DrumBeat: March 9, 2007
Posted by Leanan on March 9, 2007 - 10:13am
Commemorating the 51st Anniversary of M. King Hubbert's Seminal Speech, the Hubbert Tribute site (www.mkinghubbert.com) has released a 1976 video clip of Hubbert speaking about world oil depletion and explaining the concept of peak oil. Several years after his startlingly accurate prediction that the U.S. would peak in 1970 and in the context of the 1970s energy crisis, Hubbert speaks about the theoretical Hubbert curve which suggested a worldwide peak of oil extraction in 1995....In the past several years, Hubbert and his predictive model have been roundly criticized by detractors such as CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates) because world oil extraction did not peak in 1995 and still has yet to peak.
Hubbert clearly articulates that the OPEC countries had already by 1976 changed their production profiles such that his world production curve would likely be shifted by about ten years. He also speculates that the growth rate at the time could also be flattened in the future which could also change the curve.
Output Falling in Oil-Rich Mexico, and Politics Gets the Blame
...Pemex is in trouble. Its production and proven reserves are falling, and it has no money to reverse the slide. Mexico is the second-largest supplier of imported oil to the United States, after Canada, but its total exports are slipping. If the company continues on its current course, Mexico may one day have trouble just keeping up with rising demand at home.
Heerema Workers Vote to Strike Over Pay Deadlock
Workers at rig builder Heerema last night voted overwhelmingly in favor of taking industrial action at the firm's North-East UK site after pay negotiations broke down.
Japan Endorses Energy Policy to Step Up Oil Diplomacy
Japan's Cabinet today approved a revised energy policy that highlights stronger ties with nations producing oil, natural gas and uranium, and the development of next-generation nuclear technology, the government said.
PdVSA, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Set Transition Team for Orinoco, Corocoro
ConocoPhillips (COP) and Chevron Corp. (CVX) have agreed to set up a transition team with Petroleos de Venezuela SA to guarantee stable supply during the transfer of two major projects in the Orinoco tar basin and the Corocoro offshore oil block, said PdVSA on its Web site Thursday.
Turning the Baltic Sea Into a Second Bosporus?
The Russian government recently declared its intention to turn the Baltic Sea into an oil-shipping corridor to Western Europe, carrying up to 150 million tons of Russian oil annually aboard tankers. This intention constitutes only the most recent threat to maritime safety and ecology in the crowded Baltic Sea and the straits leading to the North Sea. Parallel plans for a Russian gas pipeline along the Baltic seabed and for a liquefied-natural-gas (LNG) plant near Leningrad, which would involve still more traffic by tankers, add up to a gathering danger for the entire Baltic basin, affecting the North Sea as well.
Russian giant oil company Lukoil's decision not to build a $2.5 billion dollar refinery in Turkey is a very important sign of the change.
US State Dept Warns Intl Cos Face Rising Risk in Iran Deals
The U.S. State Department on Wednesday warned that international companies investing in Iran face an increasing business risk given heightened chances for harsher sanctions amid efforts to halt Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
Ontario was alerted to 'hiccup' in fuel supply, group says
The Ontario government was warned that the province was facing the spectre of a fuel shortage last year, 13 months before many gas stations temporarily shut down last week after running out of supplies.
Iran Sets Mar Deadline on Total's Gas Field Invest
French energy major Total SA (TOT) has until the end of March to decide on its investment in the upstream development of phase 11 of the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf, an Iranian Oil Ministry official said Wednesday.
Industry Testifies Before Congress In Food Vs. Fuel Debate
Testifiying before the livestock, dairy and poultry subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee Thursday, members of the poultry and livestock industries warne that consumer food prices will rise if the burden of expensive corn is not alleviated.
New House panel to study global warming
House Democrats, intent on making climate change a marquee issue, created a special panel Thursday to study and offer recommendations on how to deal with global warming.
EU leaders clinch climate change deal
European Union leaders clinched a landmark climate change accord on Friday that set a binding target for renewable energies to make up 20 percent of overall EU energy consumption by 2020.
Climate change pushes "African" diseases north
Global warming is pushing northwards diseases more commonly found in developing countries, posing a risk to the financial and physical health of rich nations, the head of a livestock herders' charity said.
"Don't discuss polar bears": memo to scientists
Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday.Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.
Biofuel push draws inventors and investors
The effort to turn plant waste into a new form of ethanol is attracting ingenuity and investors.
DOE Selects 13 Solar Energy Projects for up to $168 Million in Funding
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced the selection of 13 industry-led solar technology development projects for negotiation for up to $168 million (FY’07-’09) in funding, subject to appropriation from Congress. These projects will help significantly reduce the cost of producing and distributing solar energy.
It’s both challenging and revivifying to try to keep up with the latest developments in peak oil/climate change. As I write, the news is that Shell and BP are opting for wind turbine development. “All the stars are aligning in a way that supports alternative energy,” says Robert Lukefahr, president of BP Alternative Energy North America, as reported in the March 2 Boston Globe. “Energy security issues will cause many communities to seek indigenous supplies of energy.”
U.K.: Going "Green" - thinking beyond Peak Oil!
We are constantly being told by the Government that we, as a nation, must reduce the size of our “Carbon footprint”. The fact that we are adding, net, some 250,000 people to our population each year through immigration – whom, in aggregate, adds significantly to that footprint – and probably cancels out any reduction made by the current population - appears to have escaped this government!If the government were serious on this issue then they would halt immigration immediately.
Who's Afraid of Liquified Natural Gas?
Think about the eco-friendly posture America has widely embraced: Recycling, open space, water purification, the increasing market for hybrid cars, the ban on offshore oil drilling along the Florida and California coasts. This is truly a sea change (the oceans have benefited as well), so it's truly a cause for celebration, no? Well, to hear leading environmentalists tell it, the answer is an emphatic "no." And if they keep up the gloom and doom, it could mean real trouble for the larger issues they claim to care about most.
Snubbing Chavez and Seducing Brazil Are Two Sides of Same Bush Game
The cost of the alliance can be measured in terms of its environmental and social impact. It assumes the destruction of the Amazon and the ruin of millions of small farmers.But it is also a call to re-route North-South relations in the Americas. The second objective of Bush's tour March 8-14 relates to the need to control the spreading influence of Hugo Chávez.
