph that one must search for. One speaking seriously about this event does really does not appreciate the growth in URR since the quota adjustment. Their increases betw '85 - '90 totalled only 327-Gb (55-Gb/yr).
Then we corrected Russia. And Cndn tar sands (175-Gb). If the adjustment were mostly phoney, we would have seen the remifications in failed production in due course. In reality, much of the production decline is instead economic and/or geopolitical (to wit iran iraq).
URR is 3010-Gb & present resource remaining is 1936-Gb despite 20 years of production (534-Gb). With only 31-Gb/yr consumption, most folks have prob's digesting the magnitude of these numbers.
Canadian tar sands and Venezuela Orinoco bitumen may have massive "reserves" but there are severe limitations as to how fast they can be extracted. So the linkage between URR & daily or annual production does not exist as it does for convential oil.
Canada will produce as much syncrude in 2010 (closing in on 3 million b.day) regardless of whether the URR for tar sands was 35 or 175 Gb.
So "adding" 1 Gb of tar sands (say 176 Gb instead of 175 Gb due to better surveying) does not offset producing 1 Gb from Ghawar. You and I will be long dead before that last 1 Gb is mined (if it ever is). "Finding" that extra 1 Gb (or an extra 100 Gb) of tar sands will not result in any more syncrude being produced in the forseeable future.
The OPEC quota increases occured just a few years after the Western oil companies were forced out. So there was simply no time for some sort of "reserve growth" to occur and acculumate unnoticed until all the OPEC members suddenly decided to set their accounting straight (yeh right).
Alan
Be that as it may, u have failed to recognize my point. Sorry for that. It was that the 327-Gb from OPEC and the 175-Gb from Canada and other red herrings don't matter in the big picture. Remaining Resources & Reserves totals 1936-Gb. Whether that figure is 30% too high does not change the reality that oil tankers will be with us for way over a hundred years.
In 2107, there will still be a Supply Rate of 16-mbd. If Peak comes before 2020, that 16-mbd will be much higher. URR used to grow at 40-Gb/yr. Thru this decade it has been triple that rate. But even if we slide back to 40-Gb/yr, it exceeds the 31-Gb/yr of consumption.
Nobody knows when Peak Date will be. And really it doesn't matter. The marketplace will determing pricing regimes and that same marketplace will show us the winners and losers wrt substitution and demand destruction. But the insane discussions at TOD wrt running out of oil demean the credibility of those here that are serious. I state for the fifth time: stranded URR is an oxymoron. Until most posters at TOD understand the concept of Reserves and quit navel gazing at Peak Rate, most debate is futile. No ... make that infantile.
Above are the round figures that the number crunchers on both sides agree on. This is the science of Peak Oil. Now, let us get back to the anecdotal and inflammatory stuff that seems to be far more entertaining ...
Be that as it may, u have failed to recognize my point. Sorry for that. I will try again.
I meant to say that the 327-Gb from OPEC and the 175-Gb from Canada and other red herrings don't matter in the big picture. Remaining Resources & Reserves totals 1936-Gb. Whether that figure is 30% too high does not change the reality that oil tankers will be with us for way over a hundred years.
In 2107, there will still be a Supply Rate of 16-mbd. If Peak comes before 2020, that 16-mbd will be much higher. URR used to grow at 40-Gb/yr. Thru this decade it has been triple that rate. But even if we slide back to 40-Gb/yr, it exceeds the 31-Gb/yr of consumption. And thus, the 2107 Rate will be "very" much higher.
Nobody knows when Peak Date will be. And really it doesn't matter. The marketplace will determine pricing regimes and that same marketplace will show us the winners and losers wrt substitution and demand destruction. But the insane discussions at TOD wrt running out of oil demean the credibility of those here that are serious.
I state for the fifth time: stranded URR is an oxymoron. Until most posters at TOD understand the concept and magnitude of Reserves & Resources and quit navel gazing at Peak Rate, most debate is futile. No ... make that infantile.
Above are the round figures that the number crunchers on both sides agree on. This is the science of Peak Oil. Now, let us get back to the anecdotal and inflammatory stuff that seems to be far more entertaining ...
Current initiative is to double the rate of production from Canadian oil sands from 5.6% last year (2005) to over 11% CAGR going forward to at least 2015. That's going to be tough to do: 1) Lower and very volitile oil prices 2) high steel and other material costs 3) strains on the local infrastructure and services.
Some of those "Canadian producers" are US firms such as Chevron.
Problems with increasing unconventional production are as follows (no particular order) -->
1) Steep inflation in all inputs including labor.
2) Concern over environmental impact. This is coming from local communities not from "green" outsiders.
3) Similar concerns being raised by aboriginal groups who are downstream from the producing areas.
4) Concerns over the source of future inputs such as NG. This is proposed to come from a McKenzie valley pipline being built by group lead by Exxon. Full capacity of this pipeline would be required to support current projected volumes. It is not clear this pipline is going ahead.
5) Consideration of building atomic reactors to provide required process heat as substitute for NG. This raises a number of environmental concerns as well as cost issues and further delays future production.
6) Concern over cost environment given volatility in oil prices.
Begging will not mitigate the above.
I've posted a comment in yesterday RR story but I'm pretty sure it will get buried.
We have a natural tendency to compare fuel production on a volume basis (barrels) but they are very different on a BTU basis:
So in order to compare fuels, we should use these conversion factors:
So one barrel of Ethanol equals 0.46 barrel of crude oil and one barrel of NGPL (Natural Gas Plant Liquids) equals 0.64 barrel of crude oil. I wonder how the "All liquids" world production would look like on a BTU basis? Note that the gross energy content of NGPL has been decreasing since 1980 (was 3,900 thousand BTUs/barrel in 1980, now 3,724 thousand BTUs/barrel). I don't know the exact reason for this decrease. Also, the BTU content for crude oil has varied with time and is not the same between countries (probably because of variations in the barrel definition and the type of oil produced).
Some are saying that only the "All Liquids" numbers matter but watching the production of crude oil + condensate is very important simply because it's the fuel category that has the highest energy density.
sources:
EIA (Conversion Factors and Gross Heat Contents)
DEO (Biomass Energy Book, Appendix A)
I'm going to have to assume that you meant that one barrel of METHANOL equals .46 barrels of crude oil...because your chart very clearly indicates that ETHANOL is around 61%. Sorry for being picky :P
You're right, my mistake!
Ethanol is 61% and Methanol is 46%. :)
So, it takes about 2.2 barrels of ethanol to equal one barrel of crude oil, and it takes about 1.6 barrels of NGPL to equal one barrel of crude oil.
Of course, another aspect is the energy input necessary to obtain the barrel of ethanol versus a barrel of oil.
In regard to the lower BTU of NGPL's, I would assume that represents an increased stream of NGPL's from natural gas reservoirs (lower liquid content), versus associated gas from oil reservoirs (higher liquid content).
A little mistake in the text (the chart is ok): it takes 1.6 barrels of ethanol to equal one barrel of crude oil.
Khebab, WT, the idea of counting BTU instead of volume seems a no-brainer. But have you ever seen anyone do it?
Do you have any sort of overview of what difference it would make in the All Liquids category?
And yes, WT, the energy used to produce energy increases fast, not just for ethanol, but across the board, think of tarsands and their NG needs, or even just oil itself. Is anyone keeping the tab on that?
Is it crazy to assume we produce, let's say, 20% more energy than X years ago, but need all of that and more just to attain that production?
Is it possible that we are running backwards already?
Assuming a correction factor of 0.64 for NGPL and 0.61 for "Other Liquids", it should give something like that:
Hello Khebab,
Thxs for these charts. What would be interesting, but impossible to know, is how much overall C + C ERoEI has declined during this chart timeline [1980 to now] to further lower the quantities on a net btu energy basis. I suspect it would flatten the 2000-to-now period considerably.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The fact that we need to develop more and more increasingly smaller fields is an indication of falling C + C ERoEI. It's just hard to quantify.
Thanks Khebab, great graphs.
Wouldn't you also need to subtract the crude used in the manufacture of the ethanol? Austex came up with 23% of ethanol's BTUs comes from Crude.
If you take out the crude double counting it would shrink even more. 1 barrel of ethanol equals .47 barrels of crude.
Thank you for the time you spend doing these graphs Khebab. Is it posible to superimpose the # of wells drilled and the production per well. I found the graph(s) that did that in regards to Canadian nat gas situation very useful to show other people why I'm concerened.
Not keeping tabs but when you consider Jack:
is considerably deeper then existing wells and is located almost in the center of the GOM, then the associated energy costs for drilling, and logistics supply, will rise by a factor greater than 2.
Informative post again, thank you. So with shrinking light crude and expanding NPGL the energy output may only stay flat anyway? (I guess Methanol equals 0.46 barrels crude and Ethanol is 0.61.)
In addition, in order to compensate for crude oil depletion on a BTU basis you will need a much larger volume of Ethanol/NGPL.
How does this play out practically? If NGPL and ethanol make up a larger proportion of liquid fuel, does that translate into lower MPG in automobiles or does it show up in some other way?
src
As we know, ethanol requires diesel and ng to produce; nobody cares - yet - that ethanol and tar sands is just a conversion of ng to liquid fuels, but if you assume that eroei is positive at say 1.3, and then correct your chart for net btu's, it is clear that the net btu's in all liquids is not much more than traditional hydrocarbons. Then, if you add in the growing energy consumed for oil sands/orinocco production, stripper wells etc... seems likely that net btu's produced is in decline.
That's the point I was trying to make:
As per Khebab's graphs above (Thanks for those!), from a purely energy content (BTU) point of view, the loss is already 4.17 mbd, not exactly negligible (oops, there goes $230 million, and another tomorrow..).