Saving the World, One Plastic Bag at a Time - San Francisco Lawmaker Pushes For Plastic Bag Ban
"We all have a responsibility in dealing with what I think is going to be an unabated oil crisis, an energy crisis," Mirkarimi said, "and I think our determination to save this planet, environmentally and economically, starts here at home."
Venezuela kicks off surveys to build USD 2.5 billion refinery in Nicaragua
Venezuela has started land surveys required for construction in Nicaragua of a USD 2.5 billion 150,000 bpd refinery expected to be completed in four years, Reuters reported.
South Africa: Gas Shortage Looms As Refinery Shuts Down for Maintenance
The Western Cape is poised for another energy crisis this year after the Chevron Refinery in Milnerton announced a planned maintenance shutdown that is expected to cut short the supply of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) for more than a month.
Government can’t solve energy crisis it created
Cut through the hype and this fact stands out: We have an estimated 112 billion barrels of crude oil reserves in U.S. oil sands and in offshore deposits, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. That will power 60 million cars and heat 25 million homes over the next 60 years. Job No. 1 for achieving energy independence is removing regulatory roadblocks and encouraging the enormous investment needed to extract these domestic oil supplies.
Energy Taxes, Oil Prices and Economic Illiteracy
Wood ought to know that free markets, not taxes, conserve resources. This is really basic stuff. When the supply of any resource falls its price rises. Eventually the price could reach a level where the cost of producing an additional unit exceeds the demand. In other words, the point at which production further units of the product become uneconomic. This is why we never run out of resources in a free market. If, however, a resource is treated as a free good, as in the case of fish, then complete exhaustion is possible. This is obviously not the case with oil.
Alaskans already aware of energy issues
Rural Alaska's energy crisis has been underway for years, and domestic natural gas from here in the Great Land would be a godsend for Alaskans far removed from the energy-supply infrastructure. The recent, gradual acknowledgment of Southcentral's impending gas-supply crisis urges progress on this issue.
Kenya: Hola horror as fuel shortage grips
Hola town and its environs are facing an acute shortage of fuel having gone without fuel for the last one week.The situation has forced all Government vehicles using petrol to be grounded making and halting government services.
Surplus of gasoline blends leads to shortage of fuel, higher prices
Why don't the nation's smoggiest areas use the same gas California sells, which is the cleanest-burning fuel in the United States? The Clean Air Act of the early 1990s requires special blends of gasoline to be used in the country's urban areas. Instead of settling on one type of reformulated gas, Washington permits each area to use whatever blend it wants. There are about 18 different types, making it difficult to move gas from one region to another when supplies run tight. That is a major reason behind the 40-cent-a-gallon increase over the last month.
Weekly Offshore Rig Review: Floating Rig Fans
In the previous edition of the Weekly Offshore Rig Review, we looked at the companies that are contracting the largest competitive jackup fleets in the world. This week, we will continue our examination of leading operators by looking at the companies that are contracting the largest numbers of semisubmersibles and drillships.
New ideas from Germany's professor of wind energy
'The market is booming worldwide,' says Kuehn. 'It is expanding by 20 per cent a year.' Last year, world sales of equipment totalled more than 11 billion euros, with German makers capturing somewhat more than one third of that.
Arguments stack up for steady Opec oil output
"There is little fundamental argument for a cut now. Oil prices are on a rising trajectory and market balances are tightening," said Paul Horsnell, an analyst at Barclays Capital."If anything, Opec should be starting to think about increasing production later in the year."
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.
Going "Green" - thinking beyond Peak Oil!
Just so people outside the UK know, the BNP is the local racist, far right thug party - dressing up their ideas in any pretty dress to camouflage the basic idiotlogy.
They are less interested in green than they are in brown, black and yellow.
If you can't attack the message, discredit the messenger. In the US, nearly all population growth comes from immigrants and children of immigrants. We can reach out and welcome those who are legal immigrants, but not wish to have more. It is not inconsistent.
The British National Party is a right wing, white supremacist party. Rather than seeing Immigration as an obstacle to a "green" Britian, they see the "green" rationale as a means of achieving the marginalization of non-white immigrants.
Wikipedia:
According to its constitution, the BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples", and is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948". To achieve this aim, the BNP advocates the use of "firm but voluntary incentives" to remove ethnic minorities from the UK.[3] Membership of the party is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians." [2]
Klee: Scary. Sounds like Japan (or China).
Inside the BNP: papers and tapes reveal election strategy
Exactly Stoneleigh - economic, environmental or energy crises are situations provide and "opportunity" to be exploited to achieve the party's racist and nationalistic goals.
Dangerous and smart.
They've had a peak oil section on their website for years. How many other political parties anywhere in the world have that?
They know there's a huge crisis coming, and all they have to do is wait.
The opportunists will be out in force and the unthinking will want someone to blame. Such a temptation to make a resource grab in the dream of not having to give up our non-negotiable way of life. Think how easy it will be to demonize those of us who want to fix the mess to those who do not want to do the hard work.
exactly.
people will always want the easy way out, power will always flow to those who seem to provide that 'easy way' even if it is a racist party.
though on the subject on xenophobia and racism, in a purely academic sense. did not these now negative quality's serve a positive purpose back in the days of hunter gatherer tribes?
i am looking at this a purely natural point of view, ie nature has no concept of morals or right and wrong. only traits that let organisms survive and traits that don't. i don't buy the common view that these things are abnormal quality's, even evil. no this doesn't mean i am a racist, though i am sure a few of you will think that now. my view is that these behavior traits, more or less kept the population disperse enough that they do not over-tax the environment around them leading to everyone's or close to everyone's death. this is not to say this trait was not overcome when say one tribe needed fresh blood to prevent from in-breeding. i also do not view these traits as very strong. if they were civilization would not of formed.
In other words, Kill the Poor, Kill the Disabled, Kill the Weak, Kill anyone not like us. Survival of the chosen few is all that matters. I believe Germany had a philosophy like this back in the 1930's and '40's. It was called Eugenics.(actually the Eugenics movement was worldwide in the early 20th century.)
A lot of their play book they got from the US.
For example, in the 1930's a Respectable, Rightous, Upstanding, Man of the Community, yada yada P
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay7text.html
Goto this 4 page article and read the first couple paragraghs. Couldn't copy paste it. It's a Small 4 page PDF.
http://www.weyanoke.org/pdf/plecker2.pdf
He writes "I sometime regret that we do not have the authority to put some these measures in practice in Virginia". That was in a letter to the German official that wrote the German Eugenics laws. He was appaulding the german's sterlizing 600 children(and why) in Algeria.
A good backgroud read.
Sorry for going out on a tangent. But this was only a while ago. 1-2 generations. The feelings have not had er... 'Closure' yet.
Financial collapse will bring these feelings to the for front in Peak Oil times I fear.
I hope I am wrong and my fellow man will 'Help" each other
John
Notice that the article "Government can't solve energy crisis it created" is counting on the oil sands to save us...as long as the government gets out of the way.
Yikes!!!
Rick
What I find interesting is this:
Why choose such an arbitrary number as 60 million cars and 25 million homes to come up with 60 years? A better number would be the roughly 21 million barrels per day the US actually uses, which would cut that "60 years" figure down to 15 years. But of course, all of us here know that it's not about reserves, but production and EROEI shouldn't be counted out either. Those last drops are probably useless on a net energy basis.
Just think about how many homes it will heat in South Florida. Seriously, though, in 25 years, heating our homes probably won't be much of a problem even without oil. It's cooling that is the problem.
The, "if only we could get the government to unleash us" crowd always conveniently ignores the global warming consequences of a world dependent upon oil sands, oil tar, and the like. It's still fossl fuels, stupid, and it will take a lot more energy and emissions per final delivered gallon to fuel all those cars and homes.
I live in Michigan. How many degrees warmer do you think it will be in 25 years? Keep in mind that we commonly go down to zero at night.
Rick
http://www.energybulletin.net/13136.html
That article does not even have the word "degrees" in it. It doesn't answer my question of how many degrees warmer will it be in 25 years?
I understand it will certainly be less than 5.
Rick
well i believe 2-3 degrees average warming is the 'we might have some problems' (sea level rises displacing hundreds of millions) threashold and 6-8 degrees is the 'run for the hills' temperature (at which most of the ecosystems of the world breakdown unless the change happens _very_ slowly)
so if it is warm enough to not worry about the cold at Michigan, i think there may be other problems that need worrying about.
The other thing to note is that global warming is an average but the extremes get more extreme - ie, you could end up with the occasional night at -10.
Perhaps the 60 year figure was chosen because they know this reserve can't be extracted any faster.
Or maybe, it's a way of deflecting the problem onto "someone else". For thirty-somethings (who are probably the target audience), "60 years" means not only will they be well into retirement (or dead), but also their children will be retired.
In other words, "business as usual for us, and our kids"
the statement is completely contradictory "crude oil RESERVES ......offshore DEPOSITS"
It is not white racists who bomb trains in Great Britain. The average young muslim thinks the country should be on sharia law. If there is a very severe oil shortage, who do you think most of the rioters will be? In the US, websites that tell the truth about crime and immigration are labelled hate sites by the SPLC
Bad news sf, they are the ones with the oil.
How well do you think you're attitude will go down when push comes to shove?
Of course Islam needs to grow up and move beyond the dogma of the book; but do you think trying to demonise people for religious stupidity is going to win friends and influence people? Sharia law is unacceptable to those that know better, but first you do HAVE to know better. That takes understanding and engagement.
Come to that, how many muslim friends do you have?
PS not long ago is WAS white religious types who did bomb in the UK. Maybe as a result we look less at the colour and more at the common factor.
Exactly. I remember being evacuated from a university building in London for an IRA bomb scare, and I remember the regular train station bomb threats as well. There was a time in England where it seemed one was 'innocent until proven Irish' because of IRA activity.
The grievances that muslim governments have with the west concern Israel, US troops in Saudi Arabia and US interference with the affairs of various middle eastern nations. Immigration policy is a very minor concern. Don't blame people like me. I recognize that there are intractable cultural and even genetic differences between us. I would not have tried to impose our US values and form of government on Iraq.
Of course white supremacists riot. It is called "soccer game".
Seriously, far right nationalists have bombed, killed and terrorized Europe and the US (¿The Reichstag? ¿Tim McVeigh?) for a long time. And far left nationalists. And far left internationalists. And... Well, you get the idea. Violence is not the monopoly of anyone.
sf, since Muslims are a small minority in UK, they will never be a majority in the parliament. If they riot, it will be dealt with like any other law and order problem. The BNP on the other hand aspires to rule UK and expel non-whites from the country. And they might come to power if there is an economic crisis.
So naturally, they are a bigger concern.
sf:
White racists have done a lot worse than bomb trains in America. They created a terrorist police state that existed in one form or another for nearly 300 years before protests and confrontation began to close it down. The KKK also functioned in America as an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-poor death squad. The anti-racist terrorism of Nat Turner and John Brown was better by far than a white-run caste system that endures generation after generation, only having to murder a few victims here and there per annum because skin color makes for such a pervasive system of control. Don't make our mistake - we're still paying for it.
I would say you are dead on S390. I fear that is what we will slide back into in a few years.
Pickups with EasyRider Rifle Racks will once more be the enforcers. With GOD on their side of course.
The Race issues are papered over in times of plenty.
In times of scarcity, It will come back with a vengence.
Don't have work, don't have money, don't have fuel?
IT's NOT your fault, it's xxxxxxx's fault.
Get the Chains bob...
Leanan, thank you for posting the link to the Hubbert video. I look forward to watching it when I have the time.
A hundred or two hundred years from now, people will read about Hubbert and recognize his genius. CERA, Lynch, and others prefer to niggle over the exact shape of a resource depletion curve but Hubbert possessed the smarts to see "the big picture" and to posit that the ultimate fate of industrial society was to devour itself. I am reminded of Albert Einstein's famous quotation "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
Long Live "the King!"
Peak: It is amusing to see garbage like CERA nitpick over the minor discrepancies in Hubbert's predictions. The guy made basically accurrate predictions 50 years out- who else has been able to do that? By any standard, Hubbert was an intellectual giant.
The video is a treasure. I'm having my students watch it.
What a surprise to see Hubbert himself saying that the peak could be pushed out about ten years beyond his forecast of 1995, because of the oil embargos of the 70s.
Precious material.
Michael Downing, author of Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time, was on CNN this morning. He argues that DST is not and has never been about energy conservation. It does not save any energy, studies have repeatedly shown. It may do the opposite.
So why do it, with all the disruption it causes? To encourage consumption. Like factory farmers who leave the lights on 24/7 to encourage their chickens to eat more, retailers want people to consume more. You're more likely to stop and shop if it's daylight when you get out of work.