And that does not yet include what we are increasingly interested in, the fast increasing amount of energy needed to produce energy.
An example still up in the air from TOD Canada is the proposal to build a large facility to produce syngas from coal. What's the EROEI for that, and how does it compare to the NG presently used? Will the tar sands EROEI be at all abpve 1 with that syngas?
Is it safe to say we are already losing net BTU's as we go along, like paranoid hamsters running in reverse on a pink flywheel?
If that is so, what is happening to the economy?
Hi HeIs,
"Is it safe to say we are already losing net BTU's..."
Is there any way to take a stab at (even) a way to begin to figure this out?
"If that is so, what is happening to the economy?"
Debt?
Khebab, you may or may not be able to answer this.... but do you know if we could make biodiesel from corn instead of ethanol?
From the material that I have been able to get my hands on, biodiesel sounds like a better solution - I'm just wondering if the current 'feedstock' per say would be capable of going this direction, and if so would it make more sense than ethanol.
Why would you want to produce biodiesel from corn when you can do it from soybeans? Just switch the crop to soybeans and you're golden. Besides, soybeans, affix nitrogen and take less fertilizer.
The reason is quite simple. 50 bushels per acre is a very good yield for soybeans while one would expect over three times that yield for corn, from 150 to 200 bushels per acre.
Ron Patterson
austex
You are right that we could make biodiesel from corn, but there are much better choices. Here is the chart you can study.
It says that soy produces 48 gallons biodiesel/acre and corn produces 18 gallons/acre.
There are seed crops such as rapeseed, flax, hemp, mustard that have a much higher oil content than soy or corn. A soybean is 20% oil. A bushel of soybeans produces 1.4 gall/oil and 50 lbs. of soybean meal!
About soy as a bio-fuel:
This story from Leanan in the January 13th Drum Beat has been gnawing on me for this past week--I don't think I saw anyone comment on it that day (so many posts in each DB!) but can this be? I'd say it sounds like high-BTU vapor-ware but they claim to have their facility up and running as of this week. The possible yield-per-acre their process claims would tip the argument to soy IMO. To peak interest they claim for each 60 lb bushel of soy they get 5 gallons of liquid "fuel" (burns in gas and diesel engines, turbines, two-strokes, etc.) plus 20 lbs +/- of 7-5-7 ash ferilizer PLUS a quantity of high-BTU gas, compatible with nat gas.
I think theres more links in the story...
edit: Well, its late and nobody will read this anyway, but I just found dipchip's comment on this company lower down the thread, but my question is still there for specifics. thx. KP
KingPing
Yes, I believe I was the 1st to make a comment about that story, which sounds "too good to be true" and gnawed at me also. I had an intuitively bad feeling when I watched the companies video at their website. I might be wrong. They are getting many inquiries internationally and seem extremely secretive about their process. I hope Leanan can continue to watchdog this company and post any future stories about it, since their claims will soon be proven right or wrong.
There was a reply post to that. (from memory) a bushel of soybeans weighs @60 lbs. and 5 gallons of diesel fuel weighs @48 lbs. I think the poster called BS on that one. = 80% oil by weight - those must be some hybrid greasy soybeans.
No, this system doesn't only use soybeans, so that logic would not apply, though I still doubt its claims.
Khebab, thank you for following up on my post from yesterday - this is exactly what I was thinking...
Question:
Since Ethanol is essentially a substitution for gasoline, would it make more sense to have two categories - one for raw/pre-processed feedstocks, and another for finished products? We could then look at Ethanol, for example, as a percentage of gasoline instead of oil. I think this may give us a more accurate picture since oil is processed to make many different products - not necessarily just liquid fuels.
Re: BTU equalization
Ethanol is not a direct substitute for oil. It is a direct substitute for gasoline, one of the highest value constituent parts/products from oil after it goes through major energy consuming processes.
Ethanol in actual use is vehicles appears to provide somewhere in the range of 75% of the mileage of gasoline. This would seem to be a more accurate way to account for the contribution of ethanol to the enrgy picture.
I do agree with your broader point that a differential needs to be applied to account for BTU use.
Another differential could be applied to account for net energy content. Corn ethanol with a high fossil fuel content could wind up being even lower in value than your original figure, but only a portion of this is a result of the BTU defficiency that you note.
Hi Jack,
Thanks.
"I do agree with your broader point that a differential needs to be applied to account for BTU use."
Could you possibly expand on what this differential might consist of?
"Corn ethanol with a high fossil fuel content could wind up being even lower in value than your original figure, but only a portion of this is a result of the BTU defficiency that you note."
Is there any way to quantify this? (Or has it been done?) Could you give an example?
I guess I am suggesting that the contribution that ethanol, or similar fuel sources, makes to our energy supply should be accounted for by taking the BTU value at the point of use and subtracting the oil (or energy) input that went into it.
If corn-based ethanol has a diesel input content of 25% (claimed earlier) and provides only 75% of the benefit of gasoline (measured in BTUs or miles/gallon) I wouild suggest the equation should look like this:
One gallon * .7 * (1-.25) = 52.5%
So a gallon of grain ethanol in the list should equal about half a gallon of oil. I suspect that for sugar cane dervived ethanol the diesel input is far less.
Personally, I think grain ethanol is a sham, sugar cane ethanol a real source of new energy, and cellulosic ethanol still not real.
Thanks.
I haven't read all (or even most of) the ethanol posts here, so I don't know...but if this hasn't been done, it seems like an idea worth expanding into its own article. Has a similar scheme been done for the other LTFs (eg.CTL) as a way to compare?
Also, does this include any variable for transport costs in moving the fuel itself (from production point)?
For any thinking of peacefull demonstrations in the next few years....
US military unveils heat-ray gun
By James Westhead
BBC News, Washington
The gun uses a large dish mounted on a Humvee vehicle
The US military has given the first public display of what it says is a revolutionary heat-ray weapon to repel enemies or disperse hostile crowds.
The gun - called Silent Guardian - projects an invisible high energy beam that produces a sudden burning feeling, but is actually harmless.
The beam can be fired as far as 500m (550 yards), much further than existing non-lethal weapons like rubber bullets.
The gun should be in use by the US military within three years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6297149.stm
And for those in the States that may think trains work in the UK, you may wish to read this little polemic:
Ten years in, and still they can't make the trains run on time
By Boris Johnson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 25/01/2007
Comment on this story Read comments
There comes a moment in the twilight of any regime when the mood of the mob suddenly changes. An ugliness descends, a ruthlessness, a fury. It is the essence of all great putsches that by then the rulers have become too arrogant or isolated to notice.
If the Tsar had been smart enough to go incognito around the soup kitchens of St Petersburg in 1917, he might have had an inkling of what was to hit him. If Margaret Thatcher had put a scarf over her head and sneaked up Whitehall to have a peek at the poll tax riots in Trafalgar Square in 1990, she might not have been defenestrated by her party.
And if Labour ministers had the guts to use the Monday morning service of any First Great Western train, they would discover why the mood of the British travelling public is poised to go critical.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=11HUQVZQQVWLPQF...
Might really want a tinfoil hat now...
...and a tinfoil body wrap too to help reflect the rays!!
Or just aim an AK47 at the multi-million dollar dish from a nearby building and knock it out in a single burst of ammo. Total cost is 50 cents on bullets produced in Pakistan or Iran. Return on investment >200,000:1.
:-)
The other line of defense might become basic Paint guns, depending on the reflective needs of the dish.. Be a little tragic to get mowed down by our own boys, just for wielding paintguns, tho.
Or for engaging in peaceful protest.
Whilst taking out such a device with an AK47 or similar might be par for the course for an angry crowd in Afghanistan or Iraq, it is less conceivable in USA or (especially) western Europe. Which might be the real point ...
I'm not as sure as you about Western Europe - at least in Germany, during those freewheeling 70s and 80s, it would seem like a good rock or 50, or maybe a trashcan or 50, could work, especially when the number of demonstrators is in the thousands. Yes, I know, America has forgotten all about street protests, but they remain part of the European tradition, even if the last decade was pretty calm - after all, after taking down a few communist governments using mass demonstrations, protesting against other things almost seems trivial - except for the French, of course.
And if you ever saw how many of those German protesters dressed - essentially total body coverage, with thick leather, solid padding, and motorcycle gear heavily favored - I'm not sure how effective such technology would be. After all, the police shields, staffs, tear gas, dogs, and water cannon weren't always sufficient.
Of course, if you just meant that Western Europeans have less in the way of personal firearms, you would be right, but speaking broadly, bringing weapons to a protest is not considered really all that bright by those protesting, as it just leads to escalation. Rock throwing is one thing (even from a roof), but machine gunning is something else - again, just ask those communist governments who wimped out when confronted with the fact they couldn't count on soldiers killing unarmed people.
Conflict is not merely about weaponry, it is also about tactics, as Gandhi so brilliantly proved.
For those in the States that don't know the UK very well, Boris Johnson is
the most reactionary Tory member of parliament in the UK, and the telegraph
is often called the Torygraph. Boris is an amiable buffon to loves to appear
on news quiz shows that take the **** out of him mercilessly.
How do you do smilies on this site?
People who post smilies are remote-linking graphics from other sites.
No, No,
Good Old Boris is a worthy candidate for Prime Minister.
Likes to sleep late, Does not mind the odd bit of adultery, hates legislation. Knows life.
Fond of the classics
A true renaissance man.
And for those in the States that may think trains work in the UK, you may wish to read this little polemic:
Perhaps people will take heed and begin thinking about the disaster of so-called privatization which has ruined so many previously decent government services.