According to Downing, two of the lobbies that most strongly pushed DST are the candy industry and the golf industry. Candy makers say they sell millions of dollars more candy because of DST, because kids will be on the streets longer on Halloween. The golf industry sells $400 million more in golf clubs, tees, greens fees, etc., due to DST.
And now they're moving DST up even earlier, which is not only causing problems with computers and other electronics, it's going to be a headache because we'll be out of synch with the rest of the world for a few weeks.
All to sell more candy and golf clubs...
This weekend, I'll have to get up at the equivalent of 6:00 to get the cows and pigs fed "on schedule" at 7.
I can't tell you how much I hate this being jerked around every year.
I realize that the switch may inconvenience some, but I am really looking forward to it staying light till after 7:00. Time to pull the BBQ out of the basement!!
Garth
My BBQ stays on the porch year 'round. I love cooking out while watching the snow flutter down.
No Crap! I get a kick out of the stares in my neighborhood when they see me Grillin. Cuz Q'n and grillin are 2 different things. I dont have hours to waste, but I'll happily pay someone for their hours of time....
http://thefinancedude.blogspot.com
I may have missed the point somewhere on that one.....the cows and chickens I grew up around didn't know whether it was daylight savings time or not....you got some of them modern, smart, farm animals? :-)
(Of course, my granddad was no smarter than the cows and chickens I guess, he ignored DST and fed when he was ready....sun time.
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Good point. Just that consistency is good, especially when milking, and the longer they stay in the barn, the more the work "piles" up, if you know what I mean.
Animals get so accustomed to schedule that if you go out there an hour late they're ready to break off their leads.
I guess what I'm really saying is, the farmer hates it!
If you normally feed your cows and pigs at 7, then tomorrow you will have to feed them at 8 to keep them on their regular schedule. The clock change doesn't matter to an animal's stomach! And we set our clocks forward an hour, so what used to be 7 is now 8 on the clock.
I won't completely dismiss the consumerism conspiracy behind DST, but prior to the change for this year, DST always ended on the last Sunday in October, which was usually before Halloween
Strangely enough, after reading this thread, there was a segment on the local news featuring a local golf course and they were excited by the coming time change because it always brings out more customers.
In response to this question on another board:
"Could you please give me an outline of the extra non-opec supply coming online. Also is this going to be large enough to more than offset the falls from the North Sea and Mexico?"
I got the following answer from a trader
No problem - both OPEC and the IEA are going for 1.2m b/d NON OPEC supply growth in 2007 [was a lot higher but the large increase coming from Angola has now been shifted into the OPEC supply addition (which was 1.2m b/d for 2007 and is now I think over 1.5m b/d including Angola) - note though that Angola appear to have joined OPEC under the provision that they can expand capacity as planned until something like 2010, so they currently look like they won't be subject to OPEC supply cuts or quotas for years]
You can look at both forecasts on either
http://omrpublic.iea.org/currentissues/full.pdf
or
http://www.opec.org/home/Monthly%20Oil%20Market%20Reports/2007/mr022007.htm
If I use the OPEC data (there's some variation but the drifts the same and OPEC have an easy to use table on page 48)
Russia +320k
Azerbaijan +280k
USA +190k
Sudan +160k
Brazil +150k
Canada + 130k
Kazakhstan +100k
In terms of the areas you mention declining
Mexico -6k
Norway -7k
UK - 4k
All of this data is net of depletion.
Personally I think it's pretty conservative - mainly because Biofuel production appears to be running up to 500k b/d higher than the levels that their using for their forecasts [they're both desperate to be as conservative as possible on this area as of course it's all pretty new]
Any comments?
I can't comment on the numbers - right or wrong...but if they are correct, they certainly do not reflect net export numbers. Russia being the elephant in the room on that point (as may be others).
I have to say that Westtexas' points on Net Exports are extremely important, for me at least. Until Peak Oil crosses over in general awareness internal consumption in exporting countries will not be reduced, which moves the crunch up a notch.
My point is that traders should watch export/import numbers closer as they predict problems better than overall production increases.
=================
It's all about population!
The decline rates for Norway, Mexico and the UK, only a few thousands of barrels per day, are fiction.
More likely a misprint/misinterpretation by a factor of 100. They should be: Mexico -600k
Norway -700k
UK - 400k
That's the only thing that makes sense.
Last year, year over year, average for the entire year, C+C:
Mexico - 78k
Norway - 207k
UK ... - 160k
Last year the US was still revovering from Katrina. Nevertheless they were still down, 2006 verses 2005 an average of 35k barrels per day. The US was fully recovered from Katrina only in December of 06. December production, C+C, was 5,360,000 barrels per day, the highest since before Katrina. However January U.S. production was down about 75k barrels per day. I expect U.S. production to average somewhere around 5,250,000 barrels per day in 2007. That will be up just over 100k barrels per day over 2006 but only because 2006 production was still being affected by repairs in the Gulf.
In 2006 verses 2005:
Russia + 202k
Brazil + 89k
Canada + 156k
And the other big gainers:
Angola + 162k
Other .+ 254k
Other includes Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Sudan. So the figures above are greatly inflated for the gainers and deflated for the losers.
Expect Russia and Kazakhstan to be slightly up to flat this year. I am unsure about the other big gainers last year. Most other nations will either be flat of in decline, some of the declines will be pretty steep. I expect 2007 production, C+C, to be lower than 2006 production.
We are currently at peak!
Ron Patterson
you might like to check out my post of a few days ago which is a simple estimate for this year balancing depletion vs new projects on a country-by-country basis:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2340
cheers
phil.
Question for the gasoline experts: the weekly US inventories have a lot of influence on the market price. Here in southern Ontario (population approx 8 million) there is a lingering gasoline shortage so I would assume inventories are extremely low. Having said this, the extremely low gasoline inventories in the 4th or 5th largest metro area in NA seem to be considered unimportant to the price of gasoline. Reason?
Because the local gas companies have colluded to keep prices low ( source ). The run up from 0.89 to 1.02 per liter is based upon the same fundamentals that have driven gas prices up everywhere, and not specifically related to the shortage (in theory).
As prices are forced artifically low, there's no reason to spend additional money to bring in gas from further outside the region.
I have a request.
Do any TODdlers know anyone in Ottawa who works in the oil industry who might be willing to talk to a CBC TV reporter for a story he's doing on Peak Oil? They could be either pro, anti or "other" from what I understand; the producer mainly wants to see someone with an industry background to give the story some more credibility.
The story is planned to air next week on the local news and will feature a footage of local PO activist in an interview and giving a presentation on the topic.
Any leads would be greatly appreciated. You post here or can email me at the address in my profile.
In honor of the occasion "Happy Birthday Peak Oil", I present the 2nd annual:
Top Ten Great Things About Peak Oil
#10) The Chinese riding bicycles is kind of quaint and romantic.
#9) No one will have to explain "disinflationary" to anyone anymore.
#8) Any car, not just “sports cars”, with a full tank of gas will be a “babe” magnet.
#7) An entire generation of politicians and talking heads will be silenced.
#6) Everybody and his uncle won’t be a hedge fund manager anymore.
#5) “BANANA” will be refer to the fruit once again.
#4) We’ll get to chuckle when yuppies lie about being “homebodies” at heart.
#3) In a weird twist, vinyl sided homes will get a price premium for “uniqueness”.
#2) Britney Spears will not be able to tour.
#1) Restaurants will have “decore” again rather than walls covered with plasma tvs.
(The first top ten was in this drumbeat)
10) quaint and romantic it may be but they now view it as a right as much as well do. this will mean a big fight.
9)no argument more or less.
8)before it gets taken by the government.
7)nope, the current ones will go away but the new ones will be worse each screaming at each other why they have a working plan to save everyone.
6)true.
5)this is not new and won't go away, get real.
4)i have no idea what your talking about.
3)if they are not striped to be sold for a premium to a thermo-polymerization plant first, copper striped and sold. etc.
2)yea but with her money she will be better able to prepare and still be part of the elite. she will also still be able to afford power and the government might look the other way as she uses gas in ways that would get you in trouble. while you freeze in the dark.
1)true, not that you will be able to enjoy it. now either go back and clean the latrines again or your fired :P
My favorite line from the NYT article on falling production in Mexico:
"But Pemex is in trouble. Its production and proven reserves are falling, and it has no money to reverse the slide."
All it takes is money, and the oil will magically appear.
I noticed the same thing, but it is an example of why I think that Peter Huber represents the conventional wisdom view, i.e., some sources of energy will peak and decline, but our aggregate consumption of energy will always increase.
Have you noticed how economic problems are creeping up the food chain?
Last year it was mostly in poor regions like Africa.
But we now see lots of stories about poorer and overextended Americans being unable to make their mortgage payments.
Lots of people disagree with me, but IMO the trigger for the mortgage meltdown was an average two-thirds increase in oil prices after 5/05, which is when the US Personal Saving Rate (whatever its shortcomings as a measuring tool) went negative.
Forced conservation continues to work its way up the food chain.
Their was a huge credit boom. ANYONE could get a mortgage. Bad credit, no credit, no income verification, interest only, negative amortization... There was an option for everyone. And the very few who couldn't qualify for anything were pushed through with fraudulent information.
These people couldn't afford the mortgages irregardless of the cost of energy.
Don't get me wrong, increased energy costs are squeezing people, but I don't think they can be blamed for the skyrocketing default rates.
WT & 3G
Good points but there is more to this.
Money supply and oil supply in an advanced Western economy are so inextriacbly linked its scary. The lending craze had its roots in the late 90's as the price of oil was in a downward direction and the US and others began to import low inflation (ie more cheap stuff from China) the policymakers saw this as good and began lossening interest rates inflation was beaten. People felt rich and secure and the need to borrow began in earnest. The decreased interst rates also allowed new borrowers to enter the market and buy into housing. Infact if interest rates ie price of money is so low people feel more likely to borrow more. In most cases it leads to irrational lending especially by non bank lenders.
Unfortunately as oil price has taken off Fed has needed to raise rates. Remember the were progressively hiking rates for some time. This means borrowers pay twice. Once at the gas station and the other on the mortgage.
Professor Hamilton at Econbrowser had some interesting things to say on the sub prime. If you have not read it its worth a read.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/03/financial_crise.html
That's when the economy starts to feel the pain. It begins slowing down everything.
One other thing we in the PO movment need to say to policy makers and elected officials is shifting folks from cars into mass transit protects the economy from oil price volatility. Rail cars made in country of use creates local jobs and run on local energy. It also means folks have more to spend in town as they have not already spent their money at the gas station.
Mass transit actually helps local economies as does walking and cycling. Cars actually help shift wealth out of communities. Improved Mass transit also helps strenghten the value of communities and value of land.
I didn't say high energy prices caused the mortgage problem; I said that they triggered the meltdown.
Hi westexas... I actually think both sides are right. The lending boom was unsustainable and so was always going to blow up at some point. However, I too believe oil prices have triggered and worsened the problem. I clearly remember the last 2-3 rate rises by the FED were designed to establish the inflation fighting credibility of the FED (particularly under new boss Bernanke). IMO opinion this was only needed because oil prices had pressured inflation higher. Therefore I think it is clear that, had oil prices still been at 25 USD the inflation and interest rates would be lower and there would be much less pressure on the housing market.
But, as I said, she was always going to blow up at some point.
ggg71, good call, exactly right.....mortgage companies were being operated like cheap pawn shops, and now, the meltdown, as surely as night follows day....it's the best thing that could happen to the U.S. to put the shyster lenders out of business (which in the old days, the FTC and the FBI would have done), and bring housing prices back down to a level that has relation to reality....does anybody really believe it shoud take a quarter million dollars to build one of these shoddy "starter homes", and then foist it off on the first unsuspecting, zero finacially educacted young couple that comes along?
Give me a break, the faster the mortgage industry collapses, the better for America.....
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
....it's the best thing that could happen to the U.S. to put the shyster lenders out of business (which in the old days, the FTC and the FBI would have done), a
True, but the real shysters behind it only made more money.
Sure, Fremont, New Century, et al will go under,
BUT Goldman/JPMorgan/Fed have no guilt on their hands. THEY caused it. Greenspan instead of being lynched is making $$$ on speaking tours.
BOE, Goldmansachs, JPMorgan, the Rothchilds, etc OWN THE FED.
Quite Literally. (Ironically Paulson WAS Bernke's boss)
Banksters, Central Banksters...
Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island"
Thru this life you'll ramble, you'll meet some funny men.
Some will rob you with a sixgun, and some with a fountain pen.
Thru this life you'll ramble, thru this life you'll roam.