Let's see.
Private railway: I use, I pay, I don't use, I don't pay.
Goevernment railway: I pay.
Hmm.. seems like a no brainer to me, but then I'm stupid and mind being shafted.
I wouldn't say stupid--- but you're not quite as sceptical about railways as you might.
For one thing, even state-owned railways charge fare.
As for the private companies, they have generally been subsidized, often lavishly. North American railways, besides straight money subsidies, received enormous land grants. These land holdings, or the proceeds of their sale, still belong to the companies even where the track has long since been torn up.
FJP, I stand by my statement that a government railway will cost me money, whereas a private railway will only cost me money when I use it.
I hope you enjoy your government-owned streets and roads for your automobile -- or would you rather they be privatized too?
We have figured out how to privatise water. Do you think we can privatise air? I would so rather pay Bill Gates or Warren Buffett for the air I breathe than pay taxes. And lordy lordy if I don't pay anyome at all for my air soon it will just be gone, part of the Tragedy of the Commons. Hopefully the Invisible Hand that provides All can save me
Clean air is already gone in most of the lower 48 states. We pay in various ways in hopes that it will not become more polluted, but we've been paying for a long time and will pay more in the future.
Unfortunately, we have not figured out a way to pay the Chinese to pollute less, and with freedom to pollute comes freedom to fry the planet.
Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
I know how dirty the air is.
Abitrarily designting random test tubes as commons and bulding argument or rhetoric from there doesn't yield anything interesting.
A commons is a social and historic institution. Created by and regulated by a community. They fail when community fails.
As for the air we are paying socially to cover the costs of private greed and indifference.
There is no global community.
That is the problem.
I see no solution.
In recent years there HAS been a move towards privatization of roads. Not the basic road grid of course, but of limited access freeways which have slower alternative routes.
Its a national strategic imperative.
But dont worry, you will find out.
When you are willing to pay, but it aint there...
Great, we shoot them with a harmless heat ray gun and they shoot back with deadly RPGs. I would rather be on the other side of that fight.
I think you will find that this weapon is intended for use on you.
Picture this in down town Houston:
Starving mothers panicking around the fast-emptying ration trucks:
Young Subaltern:
''STAND BACK. STAND BACK I SAY OR WE WILL FIRE ON YOU!''
Or pick any demonstration against the new war on IRAN / SYRIA / NORTH KOREA / CHINA / LICHTENSTIEN / ANGORA / VATICAN
Tick your box of choice and we will send you a framed picture of Der Furher.
High-flying
with A123
We're not driving electric cars powered by A123 advanced lithium ion
batteries... yet, but we are flying them in helicopters;
remote-controlled electric helicopters, that is. And if you're curious
about how good they are, read on.
-------------------------------------
Recharging
the Nation's Energy Policy
SYNOPSIS: The remaining question is whether the federal government will
do all it responsibly can to accelerate the day when flexible-fuel,
plug-in, electric hybrid vehicles roll off assembly lines in the United
States.
-------------------------------------
US
Energy Dept. Announces $17 Million to Promote Greater Automobile
Efficiency
SYNOPSIS: $14 million cost-shared solicitation for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle battery development aims to improve battery performance
so that plug-in hybrid vehicles can deliver the 40 miles of electric
range required for most roundtrip daily commutes.
All hail remote control. At least no one will be sitting over the battery when it explodes like a Dell laptop...only bigger.
All hail remote control. At least no one will be sitting over the battery when it explodes like a Dell laptop...only bigger.
Yeah, especially considering this:
Just out of curiosity, what is the failure mode? As you keep increasing energy density, what happens when things go pear shaped? We know that liquid fuels burn, flywheels disintegrate, dams burst, TNT blows up ... what happens to these batteries?
I was looking at A123 safety info on their web site today when this showed up.
Anyhow, the information and video that they have regarding safety seems reasonable (i.e. nail penetration test).
Am I missing something?, the article states that the A123 batteries do not explode -- either charging or discharging.
I think that the clause "two cases where faulty chargers cause a pack to explode" refers back to "something that is definitely an issue with LiPos". And if LiPos batteries are not A123 batteries then the posting is consistent.
A123 says:
Let's just say I've heard that one before.
It's been amusing to watch Bush keep coming up with new ideas for each SOTU after abandoning the old ones when they are shown to be untenable. First hydrogen, then ethanol, now batteries. We can expect his next SOTU to hype the glories of public transporation and his last to emphasize the virtues of riding bicycles.
RC helicopters typically have flying times of 5-10 minutes and a payload capability of a few ounces to half a pound. Where can I order a fleet of 5000 of them to get me to work? How does the cost compare with my $100 monthly rail pass?
I am sensing frustration in The Oil Doom at the prospect that something like nano-technology could actually provide a plausible mitigation to the PO problem.
Re: Where is all the corn needed to make that ethanol going to come from?
Ahhhhhh c'mon — we all know the benefits of global warming, especially in the high northern latitudes.
Canada!
Why are people so pessimistic? I mean, weren't we geoengineering the planet with just this ethanol from corn target in mind?
Nah, I think Bodman's right. We'll just import it, like Europe is doing.
Well, we would be importing it (the ethanol) from Canada — unless they "volunteer" to become the 51st state! —
Perhaps that's what you had in mind?
It's not going to be that easy. Our crops are adapted to grow where they're growing right now. Global warming doesn't mean we'll just move everything north. Even if it gets warmer, the soil type, day length, rain patterns, etc., will be different.
Nothing a little genetic engineering won't fix, I guess...
I was kidding, Leanan....
Er...so was I. For the record, I don't actually believe we are going to genetically engineer our way out of this fix.
I agree with you about the probabilities. Nevertheless, technological advances give us a manic gambler's chance--and in technology I'll shove my stack of blue chips onto genetic engineering.
A long shot is better than no shot.
You must be an economist.
Also for the record, i do actually believe we are well on our way to genetically engineer our way into much deeper trouble than we have already. Not a big surprise: We happen to do that in every single facet of our lives these days. It's a talent we were born with.
In my huge home province of Ontario, 87% of the land is crown land. (i.e. public land). Almost all of that is forest.
You might think that this is because we Canadians are conservation saints. Wrong.
With current methods, it can't be farmed. And don't think it hasn't been tried. As in US states such as Maine, in the centre-south of the province, we have plenty of old failed farms that have reverted to forest.
Furthermore, it isn't mainly a latitude issue that prevents farming expansion. Any patch of land that can be economically farmed, is farmed. Even 100's of km north of our southern farming belt. Those areas that have patches of decent soil are utilized, even when they occur at high latitudes.
A quick glance at Google Earth shows farming coming to a fairly abrupt halt about 100 km or so north of Toronto at the edge of the Canadian Shield.
It ain't the trees that stopped us, it's the rock.
In a toasty world, the few high latitude farmers we have will be able to grow more energy rich crops.
But most of the province will still be useless for agriculture without the bio-engineering miracle (that I dearly hope never happens).
Edible lichen? Moose ranches? Beaver Barns?
Where's infinitepostings when we're in need of some way around this rock thing?
But if you just wait a several thousand years the forest will retreat and the soil will regenerate to the milder climate. Sounds like a great long-term prospect... can't wait to try those Alberta oranges :)
In a similar vein, the Australian Prime Minister made a statement on national water issues yesterday and has formed a committee to look at possibilities of moving a large proportion of Australia's agricultural production to our northern (tropical) regions, given their increased rainfall due to climate change (which for the past 10 years he has denied).
No thought to our present agriculture growing where it is because that it where it is most suited, or that the northern rains come in just 3-4 months and then there is a long, very hot, dry period, or that there are no transport systems there, or the land is owned by Aboriginals who may not want give it over to farmers....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21120137-30417,00.html
Two comments about the "Is there enough corn for Bush ethanol plan" article.
First, is there really enough corn grown in and around delaware to justify a an ethanol plant?
Second, regarding this point:
"Of all the proposals in President Bush’s State of the Union speech, the call for massive increases in subsidized ethanol production stands the best chance of winning Congressional support."
Is this really true- Is the massive Ethanol subsidy more likely to pass than the proposed increase in CAFE standards in a democratically controlled congress?
Increasing CAFE standards is long overdue, ethanol is controversial enough (outside Iowa), and increasing CAFE standards is much more likely to decrease gasoline demand in the US- but maybe I'm just foolishly optimistic that Congress might actually see that.
To answer my first question, I found this interesting chart about how much corn is grown in each state:
http://www.corn.org/web/uscprod.htm
Deleware is certainly at the low end of the scale, but they have nearly doubled yield per acre and total bushels produced with a nearly 10% reduction in total acreage planted over the three growing seasons (2002 to 2004).
Interestingly, this rapid increase in corn yields occurred throughout much of the US, but especially the eastern portion.
phineas, if you look at the numbers for just those three years, you would be led to believe that we were making big gains in corn yields, but I think there's something else going on here -- grain prices, drought, etc. If I find something, I'll post.
Thanks for posting that link.
When the usa becomes the 11th Province, Canada's maize production will be equivalent to Wisconsin or Kansas on this List!
Phineas,
Thanks for your link.
2002 was a drought year, affecting all grain yields. 2002 forward skews the picture.
"The tightest grain and oilseed supplies in several years are boosting prices and forcing adjustments for endusers
this year. Drought in many regions of the country slashed crop and forage production, stressed cattle operations, and
raised costs for livestock producers."
doug, I saw your comment the other day about "farming the B and C horizons." You must be a soil scientist.
There is failed ethanol plant down south of here in Western Tennessee.