But you'll never see an outlaw take a family from their home.
Woody Guthrie - Pretty Boy Floyd.
The Guilty will never be known in public.
For what it's worth, in the news today were stories that American's net worth grew 2.5% in the fourth quarter of 2006 and 7.4% for all of 2006. Debt increased, but stock gains apparently increased more than enough to offset it.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4613978.html
This would lead you to believe Americans' personal financial situation isn't as dire as we previously thought. Though it doesn't give any per capita numbers, so part of the increase in net worth could be due to an increase in population I suppose.
And also, that was with the stock market doing great. If it had been an average year for the stock market, I doubt things would have been so rosy. Still, it doesn't look like the average American was worse off in 2006 as we had assumed.
Does it occur to these folks that 'stock gains' are purely paper wealth and, as such, are subject to vanishing in an instant.
Sort of like the real estate market.
What wealth is not subject to vanishing in an instant?
Personal businesses can go bankrupt. Real Estate and Stocks can tank. Gold had a 15+ year bear market. Jobs can be lost. Estate taxes are high. Even energy has bust cycles. And I haven't even mentioned inflation.
Isn't that one of the fundamental reasons why more money doesn't make you happier? The more you have, the more you worry about losing it?
Garth
Well, I own a house with no mortgage and I would be very surprised and appalled if it simply disappeared one day. That's why it is called 'real' estate. It is ironic, actually, that the so called 'real-estate boom' has been largely built on making 'real-estate' much less real, that is, more dependent on the whims of market fluctuations and personal gambling foibles.
I also have some land with 30 year old grape vines. Just bottled a couple of cases of merlot tonight. I anticipate the wine disappearing, but at a leisurely pace starting in a couple of years :-)
well your house with a paid up mortgage is wealth not subject to collapse for one, although you probably shouldnt measure the "wealth" contained in your house in paper $$$,$$$
personally i think a lot of people have their head up their asses in thinking of their house as $ wealth
""And also, that was with the stock market doing great. If it had been an average year for the stock market, I doubt things would have been so rosy. Still, it doesn't look like the average American was worse off in 2006 as we had assumed.""
This is not true, but only because the average American does NOT own stocks.
The rich have been getting richer, and the rest of us are subsidizing this accellerating process!
The kitchen is a laboratory where you can eat the esperiments.
Breath-taking, isn't it?
If you'd like TOTAL ASHPYXIATION, read the link above,
"Energy Taxes, Oil Prices and Economic Illiteracy"
My experience is, if you call them on the DENSENESS of their arguments, they say you're "economically illiterate." Hence, the title.
If you disagree, you don't understand.
But I understand creationism, and I disagree with it heartily. Such economics "theory" is creationism, through and through.
Did you get the implication that you can run out of fish but you can't run out of oil?
Most economists think this. It was even put to the Australian Senate's enquiry into peak oil by a Senior government economist
DR BRIAN FISHER, EXEC. DIRECTOR ABARE: "If the price of eggs is high enough, even the roosters will start to lay. Okay. So, on the supply side, clearly high oil prices encourages lots of activity in the exploration sector and drives new technology. We would also have an enormous incentive to introduce non-conventional oil and other sources of liquid fuels. "
This disregards all reality and the Senators were quite scathing of ABARE as a result.
Yes, I remember seeing the video of that. When the guy made the comment about roosters laying eggs, I burst out laughing!
I have quite a clear memory of that. It's a vivid illustration of the delusional "economist-fundamentalist" mindset.
It is this type of cynical reply that makes a mockery of intelligent debate.
Just because the price of eggs gasn't yet risen high enough to make roosters lay, does not mean there isn't such a price point that roosters willencourage roosters to lay - or at least squeeze hard!
Besides, it's called Rock Oil - so, at the appropriate price, rocks will produce oil.
Argument unfortunately breaks down with cows, however.
Don't try to milk a bull when the price of milk rises.
I think it is true, in any event, that higher prices will help new technology. This is, traditionally, what OPEC has been afraid of and is still an issue. This doesn't mean, however, that higher prices will fix peak oil, but it could mean that it would hasten the introduction of innovation with respect to other forms of energy, including solar and wind. I think it is less clear with respect to biofuels since they may rise in lockstep with higher fossil fuel prices.
If higher prices meant nothing, we might as well be in a position of forgetting carbon taxes, gasoline taxes, cap and trade, or rationing. Does this mean everything will turn out hunky dory? No. But we should not just dismiss the entire concept as disregarding all reality.
Another issue is that just because we are pursuing new technology doesn't mean we are utilizing our resources in the most economic or prudent manner. Oil companies spend billions pursuing new technology related to exploration, discovery, drilling, and production. But that is what they do. As the saying goes, if you're having trouble driving the nail, get a bigger hammer. What if they had put all those billions over the years into solar or wind? We might possibly already be well on the road to a future without fossil fuels.
I'd summarize the above point by saying the market isn't already right and doesn't ensure the most efficient and productive allocation of resources.
And I haven't even mentioned conservation and efficient use of our energy resources.
Agree to much of what you say.
The point that Dr Fisher made was we did not have to worry about PO as Coal to liquids would come onstream and in the medium term ie next 5 years prices would fall to $45 due to new liquid oil from coal.
This diregards things such as investment risk, technology take up, timeframes etc.
Prices work best when they increase in a way that a gradual and prolonged. When price volatility is abound it gives mixed messages to investors and consumers.
I think the free market will work well as long as it is a "pure" game, with no external factors impinging on it. Unfortunately, there are usually external factors. The article cited states that "scarcity reflected in higher prices eventually reverses itself by expanding supply." The reason this is not going to be true is that geology is going to be a constraining external factor. As someone said elsewhere, "This is an argument between the economists and the geologists, and eventually the geologists are going to win."
Now to the topic about understanding arguments. If person A doesn't agree with the arguments of person B, it is quite common for person B to say that person A doesn't understand his arguments. Occasionally that may be true, but more often person A understands person B very well, yet still doesn't agree. I think this is usually the case with disagreements on TOD topics.
Finally, for some strange reason it seems obligatory for people on this forum to slam creationists several times a day, no matter how far off topic it may be. I am a Christian and a creationist, but I don't think it would be right to respond in kind. I do think some readers might like to know that there is a diversity of viewpoints in this area on TOD.
I think it's a good comparison.
Creationism has no science behind it. It's based on a series of documents of unknown origin that have been passed down through the centuries by anonymous scribes.
The familiar 7-day "Priestly" version of creation (Gen 1-2:4a) was written a couple of centuries after the "Yahwist" version that begins Gen 2:4b: "in the day that YHWH created earth and skies..." The two versions do not agree: for example, the priestly writer says the "fowls" were created out of "water," whereas the Yahwist says the fowls came out of the earth.
They're interesting stories with interesting histories, and I do not fault the ancient writers for preserving them or believing them. They worked with the evidence they had and did what comes naturally to humans: in the absence of proof for the way things are, they tell stories that account for it.
For a modern person with access to several hundred years of scientific investigation to regard "creationism" as a valid scientific theory is just a sign of appalling ignorance.
Why do people attach their innate, evolution-given capacity for belief in a higher power to ancient folk tales?
Perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage in believing in creationism. I noticed in the past that creationists on TV often talked about how the teaching of evolution in schools was making our kids into immoral monsters. That actually seemed to be their main concern, not what really happened in The Beginning. Translated: in order to keep our kids under control, we must brainwash them with myths of a hierarchy of absolute power: God>priest/ruler>father>mother>children>slave races. Evolution erodes the myth. The myth helped make the kinds of monotheist fanatics who have overrun most of the planet in the last 1700 years and turned it into one big pyramidal hierarchy of injustice and greed. Evolution does not preclude the extermination of competing ideas as a strategy - in the short term.
When you identify yourself as a creationist, what does that mean to you? Do you believe that some number of human beings were directly created rather than born of two parents? If so,
when did this happen?
Yes, two human beings were created rather than born, with this happening less than 10,000 years ago.
NasaGuy,
I understand your argument, very well,
But...
Are you serious? If the earth is only 4000 years old, why didn't God put more oil down there? Or what's His big plan as we run low? Is it abiotic? I guess everything's abiotic in some sense if a sky god can just wave His big white hand and create as He wishes.
Really, why does God let people starve and suffer? What's He doing about AIDS and Africa? Why is our President sending well-intentioned kids off to slaughter, based on proven lies? Why work for NASA (do you?) if heaven is here on earth? Why allow God's creation to be destroyed in the name of oil and gas and coal development? Why aren't we all agrarian monks?
Please explain.
To address just a few of the questions - yes, I am serious. The world has to be older than 4000 years old, because written records are older than that. Still, I would date it less than 10,000 years old. I do not believe oil is abiotic. Creationists generally believe oil is biological origin.
The questions in your last paragraph go to the issue of why God allows evil and suffering in the world. The subject is much too serious to treat lightly with a pat answer The short answer is that this is a result of human free will and the choice to do wrong. I realize that will be an inadequate answer for many.
I do work for a NASA contractor.
You say, "Creationists generally believe oil is biological origin."
How can this be, when geological theory -- and remember, it's the geologists upon whom we're dependent for finding oil -- requires tens, hundreds of millions of years for the formation of oil?
When your belief doesn't comport with the evidence, why not do what Christians have done historical -- adjust the belief? In other words, evolve or go extinct.
Do you also believe, like Jesus and his followers, that epilepsy, vaginal bleeds, deafness, etc. are caused by possession by demons?
One chooses to define and to believe in the god of one's choice: Why tie your concept of god so directly to ancient writings of unknown origin? Why not let science in?
by the way: a wonderful resource for those who straddle the fence between fundamentalism and science is Glenn Morton
For me, the most interesting part was buried in the article:
So, past experience contradicts the main premise of the article.
Energy income appears to be getting very close to energy expense - or perhaps even the marginal cost of extraction has even past the marginal increase in production for PEMEX.
If so, then it makes sense for Mexico to seek energy partners - so they can absorb possible economic losses while Mexico still holds some nominal title to the actual energy produced.
Uh-oh, CERA agrees with westexas, this must be a sign of the coming apocalypse.
In Nov. CSIS put on a small meeting in Calgary re: Energy Cooperation in the Western Hemisphere.
More money, more drilling and more access are apparently all that's required to offset Pemex's woes.
Yup... problem solved.
"All it takes is money, and the oil will magically appear."
I see this economic fallacy a lot: that the mere act of dividing a number of dollars by a given price of a commodity instantly creates the supply of that commodity. That and the supply/demand curves can be drawn as straight lines out to infinity.
Typical of any "third world" economy -- and I think that may be how we define third world -- domestic consumption will be sacrificed to the conversion of a resource to cash for the elites.
So we have tobacco, sugar, indigo, copra, coca, cacao, corn -- you name it -- being farmed as a cash monoculture to the destruction of indigenous subsistence economies, and copper, coal, gold -- and oil, now that it is, or is perceived to be scarce -- and other mineral resources extracted for the benefit of the global elites to the destruction of any local economy.
It will be interesting to see if Chavez does any better than his predecessors in restoring balance. Odds are, even if he is personally incorruptible, that his followers are merely the new elite.
A question has been floating around my feeble mind the last few weeks. It involves the economics of enhanced geothermal power vs nukes. It was stated in the geothermal article that drilling a 20,000 ft well almost anywhere in the US would provide an adequate temperature for generating electricity and cost $20 million. In much of the western US the wells could be much shallower and therefore less expensive. Guessing that a new one GW nuke power plant would cost $2 billion then for that price 100 wells could be drilled. Either choice assumes these plants will provide base load or compensating power for wind and solar sources. Each choice has its advantages and disadvantages. Which choice would you make and why?
I'm not sure which article you are referring to. How much electricity can you generate from that $20 million well?
A recent MIT study was discussed a number of weeks ago on TOD. Before reading that, I was not optimistic about geothermal because the energy flux towards the earth's surface is so low (59 mW/m^2). However, it's better to think of it as "heat mining" in that one is extracting the heat stored up over long periods of time in a large volume of rock rather than taking the miniscule energy coming your way. It does get depleted.
I do believe we should be doing this on a large scale. BTW, the latest request for the Iraq war fiasco ($100B) would buy 5,000 wells.
Another silver bullet that turns out to be made
of lead after all. Almost literally in fact. One site in the Australian outback will prioduce steam with
radon gas. Greenies seem to have lost enthusiasm for geothermal since the nuclear connection has been revealed. Since it is heat mining perhaps it can't really be described as renewable. They say geothermal is available 24/7 but I don't know how well the cooling towers will work in desert heatwaves.
A closed-cycle system wouldn't have the radon problem, although the energy return might not be as favorable.