It was apparently started up some time ago for it to have failed already. Maybe someone purchased it for a song and restarted it. Lost track.
The reasons we heard was that Tennessee doesn't grow that much corn.Ha!
We all knew this. You can see that they do grow a lot of brome sage.
That yellow/brownish wavy stemy stuff that sheds enough fluff to simulate snow. I have seen roll balers running thru bromesage and lost in a huge cloud of white fluff and appearing to be snow.
Cows wont' eat it I am told for its bitter and chokes them. Just what I have been told by old timers. I do know that its a good indicator for lack of lime and abandoned or mismanged fields.My cows never liked it so I spread some lime and that eradicated it over time.
Note: Some may call it meadow sage or just sage. I alway heard broom or brome sage. Its as bad a cheat(cheatgrass) which many want to call wild oats. Its not.
airdale, I think this is your culprit: Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus)
Hello TODers,
I was optimistically hoping that Bush's SOTU address would have just been him standing there while a video replayed Carter's Sweater Speech of April 18, 1977 *:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
At the video's conclusion he would simply state that the US Congress has fooled around in Peakoil delusion for too long, and they are now charged with getting America back on track, then he leaves the podium.
IMO, he had everything to gain, and nothing to lose if he had done this. I think the American electorate would have been so shocked and enraged that if Congress didn't cooperate in a true bipartisan fashion for meaningful change--these political reps would find it difficult to go anywhere in public without being pelted by eggs and tomatoes.
* I think this speech is vital to TOD newbies, so that they understand quickly how difficult it will be to spread Peakoil Outreach unless our Topdogs in govt and business join with the MSM to tell the truth.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob,
Re. MSM, et.al.: I really think it comes down to the fact that they are trapped by the growth paradigm. Addmitting that oil (and soon NG) has peaked or will peak soon inherently implies that there is going to be an economic shift as supplies become less. The entire US societal structure is based upon growth and they don't have the foggiest idea of how to replace it with some kind of stable-state; for that matter neither do I. Callenbach at least offers a few ideas in Eoctopia.
I think the buzz words will be energy independence and energy security. Anything else will scare the sheeple.
Todd; a Realist
Here in Geneva the Electric company is going to begin a ‘reduce electricity use’ program. Not its first. A famous and respected entrepreneur came out in the press with this shattering statement:
They sell the stuff and the are telling people not to buy it ??
Heh.
What I have done to reduce demand(my electric bill) is I started lowering the thermostat on my geothermal heatpump. I am now living comfortably with it set at 64degrees.
I can tell the weather outside while in bed by listening to how often it cycles. Most times during the daylight hours it hardly ever comes on. At night without a strong wind it cycles a bit more.
If we get a cold snap I just build and evening fire in the buck stove and sit near it and adsorb the fine wood heat. Let it die out before bedtime.
I use LP gas but just for my cookstove and to heat hot water. My electric bill usually runs 1,000 kwh in the winter. A bit higher for AC in the summer. In between for the spring and fall I just shut the heatpump off. A log house with lots of biomass is extremely efficient and oft times just the heat from the appliances and light bulbs is all I need.
Without the heatpump running I sometimes get 60-75 kwh bills. This is for a 3,000 sq. ft. log house and not counting the full basement underneath.
I believe that if the electric disappeared tomorrow that I could live comfortably in the walkout basement. Cook on wood and just put on my insulated jeans and wool shirts. Army thermal underwear is supposed to be very very good(polyester). I can no longer find the old style thermal underwear made of cotton.
airdale
Nothing is more important for cold-weather comfort than good thermal underwear. For cotton net underwear I recommend Brynje of Norway. (If it is good enough for commercial Norwegian fishermen, it is good enough for me.)
Except for us old geezers, I wonder how many people are still wearing long underwear.
Don't fotget that you lose most of your body heat through your head! A good knit cap is the bare minimum, but nothing beats a trapper's beaver skin fur hat! Just don't let them catch you trapping that beaver...
:-)
Of course, the really wise old geezers get themselves a Winter Woman.
This sounds really quite refreshing. If there is any chance that you produce some electricity then one of the "passive house" hints found here http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Passive_House_E/passivehouse.html might spare you a thermal underwear or two, may be less fun though ;)
sorry
Hi Todd,
"Admitting...implies that there is going to be an economic shift as supplies become less."
I used to think that, too. But any more, I'm not so sure that people in MSM (or anywhere else, actually,) (as a generality) realize the implications. There's a lot to understand in order to draw implications.
Or, another way to put it: the longer we wait to start using what FF/energy-based ability/money we have now to build the silver "bbs", the greater the implications. But you have to see it.
I think the more appropriate question is: Is ther enough natural gas for Bush's enthanol plan?
Naaa... the most important question is: are there enough idiots left in the Republican party to agree with Bush on anything? Doesn't look like it.
We will rather see a bi-partisan majority in the House and Senate vote for much higher EPA standards and, who knows, maybe even higher gas taxes. And Bush will keep his weeny between his legs and not try to veto either bill, just so they let him live out his two years in office.
There was a scathing Op-Ed in my Wisconsin State Journal yesterday in response to a local Peak Oil Group's report to city and county leaders on preparing for peak oil.
Now today in the Wisconsin State Journal we see a column that satirizes a conversation between the President and OPEC.
So the paper will ridicule the idea of Peak Oil on Wednesday, then support it on Thursday. I guess it just goes to show that the MSM doesn't like to speak clearly about the implications of Peak Oil. It's OK to say "oil reserves will be exhausted within another 30 years or so" because, as we all know, we'll come up with something to replace it and continue the party.
Right?
I worked as a journalist for over 15 years, and one of the (many) things that upsets me about journalism is how the writers of the editorial page don't sign their names at the end of their opinion columns.
Many people think that the opinions expressed on the editorial page are somehow democratically decided by a group of informed journalists. It's actually no such thing. A dramatic example is the Wall Street Journal, which has pretty good journalists writing the news, and an editorial page written by one boneheaded manager/owner who sounds as if he escaped from an insane asylum. The public thinks that the fine journalists who do the news are in agreement with the editorial page madman, when in fact most of them want to throw up when they read what passes for "Our Opinion".
And when you have more than one management person writing the editorials, you often see this Dr. Jeckyl/Mr Hyde style of writing, where one day Manager A says "Peak Oil is a Myth" and next day Manager B says "Peak Oil is Here Now" (or something similar). If they would simply sign their editorials, you would know that you're reading the opinion of that one person, which does not reflect any general agreement among the staff or even management.
Now I'll get off my soapbox.
cheers,
Oz
Hey Oz,
You struck a raw nerve here.
Where I live, the editors of the San Jose Mercury News almost never sign their names and they pose the daily Opinion piece as being "The Opinion of the Board of Editors". Many a time this is a complete lie because the piece is actualy some punditry written by an outside corporate lacky and not by any of the editors.
I don't recall seeing a crude oil report report for this week. More bad news for the 'peak is now' crowd? You decide :P
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_pe...
And all of this is in light of the 'coincidences' of global oil production increasing for 27 years despite the decline of at least all but 1 of the major 1 million bpd fields.
Weekly inventory changes have more to do with commercial practices than with long-term global depletion. The relationship you try to draw isn't very robust.
You should understand more about oil production before trying to be sarcastic. I'm sure you know that Daqing production peaked only in 1998, not 27 years ago. That Cantarell peaked in 2005, not 27 years ago, that Burgan production was brought down in 2005, not 27 years ago. And of course you know that the marginal costs of production worldwide have soared to nearly $50/bbl from under $20/bbl as recently as 2001. Your posts might be more persuasive if you had a more sophisticated understanding of the complex parameters that underlie oil production.
He probably knows enough about oil production to be sarcastic. It's unlikely he could have survived this long in such a forum without having a grasp of something and a decent take on oil. Word on the street has it that the man actually knows what he is talking about. That he does some research.
Could you source your comments on Burgan and Daqing please. I didn't realize we had an expert in our midst.
Lipstick, the Daqing data come from the China Statistical Yearbook published annually in Beijing. I have worked in the oil industry in China for 25 years and have watched Daqing grow, mature, and decline. The Burgan turnaround references KPC's announcement in 2005 that they would have to bring the field down to 1.7 mmb/d. This was reported in various places; one source is http://www.energybulletin.net/10878.html.
When you say annually, is there a specific month? I appreciate your timely response. And your candor. You have no idea how much you are like a breath of fresh air. Do you have an opinion on uniform 10% Chinese Growth numbers?
As discussed further up on todays Drumbeat, 11 of the 14 fields that once produced 1 million bpd now produce less then 1 million bpd. At least 13 of the 14 fields are verified to be in decline, yet despite these facts, global oil output has increased by 20 million bpd since the 1980s.
WT states that peak oil is here now because as the super giants go, so does the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, 20+ years of history have proven him wrong so far.
Logical Disconnect !
Those fields have not been in decline for 20 years, in fact the three biggest ones (Ghawar (AFAWeK), Burgan & Cantarell) were NOT in decline (at least not even -1%) when world convential oil production peaked in December, 2005. This a very recent development, so your "20+ years of history" has ZERO relevance.
Wait for ever increasing convential production from 2005 to 2025 as ALL the major fields decline (scratch 2006 and 2007 as increasing years, basically flat years. The slope down (so far) seems less steep than the slope up. But MAYBE 2008 will be the first of 18 straight up years !
Best Hopes,
Alan
The other 11 fields had more combined production then the last 3 fields. Are you honestly suggesting that, on a combined basis, the smaller group of super giants dictates world oil flow, not the 11 other 1 million bpd fields that declined/crashed? I just want you to be perfectly clear on this.
And remember, my assertion is not that the decline of the super giants = declining global production, its that the decline of the super giants != absolute decline in global oil production.
The API stated that total commercial petroleum inventories dropped 12 million barrels last week, mostly due to an import level 1 million barrels per day less than the EIA reported.
I have seen no news reports which explain why these two came to widely diverging opinions about inventory levels. Even if the EIA is right, some other arrangements will have to be made to offset the ongoing import drops from virtually all OPEC countries and Mexico. The only way that could be done is to take supplies away from Europe and the East.
What! This is alarming! I know that the EIA and the API have often differed in in their reported numbers but never this great. I do know that some said the EIA data was off, one week last month, by several million barrels, and that the correct inventory levels were given the next week without any admission of an error.
What is going on here? Who do you trust, the EIA or the API, (American Petroleum Institute)? I do know that if the EIA had reported a drop of 12 million barrels in inventories, the price would have likely jumped by five bucks a barrel at least.
Ron Patterson
I made a mistake above - the API figures report a change of about 12 million barrels worse as compared to the weekly changes in the EIA’s gasoline, distillate, and crude inventories (not an absolute change of 12 million). Sorry about that. Also the API started with much higher inventories the prior week, but now shows 3 million barrels less than the EIA in these three categories (as opposed to 9 million more than the EIA the prior week).
Again, I can’t explain last week’s nor this week’s API report relative to the EIA’s. Generally the EIA should be more accurate – inventory holders are after all reporting to a US government agency. However while the EIA uses a substantial amount of estimating, I am not sure of what methods the API uses. If the API uses fewer estimates than the EIA, I may reconsider my position on this.
Still, if the API import figure is a real number - one million per day less than the EIA - and not just a result computed from inventory and production changes, there is a serious import problem now developing.
Charles, thanks for the correction. Nevertheless this is still alarming. The EIA estimates, for total imports, were around 300,000 barrels per day below the average for 2006. That alone would be no big thing because the import figures jump up and down quite a bit from week to week. But, the ten week moving average of total imports is still well over half a million barrels per day below the average of 2006. This confirms that total imports are quite low, even according to the EIA.
However if the EIA estimate were one million barrels per day too high, and they are showing imports to be dropping steeply, then we need to start worrying.
Ron Patterson
Weekly U.S. natural gas in storage dropped by 179 billion cubic feet in the week ending Jan 19. We are still 20% above the five year average, but sure to reduce that due to cold weather over the next two weeks. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngs/ngs.html
I hope everyone read this link posted above:
Creating Myths About Oil Production is Easy, Too Easy
The author makes the argument that Saudi production capacity, reported to increase by 40% by 2009, will actually only increase by 11 to 13% between 2004 and 2009. Two of those projects have already came on line, Abu Safah & Qatif in 2004-2005 at 650,000 bp/d and Haradh 3 in 2004-2006 at 300,000 bp/d. (The first date is when they first came on stream and the second date is when they reached full capacity.)
All this is based on Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Energy Imitative.
There is just caveat in this whole, otherwise excellent argument (other than the fact that at least a couple of these projects will never reach the production levels expected), the figures given here are based on an expected 1.8% per year depletion rate of current fields between 2006 and 2009. The depletion rate between 2009 and 2011 is expected to be 2.8% per year according to this Energy Initative.
Now here it is in plain English: Saudi Arabia expects to increase its producion capacity by 11% to 13%, total, by 2009 provided its curreng, very old, very tired, giant fields deplete by no more than 1.8% per year.
That decline rate contrast dramatically from what we have come to expect by observing the decline rate of other giant fields.
Ron Patterson
Ron,
I have been casting about for examples of decline rates in regions where one field, accounting for half or more of the production, started declining. The closest I have come up with so far is Alaska, which showed about a 6% net annual decline rate in the 10 years after Prudhoe Bay peaked (versus long term net decline rates of 2% for the Lower 48 and 4% for Texas).
Assuming that Saudi Arabia produces 8.5 mbpd in the first quarter of 2007, their net annual decline rate will be about 8%, from 9/05.
But in any case, you and I need to get with the program. Don't you know that the near certain decline/crash of every single field that is, or was, producing one mbpd and more is now being used as evidence for rising production?
Edit:
Net Change in Alaskan crude + condensate production (Peak Year, 1998):
1989: -7%
1990: -5.4%
1991: +1.4%
1992: -4.7%
(10 year average net decline rate: 6% per year.)
There is much stronger evidence for unavoidable depletion in the year to nov 06 than in the period beginning nov, when saudis implemented their cuts. IMO it may be correct that depletion is progressing, but probably not at a higher rate than in the first 3q... at least a portion of the cuts following nov 1 should be assumed to be political.
For extrapolating purposes, I suggest sticking with the rate established from jan 1 thru oct, and even this might be pessimistic because of the billions they are throwing at the problem.
Dont worry, be happy.
When Hothgor throws his darts at a map of the world, we will (finally) know where to drill and our problems will all be solved.
"darts at a map"
We already know where to drill because we have been doing it for 20 years...or do we have to look somehwere else? I'm so confused.
Thanks WT. From the latest December production figures from PEMEX we can estimate that Cantarell's decline rate will be well into the double digits. And Yibal's decline rate is also in double digits, 12% over the six years prior to this report in 2004.
Oman's Oil Yield Long in Decline
It looks like there is a trend here, that is, the larger the field, the greater the decline rate.
Ron Patterson
The WSJ article last year on Cantarell described the worst case decline rate in Cantarell's production as approaching 40% (out of five scenarios).
David Shields apparently thinks that we are looking at something like the worst case, since he is predicting at least a 25% drop in aggregate Pemex production in one year, and based on the most recent Pemex report (6% decline in 30 days), it looks like Shields is probably correct. Note that Mexico's most recent year over year increase in total liquids consumption was 5%, which, combined with crashing production, will have the predicted catastrophic effect on net exports. They may be a net importer as soon as 2010.
Have they got the money to pay for imported oil?
Hello Mudlogger,
My guess is they won't. Not only will alot of native corn be headed north as converted ethanol for our SUVs, but the millions of poor Mexicans won't be able to afford the FF-cooking of the remaining tortillas and beans. Calderon should be proactively buying millions of solar-ovens to distribute to his poor so that Mexico won't be as tree-denuded as Haiti.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
Another Pemex article hits the net:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36306
-------------------------------------------------
Severe Withdrawal Symptoms Ahead
-------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"Teetering on the edge of an abyss."
Aren't we all...
...and when the world wakes up?
we fall in. then the fun begins, because all you can do is sit back and watch the fireworks.
...assuming you have a safe spot from which to observe.
Can anyone explain to me why Pemex is the only company to carry out this nitrogen injection? Or am I mistaken, and is this routinely carried out elsewhere when companies are trying to prevent production decline?
Obviously there are serious drawbacks to tryinig to extract all of your resources as quickly as possible, as Mexico is now discovering, but this doesn't stop others from doing it too, but I never hear about nitrogen injection for anywhere else other than Mexico. Why is this?
Where available (i.e. most oil producing areas) natural gas is injected instead. Water is another very common alternative. Later, after the oil disappears, the NG can be produced and sold.
Alan
" ...Have they got the money to pay for imported oil?"
They don't. They turn off the lights that are still running, shut and lock the doors, and close the country. Everyone moves (north).
It will have catastrophic effects for the US as main importer too. Another "friendly" oil exporting country will be blown off. I just don't understand, why this extremly important fact (Canterell is the second biggest super giant in the world) has not been a issue so far (apart from Jim Rogers) in the financial community.
quadour88,
I agree. Why isn't the following item front page news? But we have people on this website, (apparently seriously) arguing that every single one of the 14 super giant oil fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more can be in decline or crashing, but we can still show rising production. Rather than argue with them, now I just agree with them. Let them dream of infinitely expanding oil supplies while they can.
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/23061.html
thanks for the link (eluniversal).
For me as a commodity investor it is of imminent interest. Now I'm even more convinced, that my investments are on the right track.
We are on the verge of a multicentury change from fossil fuels to alternatives. From burning things to minerals. From oil to ethanol, nuclear, sun and wind.
I realize that that Pemex is a part owner but why aren't they calling it "force mejure(sp)" ?
As frequently pointed out and driven home by Westexas, Mexico, The UK and others start becoming customers for oil rather than producers. So, we all chase declining volumes of oil at the same time as each other.
Will Mexico be compelled to export oil to the USA by reducing its own internal consumption?
How does NAFTA work in these circumstances?
And how long before Emilio Zapata Junior comes to the fore?
All of this circa 2012. Wouldn't that be about a hundred years after Zapata Senior?
I understand that the UK, which peaked in 1999, was exporting about one mbpd in 1999. Apparently, the UK continued to export for five years, 2000-2004 (inclusive), becoming a net importer in 2005.
Mexico's production started declining in 2006, with the decline really accelerating in late 2006.
2006-2010 (inclusive) is five years, so five years, from the start of the decline to the verge of net importer status is not unprecedented, and the UK was not dependent on one field for more than half of its production.
Unlike Canada, Mexico excluded its oil from NAFTA. They will export what they need to export to gain the revenues they need, but they cannot be compelled by NAFTA.
With Mexico about to go down a double whammy drain, I wonder if this will take the shine off the SPP (super NAFTA).
There are provisions in NAFTA for Canada to arbitrarily reduce energy exports to the usa. From memory, these reductions cannot exceed 10% of the previous five year avg.
When the time comes it will probably nicely match the depletion rate. I expect Canada is in for the long haul on energy cooperation with the US. Given our geography and how closely linked we are with the US we aren't likely to pull the plug.
From my memory I thought Canada had to provide 60% of production on a three year moving average. Perhaps it is both. I'll have to look it up again sometime.
John,
The 60% is not a provision, it's just the present situation, plus or minus a few percent. From memory, the max deviation year on year is 3%, or even less. Not that it matters much, Canada's independence is gone.
In the recent articles about US pressure for increased oilsands production it was actually mentioned that this was discussed in an SPP framework. Which is unusual, because SPP and NAU are still officially non-existent (re: highly secretive meeting in Banff, Canada, last year. Which ties in with Canadians believing they can still get out of NAFTA, an illusion that keeps the plebes quiet.
WT writes
"David Shields apparently thinks that we are looking at something like the worst case, since he is predicting at least a 25% drop in aggregate Pemex production in one year, and based on the most recent Pemex report (6% decline in 30 days)"
Hothgor writes...hmmm....???
Hothgor (seriously) Are you are being paid by someone to come here and blather on about how everthing will be fine?
...
You do realizing your responding to a comment that I haven't even responded too, right? If you want to engage me in a debate about the super giants, you should do so in a manner that clumps your comments with the rest, not in some obscure out of the way area.
Frankly though, I do not believe that you could possibly add any kind of meaningful contribution to our discussion, just as you failed to do so on many earlier occasions in which you resorted to name calling, name bashing and outright deceptive quotation to make your point.
Besides, once I corrected WT on the disconnect he was experiencing, he 'coincidentally' decided to slither off and remain silent. How strange...
Who could doubt your assertion that every super giant oil field could be crashing and we would still have rising world crude oil production?
Of course, world crude oil production is currently falling, but no matter, I'm sure that you are right.
So, what kind of SUV do you recommend that we all buy?
My my, WT, are you...hiding down here so your comments don't match up with our debate earlier? Some might interpret that as admitting that you cant refute whats been said. But don't worry, your secret is safe with me! :laughs:
Four wheel drive or two wheel drive?
Oman is a very interesting example.
You dont decide to commit to a 1000 well program and steam injection to lift 'gunk' if you are at your prime...
Note, the above 11% to 13% it the total expected increase over the next three years, or about 4% per year. If all this proves to be correct, then unless the decline rate is less than 4% per year for its existing fields, then Saudi has peaked.
Ron Patterson
The article assumes that sa claims of production capacity is correct. I don't believe they could have produced one more barrel than they did do this year thru oct, meaning that their production capacity steadily declined to a bit over 9Mb/d, not the 11Mb/d claimed. I see depletion running amok and the saudis in panic mode as they boost their rig count 3x so far, imo they will be up to 10x in two years from two years ago... and while they have high hopes for a boost in 'production capacity', it remains to be seen if we ever again see 9Mb/d.
Jkissing, I could not agree with you more. But my point is, even if the Saudi's are telling the truth, and if we can believe the Aramco vice president who a couple of years ago said their existing fields were declining by 5% to 12% per year, Saudi Arabia is still in decline. If we believe then then they are in decline, if they are lying then they are in panic mode. I would guess panic mode.
Ron Patterson
Affluenza in pandemic stage:
Wealth Top Priority for Today's Youth
Personally, I'm not surprised at that statistic after listening to a colleague complain that her 10-year-old son was frustrated because he only receives a $50 weekly allowance while his best friend gets $400 a week.
These results parallel a poll in the news last month in which it was reported college freshman in 1979 said their number one goal was to develop a moral philosophy of life and today the number one goal is to make a lot of money.
Priorities and notions of what constitutes happiness need to change dramatically for today's youth, otherwise we face a future comprised of disaffected self-centered citizens. Unfortunately, the parents who need to become aware of their role as enablers of this dysfunctional world view are not the type to follow the peak oil debate with any kind of circumspection.
2004: Being a celebrity has topped a list of what children under 10 believe to be the "very best thing in the world" in a survey carried out for National KidsDay.
Those who believe we live in an increasingly shallow culture will not be surprised to learn that at numbers two and three in the poll of 2,500 children were "good looks" and "being rich".
Independent
An alarming number of school children aged 6-12 (no numbers, sorry, and they vary greatly, from 3 to edging up to 20%) in the EU want to become famous, or believe they can/will. Often thru their special ‘gifts’, interests, etc. (eg. sport, music.) They understand school does not prepare them for that.
The fame / riches wannabees are (personal experience) from all over the social spectrum. Children of over achievers, and the poor stuck in front of the TV. They adopt the current values, transmitted by society and their parents of course, but also - and this is what counts - by their peers. They aren’t disaffected or self-centered (yet...as under the age of 13 or so) but are desperate for attention or understand quite clearly - absolutely - that only the regard, respect, admiration and adulation of others, many others, the or ‘a’ public, so to speak, will see them through. They understand, in a sketchy way, that power is necessary to survive, and that fame/riches are the only available avenue.
Veering off topic here... I didn’t bring it up.
"but are desperate for attention or understand quite clearly - absolutely - that only the regard, respect, admiration and adulation of others, many others, the or ‘a’ public, so to speak, will see them through."
You mean like Hothie?
Tries for that adulation and admiration yet keeps getting slapped down. They know not respect for others nor simple courtesy. They have been told too long how they have "special skills". Just like their parents whose real 'special skills' were lying to their children by telling them that they were 'special' instead of sending them out to play in the dirt and away from the tube or YouTube now where they can binge on soft porn while the special parents think they are upstairs studying for the ACT or SAT at the age of nine. When they flunk out of college and hit the meth or crack trail then they end up with those special 'car washing' skills now to hold them up. Problem is that no one really really appreciates what they went thru and how good they really are. By now the 'special' mom and dad are divorced and hitting on teenage bimbettes or buying it on the strip. Their hero Haggard has shown them the way.
A life of twitchgames and then you grow up. Find your way to a website that has serious discussion. Join in and get praised for your 'special skills'.
And how will these young people react to a future of low growth and or higher costs. If they are having psychoogical problems during a period of advanced cornucopia it does not bode well for coping with likely future prospects.
Interesting factlet:
Of the 12 men who have walked on the moon, 11 were boy scouts...
Apparently it wires the brains of boys to think, learn the discipline of being a good follower and later learn the discipline of being a good leader, and rationalise current circumstances and act appropriately.
Since we are evolved to hunt game, big and small, I suppose this is the nearest thing a teenage boy gets to being accepted on tribal a hunt in whatever minor capacity.
''But like, you know, thats Sooooooo last year''.
Up the thread: $400 dollar pocket money?
- Thats Child Abuse, pure and simple.
Thank you, New Account. You understood perfectly the point I was trying to make.
The "Greatest Generation" had the psychological underpinnings to survive the Great Depression without turning to self-destructive or antisocial behavior en masse, but I doubt that today's youngsters (or even my "X" generation) have such a capacity.
This touches on a post I made the other day, "Does Age Matter?" It's late again so I don't want to get into it now. But, yes, I do think age matters because ones personal history matters as to how one sees "reality".
My point was, in part, that they are reacting already. By thinking of ways they can be ‘famous’ that is get a free lunch and/or dominate others - but in a socially acceptable way, a way that parents and the TV say is wonderful, admirable, and does not involve war, killing, hatred. Most children under 13 -everywhere- are anti-war.
There is one invariant in human life since the beginning of time:
When you are young, you dream of becoming rich and famous. Then life shatters that dream. Then you become a moral philosopher arguing that being rich and famous is not critically important in life. Some of these people write books about it and eventually become rich and famous because the ones who don't buy their books.
We are watching a generation of mid-30s moral philosophers growing up. Self help book sales are bullish.
You know less than nothing of history. Sit in a corner and read a book. Shut up.
Realizing you are so wholly ignorant that my previous post meant nothing to you I will clarify:
The notion that one's station in life is a variable and not fixed is specifically modern. Since you don't know what modern means shall we say that histoire moderne begins 1492.
Before modern times the hero who left the status he was born to did so by virtue of Fate or special favors from the gods. Neither Fate nor gods were swayed by young dreamers and the young dreamt far far less.
Now go to class go to the library and don't post more shite before you learn something.
Oldhippie,
I'm afraid he is a lost cause. His deepest thoughts can be measured in Angstroms. If he spent as much time absorbing knowledge as he does sitting at his computer churning out nonsense he could actually contribute something useful.
Better to think of comments such as "since the beginning of time..." as parody.
I made the mistake of reading that post 'cause he switched up and made it so much shorter than his usual.
Ever notice how Infinite's prose reads like the Committee Report on Received Knowledge? Is this persona personally invested in anything he says?
I realize it's an untestable unprovable hypothesis and a personal attack of sorts -- but it sure looks to me like someone gets a paycheck to sit at a keyboard and stifle TOD.
Hey SAT, are you out there? Why has TLT been doing so poorly lately?
The lead article in today's Drum Beat, 'Is there enough corn for Bush ethanol plan?', states that Bush will unveil his plan at an ethanol plant in Delaware.
To set the record straight, this technically illiterate reported got his facts wrong: there IS currently no ethanol plant in Delaware. What Bush visited yesterday was the DuPont Experimental Station, where R & D is being carried out in a number of biofuel areas, including genetically modifying corn to increase ethanol yield, bio-butanol, and cellulosic ethanol.
However, there is currently a push by a number of business and political entities to build an ethanol plant in Delaware. It is really quite a silly idea for a number of reasons. First, Delaware is already a net importer of corn and other grain for its large poultry industry in the southern part of the state. Second, it is not near any large feedlot operations that could used the byproduct distillers dry grain. Locating an ethanol plant in Delaware makes about as much sense as locating a steel mill in Hawaii.
The only conceivable reason for anyone to seriously consider building an ethanol plant in Delaware is the expectation of favorable tax breaks and generous business development subsidies, both of which our venal politicians will be more than glad to dole out.
I happen to have had published in yesterday's Wilmington News Journal an article strongly opposing such a plant for Delaware. While I find that encouraging, my gut feel is that there is sufficient momentum for a Delaware ethanol plant to eventually be built.
As H.L. Mencken once said, "Nothing is a durable as a bad idea."
Maybe the eroei would improve if we would harness the chickens to our suv's.
"The only conceivable reason for anyone to seriously consider building an ethanol plant in Delaware is the expectation of favorable tax breaks and generous business development subsidies, both of which our venal politicians will be more than glad to dole out."
How is that different from the reason to build all the other ethanol plants?
As I use to say, "There is nothing as durable as H.L.Mencken's words."
Reading the National geographic's article I am reminded that defending our livestyles with our teeth we bite of somebody's else leg.
But poverty doesn't only increase in Africa. Today I have been asked to examine a patient in a psychiatric hospital in France. His both feet have been amputated by 2/3rd. He lived in a trailer. As a retired worker, divorced, he couldn't afford any more to rent a decent home. He couldn't afford to pay heating and so his feet have frozen. My shock came frome learning that he lives in a kind of trailer village where more and more people come in the same situation as he : poor workers and poor retired.
The difficulty comes from finding statistics for these people. Every concerned person in France knows that this happens and is increasing. But nobody really accounts for this. Contrasting with increased consumer spending and still positive growth in France. So we can only report what we see and wonder what resliency in economy means when energy prices increase.
Jeroen KOK
Bourg en Bresse
The man is lucky! He had a trailer. In the US he would have been homeless and would have frozen to death. Or some kids might have poured gas over him and set him on fire in his sleep. It happens... nobody cares shit.
I have a good friend who is a psychiatrist in residency in New Orleans (does France have redidency ? Two VERY difficult years of final training ?)
There is no more difficult job. None. Two local psychiatrists have committed suicide after Katrina in New Orleans, along with hundreds of others. A majority of the police left have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder plus anxiety and depression disorders (as do so many here). Alcohol consumption is up with half the population and 70% of the tourists. Mental disorders are common and accepted without shame. Local TV shows talk about them frequently.
First time wife abusers have appeared (20 years of good marriage and then a first time whilst living in a tent in their home or a trailer, what is appropriate in that case ?)
Heat is a minor issue. At Lowe's, a man was pleading for a half fill of his propane tank for his FEMA trailer, saying he could not afford a full tank. The clerk said all they had was full tanks and that was all he could sell. I paid for a full tank for him. I gave the clerk enough money for second tank when someone else comes up short later.
Helping one another, and our well known ability to party, our food (better than Paris :-) and our music all help us get by.
One note of gratitude to France. It is clear to us that Paris cares more for us than Washington DC. The French come and genuinely TRY to find ways to help (something no Bush appointee can be accused of), small or medium size projects that REALLY help.
The French bank Paribas, for example, worked with us and selected five fire stations to repair in the flooded zone. These five stations now provide fire protection for the 80% of the city that was flooded. And the French sent new uniforms (I was told) for the Fire Dept. They just sent too many small uniforms and not enough extra-large uniforms :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
Yes we have residency too. We call it "internat", which are 12 successive 6 months periods in various departments for psychiatry. Neurologists -like me- have to attend 6 month residency in a psychiatry department. I agree with the fact that it is a very difficult speciality. Psychiatrists in institutions deal with a part of the population you don't hear about in the media. They witness firsthand not only the increasing poverty in society but also the effects of the ruthless political response to this.
As for the New Orleans tragedy, do you have any clue for the relatively low media coverage this has received ? In fact is it not so much the initial coverage which was still a bit less then for the tsunamis. But what hasn't been covered was the subsequent suffering which is still ongoing. Of course the medias have their own agenda : 4-5 days of showing the catastrophe, 3 days of showing how the "help" arrives and things are organizing themselves (in their minds), 2 days for saying everything improves, soon things will be back to normal. But how things are still where they are now is incomprehensible.
As for the french helping with what they can, I think this is reassuring. There is still some empathy possible between people from different countries(in this case historical ties help of course). I find it also very comforting thinking about you helping someone out in his difficulties. If people loose this ability to help their neighbours, democracy will be lost.
I can only in my turn send you my best hopes and whish you as much strength as possible to contribute to relieve your city and nations present and coming difficulties.
Thank You for your kind thoughts. I
A few of the media (Anderson Cooper on CNN, the Washington Post had one story/day on New Orleans for over a year and still several/week) have not forgotten us. But as President Bush completely forgot us in his State of the Union speech, the United States has forgotten us as well.
We had a unique and valuable culture before. It is stressed today, but the best part is how we help each other (and our satire, I dearly want a "US Army Corps of Engineers condom". A condom with an 8 mm hole punched into the center :-)
My passion is to save New Orleans. I do what I can to prepare the US for post-Peak Oil and post-Global Warming (see below) but there is no passion left for that. I can see some justice in the future decline of the United States with the related suffering, depression, social decay. So I will do what I can, my hands and conscience will be clean, but I can accept the nation-wide suffering as they have accepted our suffering in New Orleans today.
As the saying goes "Been there, done that".
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Best Hopes,
Alan
A piece from Counter Punch:
Be Careful What You Wish For
The Politics of Cheap Oil
By ROBERT BRYCE
Oil prices may be falling, but hold off the cheering. Yes, cheaper oil leads to cheaper gasoline, and that's good for America. At least, that's the common wisdom, particularly among the neoconservatives. But there is plenty of downside to cheaper oil and those deleterious effects rarely get discussed.
http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce01232007.html
8 technologies that can save the world
"These futuristic projects promise to make the world greener, while making entrepreneurs some green."
Everything from a home hydrogen refueling station to the interactive, renewable smart power grid.
These are great
How about not having a car, nor a driveway!
I like the tree that sucks up toxic waste too. Does the tree then become toxic, then you burn it. Ah a convienent way to burn toxic waste!
What could be more dangerous than a hydrogen generator in an enclosed space operated by Homer Simpson
Oh, goody! I also have a Bridge in Brooklyn. Cheap! Just for you, my friends!
:-)
Just a short little primer:
Repeat after me: Biofuel is not always ethanol. The two are not mutually interchangable words. Ethanol is a form of biofuel, yes. But all Biofuel is not ethanol.
After reading column after column and article after article that begins by using the word "Biofuel" in the title and introduction, and then going off on a discussion of the failings of ethanol to declare that "biofuel" is or will be a failure, it is obvious that many people are tangling the two words and the two concepts together.
This is very analogous to the people who have long tangled together the words and the concept of "oil" and "energy". Oil is a usable form of energy, but all energy is not oil. An oil crisis and an energy crisis are two different things.
By the way, the big money players realize that there are other forms of biofuel beside ethanol, and are hedging in a big way, but the press has no interest in that of course:
http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/index.html
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom.
RC
Well the world may be only a cubic mile from freedom, but the USA is only a cubic kilometer from freedom.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom.
Hee hee.
Has anybody calculated how many cubic miles of human flesh there is in the world?
How many cubic miles of cows?
It's a great unit of measurement and should be more broadly applied.
Something very similar has been done. Stanislaw Lem, "One Human Minute"
http://www.amazon.com/One-Human-Minute-Stanislaw-Lem/dp/015668795X
Not his best book, but still worth a laugh.
theres 147 billion cubic feet in a cubic mile so if you put all 6.5 billion people in it each one would have 22.6 cubic feet of space
I think most of us here realize that ethanol is not the only form of liquid biofuel.
But at the present time ethanol is by far the predominant form of biofuel, with biodiesel being a distant second. So, far now, when we talk about liquid biofuel, we are for the most part talking about ethanol.
This will probably change in the future, as bio-butanol, various types of biodiesels, and perhaps methanol go into production.
It's hard to predict how this is all going to shake out. But I am pretty certain that objective technical-economic analsyses are not going to be the deciding factor as to which pathway wins out. For better or for worse, political considerations will decide.
I think most of us here realize that ethanol is not the only form of liquid biofuel.
But it *is* the only one you can drink!!! WH00000-HOOOOO!!! WHOOOOO-HOOOOO! GIMME THAT 'SHINE!!! WHOOOO-HOOOO!!!
One back-of the envelope calculation:
If the corn ethanol subsidy of 50c/gallons stays (and all indications are it will) and we do achieve 35bln.gals. per 2017 (from 5 bln.now), this will cost the American taxpayer $100bln. for the next 10 years.
By 2017, we'll be paying $17.5 bln. in ethanol subsidies alone. For comparison US department of education budget is ~57bln. I wonder what kind of idiot you need to be to spend 1/3 the amount of money you spend for education so that you can keep those SUVs and strip malls for a bit longer... but what do I know.
"By 2017, we'll be paying $17.5 bln. in ethanol subsidies alone. For comparison US department of education budget is ~57bln"
That's a little bit misleading. Education in America is funded at the state and local level. In total (federal, state and local) the US spent $536 billion on education during the '04-05 school year.
Sorry don't know how to do paste a photo but check out the second graph down on this link:
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#1
Many people have argued that the US gov't does not even have the constitutional right to meddle in education with that $57 billion that they do collect from people and then send back to their local school district with all sorts of strings attached. Under what part of the constitution does the federal gov't get this power- regulating interstate commerce?!
Thanks for the correction, I did not know that and I was puzzled why the figure was so low.
The point remains though and $17.5 bln. is still a lot of money that can be spent more wisely. For example the "No child left behind" program from your link has a similar budget.
Hi,
Could someone comment on this story:
Drilling blamed for Java mud leak
In particular, what part in the drilling process was not, or poorly, done, and how it created the consequences that we see.
TIA.
From what I've heard...they should have used a sleeve, that would have allowed them to seal off the hole if necessary. They didn't, so when they tried to seal it, the mud scoured out the sides of the shaft, going around all the plugs they tried to put in.
This is basically a blowout, except that the overpressured zone is water instead of oil or gas.
Most likely scenarios:
1.) Lost circulation [the well encountered massive facturing] and the driller / tool pusher did not react quickly enough: or
2.) Mud density simply too low for the pressures encountered.
The "sleeve" referenced in the article might be casing that had to be set to maintain circulation due to local conditions.
Correct?
The most incriminating thing: they were warned that they needed to use a casing for safety reasons. They ignored the warnings. Which were apparently in writing, unfortunately for them.
Lining up at the ethanol trough: a more cynical view (paywall)
Oh my, Toto, are we still in Kansas?
Oh my, Toto, are we still in Kansas?
No, but the average voter puts less brain into their choices than Toto does in finding his food bowl.
Choices? What choices? Choosing a politician is like trying to tell the sex of a newborn kitten. Turn them over and they all look alike. Hand in the trough and cutesy sound bites like 'I feel your pain' They will not do anything to help us unless they know we are paying attention, and that is the problem.
Yep, we could just listen to what they say. If phrases like "We need to counter the threat of WMD in Iraq..." or "We have to help the American farmer to compete..." are part of their repertoire, the crook is after our tax money and will start a war as soon as he is elected.
:-)
Americans love their Big Iron:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3023
Spirited discussion in the comments.
The UK has great trains, though. I always love to see the "towing" capacity of my commuter train put to test against an SUV. Technically it ends up being a pushing contest at the railway crossing and the train always wins. The SUV and its driver are always toast. Well... the SUV is toast and the driver looks like peanutbutter and jelly. Kind of disgusting, really, but they never stop trying...
:-)
You’re havin a larf, surely. Our trains are shit. We’re about 2 days away from a passenger led revolt due to shitty service and above inflation ticket price rises. I feel sorry for the poor schmucks that have to put up with our joke of a rail system.
I don’t use trains in the UK. Its cheaper, faster and more pleasant to fly internally, or cheaper and more reliable to drive. And thats despite gas being $6.05 per (US) gallon.
Andy
Most families have at least two cars outside their house. Those under aged drivers on council housing estates don't bother much with owning cars. Why own a car, when it is much easier to steal one for the evening. This saves you spending on road tax, petrol, insurance, MOT certificate. You can even have your own entertainment thrown in for the evening with cops chasing you around your local estate. If the cops don't show up, you can always burn the car, a la France, to keep warm, spread some light around and get some respec'. Or, for the more entrepreneurial types, sell the car for export to Nigeria or Russia.
Just thinking about the economic benefits of stealing a car, makes me wonder why people bother to own one. Especially as the government have now banned petty criminals from going to jail. No downside, and just think of all the people you keep employed by stealing cars (police, lawyers, courts, hospitals etc).
Given the huge traffic jams on UK streets, I would hardly say that there is a lack of car ownership. I think there is a lack of mobility due to too many cars causing severe jams everywhere.
Hello TODers,
PTB conference underway in Davos, Switzerland consider Iran attack likely:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2007/gb20070124_382982....
Sometimes, I wonder if much of this talk is just to jack up the 'fear premium' for enhanced profits for a few, and demand destruction for many.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Slightly off-topic, but where's "Oil CEO"?
There's a new website he might enjoy: https://www.parisexposed.com/
Perhaps once he gets over his little obsession, he can rejoin the peak oil debate..!
Hello TODers,
Breaking news from Avaiation Week:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/IRAN01257.xml
----------------------------------------------------
Iran has converted its most powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle. The 30-ton rocket could also be a wolf in sheep's clothing for testing longer-range missile strike technologies, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports in its Jan. 29 issue.
The Iranian space launcher has recently been assembled and "will liftoff soon" with an Iranian satellite, according to Alaoddin Boroujerdi, the chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.
The move toward an independent space launch capacity is likely to ratchet up concern in the U.S. and Europe about Iran's strategic capabilities and intents. Orbiting its own satellite would send a powerful message throughout the Muslim world about the Shiite regime in Tehran.
U.S. agencies believe the launcher to be a derivation of the 800-1,000-mi. range Shahab 3 missile. A Shahab 3 fired from central Iran could strike anywhere in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the entire Persian Gulf region and as far west as southern Turkey
-----------------------------------------------
My guess is that an American or Israeli Patriot missile will never allow this to get very far downrange, much less put a satellite in orbit. Any TODer speculation on what the Iranians will do next?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
So, the Iranians plan to put a satellite in orbit a few weeks after the Chinese just shot one of their old ones out of orbit. Connection? Maybe, maybe not.
However, I think it no coincidence that the Chinese satellite shoot-down has occurred at a time when the Bush regime plus Israel has been ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran. This may be the subtle Chinese was of signalling the US that things could get pretty ugly if the US tries to attack Iran, of whom the Chinese are becoming increasingly interested in as a source of oil.
Given that it is obvious the US and Israel are just itching for an excuse to attack Iran, your question should be: what will the US/Israel do next, rather than what Iran will do next.
I've looked into my crystal ball, and I see the vague outlines of Gulf of Tonkin II.
I think we should encourage the Chinese to go for an annexation of Iran, e.g. by sending them a diplomatic note that we would veto any UN resolution against them in case they decided to mobilize and go for the oil.
Does anyone remember what happened to religion in Tibet after the Chinese went in? I guess we could afford to give the Iranian Mullahs political asylum, couldn't we?
Such a move would have the advantage that it would also take care of Pakistan and Afghanistan along the way. Three of the worst Islamic threats and one major drup producing country eliminated in one effort! And the Saudi's would beg us to stop the Chinese before they do the next step and we would have military bases like we had in Germany in no time!
And with the Chinese taking on the role of the Soviet Union, we could put MAD back where it belongs, at the top of our "diplomatic/military" solution to world peace! We already know that the game theoretical analysis of a two-rational-superpowers world leads to peace and general economic wellfare!
What do we have to lose? Let's go for it!
:-)
/sarcasm off
Hello Joule,
Thxs for responding. The Russian put up a satellite earlier for Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinah-1
but as the link explains--Russian tech off Russian soil. This next launch is an all-Iranian affair from Iranian soil. Big difference!
You hint that China might have a hand in this. Who knows what they would do to protect the Iranian FF-flow? This brinkmanship chessgame is getting pretty damn scary to me.
I don't think we can attack this rocket on the launchpad: clear violation of Iranian sovereignity. We will be seen as the Aggressor. Not until it clears Iranian airspace, then attack while still going up in relatively slow, and easy to track boost phase with a Patriot, but I have no knowledge of what space laws, treaties, or defensive pretexts that would then apply. It would take some serious PR spin to sell this as a 'good thing' for the Middle East and elsewhere.
The other alternative is to let the Iranians launch, hope it is not a wolf in sheep's clothing, but be prepared to try and take it out if it is a wolf. Much harder to hit successfully if screaming in on the downslope trajectory. But Iran will then be revealed as the Aggressor and will have sealed its doom. Unless Russia and/or China then comes to their backup, but then we have the ugly situation of the full-on nuclear ICBM gift exchange--no winners there.
If it truly does loft a satellite up instead-- might be easier to 'blind' the device under some other PR spin pretext later on. Then the next move is up to Iran and/or Russia/China under the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement. A series of space-based satellite destruction is far better to jumpstart real negotiations than trying to calmly negotiate when some key cities are missing from the global map.
Oops, gotta go--back later.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Well, well, well...
More Ethanol Means Lower Gasoline Prices: American Petroleum Institute (of all places) http://tinyurl.com/2xz2vr
So for those of you who just couldn't seem to stop blathering daily about how ethanol was driving up the price of gasoline to dizzying new heights... I have a nice crow cooking in the oven for you.
CORRECTION
My previous post on Broin Company having the first cellulosic plant operational in the US was incorrect. SunOpta should acheive this honor later this summer.
USSEC - the company I've told you about that claims a 5/1 biodiesel conversion process (gallons/bushel) has completed their first operational reactor with a proposed inital output of 6000 gallons a day.
And as seen posted earlier here today, 'biofuel' does not mean ethanol by itself, nor should anyone in the TOD community harbor the idiotic notion that the 2017/35 billion gallon biofuel target was somehow going to be met with corn ethanol production alone.
USSEC would sound a lot more credible if I could locate a bushel of raw organic something that contains .55 million Btu’s of energy, and that’s before processing.
More Ethanol Means Lower Gasoline Prices
It's just too bad for its investors that its profit is now down to 7cents/gallon according to a WSJ article this week. (Thats with the 51 cent subsidy BTW) And you know what that linear graph looks like that plots corn prices against ethanol prices to determine its profit margin? It's getting pretty scary, isn't it? Since the Iowa caucus is coming up though, Grassley looked quite confident this week that the government will provide somehow.
This appears rather old but I only came upon it recently... Since this is at the bottom of long beat, a meaningless chuckle post might not be unwarranted...
Leanan, this might be a good one for tomorrow's Drumbeat:
Is globalisation retreating?
Walden Bello
1/26/2007
http://www.financialexpress-bd.com/index3.asp?cnd=1/26/2007§ion_id=4...
http://www.oilweek.com/news.asp?ID=7111
test
![]()
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/asia_pac_unseen_north_korea/img/5.jpg![]()