As far as the desert heat, it depends on the source temperature as to how much less power you would get. If it's a problem, perhaps the thing to do would be to run it at night in conjunction with a solar (thermal) installation to balance the load (since you're mining the heat anyway).
Which choice would you make and why?
The most important choice about geothermal energy seems to be: what do you use it for?
It is competitive for home heating in many areas.
It is not (yet) competitive for power generation in many areas.
Larderello/Italy is a place where geothermal power has been used for power generation for almost 100 years now.
from the DrumBeat
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11127
I would agree that if LNG has any place in the current mix and mess, that it should be employed where it is most needed. The folks in Malibu most likely have giant houses that need a lot of heating and cooling, and giant cars that burn prodigious amounts of hydrocarbons. One thing we are NOT interested in up here in provincial Oregon is becoming the energy farm for hyper-consumers in California.
The whole LNG terminal debacle seems to me to be based on an if-you-build-it-they-will-come philosophy.
Where in the world are these LNG tanker supposed to come from, and why would they sail to California rather than China or Japan.
So, in round numbers this is about 8 million vehicles per year.
Let's assume 10,000 miles per year at 25 miles per gallon of petroleum. In round numbers, each vehicle would use about 10 barrels of petroleum per year.
In round numbers, 8 million vehicles would consume on the order of one Gb of petroleum in the next 12 years. This is just the incremental increase in vehicles in China in one year.
Deffeyes puts remaining conventional crude + condensate at 975 Gb.
And that's all without bringing exponential increase into the equation, or similar developments in India for that matter.
Kind of brings home the notion that we're not about to go softly.
Hello Oil Drum
I am a longtime lurker of the TOD forums (since 9/05), but this is my first post. For the past few years, I have been following the progression of peak oil theory, environmental problems, and the logical problems inherent in our economic systems. As a 23 year old, I frequently think about the possibility of dire circumstances in the near and distant future, as I have to live through them. I may just be naive, but the more I analyze the state of the world it seems like there are a multitude of coalescing concerns coming together like a tidal wave. The platitudes presented by the mainstream media, the continuous nostrums of the 24-hour news cycle do not show any promise of a future less bleak than the one I have inherited, as none of the solutions posed there lack any depth or fresh ideas.
From my point of view, there is one very simple cause to most of the problems that we face. There is a simple argument to describe it: on a planet with finite resources, how can an economic system predicated on eternal growth last forever? To make an analogy, the way we live is just the same strategy as cancer. Cancer does not care what tissues it must overtake in order to grow, as we do not care what environs and peoples we must crush in order to maintain this lifestyle. The question is: can we learn to coexist with our planet? I imagine a time in the distant future when an alien species of archaeologists comes to earth, only to find it devoid of life. They would probably find it disconcerting that a species with such advanced technology could allow such a simple miscalculation as living within their means to eliminate their species. I am just as culpable as most, as in my current situation I must at least partially partake in the consumerist lifestyle. I drive to school each day, having no alternative. I eat agribusiness food.
Well, thanks for listening. I just needed to get that off of my chest. If it is any hope to the future of our world, other young people that I talk to seem to get the idea that we must change our ways rapidly before (to quote Jim Morrison) "The whole $hithouse goes up in flames." Please reply with any suggestions.
Teleo: No suggestions, but I watched a movie yesterday that you would like: FAST FOOD NATION.
Hi Teleo. As a 55-yr-old, I sure wish I could disagree with your thinking. It's a shame you won't have the same "opportunities" that my generation has had. We really have squandered your future. But, we didn't know what the hell we were doing. Most still don't.
I've been concerned about this whole house of cards we call civilization for most of my life. In the late 70's I didn't expect us to make it through the eighties, nuclear war with Russia seemed like the most likely threat. Then we made it to the nineties, and the good times started rollin' again, and I still thought we were screwed long-term, but my thinking in the early nineties was that I'd probably make it to the end of my days without any major disruptions. I would have said, for example, that I might be noticing the effects of climate change if I lived into my eighties. And I would have said that we'd "figure something out" for a new energy source when the oil started running short. Probably hydrogen...
Sadly, I no longer expect to escape "crunch time". Although I must admit that I do want to know something about how this will all turn out, even though I expect bad things. My natural scientific curiosity kicks in.
So I'm sorry for you, 23-yr-old. Wish I had some advice. Perhaps the best people like you and I can do is help our friends and neighbors understand what is happening and why. It's good to hear you can discuss this with others your age, my generation will not listen. Period. I hope to teach when things become, umm, re-localized...
One last note: I read somewhere that most humans, for whatever reason, lose the ability to learn new things past the age of 25. A staggering thought that I rejected at first. But after years of observation and a little testing here and there, I have come to the sad conclusion that this seems to be the case. It's not universal. I have always enjoyed learning new things. But the peril of learning is that you sometimes learn that you're wrong about something. Accept that ego blow, adjust your view accordingly, and move on to more learning. Don't search for what to believe in, search for truth.
<<>>
"Nuthin' left to do but Smile, Smile, Smile..."
Of course not. Never have, never will. And primitive people are often the worst. I read somewhere the indians (I'm not PC and proud of it) would hunt buffalos by setting the prarie on fire, and start forest fires to make it more difficult for the game to hide.
Life in general and intelligent life in particular is probably extremely rare in the universe. Not unlikely we are the only intelligent species in our galaxy. So no aliens will ever be disappointed in us, nor we in them.
Completely OT, but I've always believed that there must be other intelligent life in the universe, if not in our galaxy.
The reason they haven't bothered making contact, if they know we're here, seems relatively obvious. Any species with the inteelligence to build a craft that could traverse galaxies would clearly have very little interest in a species so stupid that it destroys its own habitat. Frankly, what benefit would they possibly have in contacting us? Possibly humans might be of mild interest as some sort of domestic pet, but that would be about it
Would be ENTERTAINING for them. But maybe they just watch.
Welcome, Teleo!
Your analogy makes me wonder if cancer growth has some relationship to an unusually high availability of energy, as it seems to be with our civ., without the corresponding 'checks and balances' that in a balanced system would allow tissue mutations to be more readily challenged and stopped. (High Sugar/Calorie Diets, Compromised Immune-systems, imbalance of exercise/activity)
Overpopulation, Resource Depletion and the unhealthiness of our (overgeneralized) lifestyles today seem to be clearly the combination of access to fanatical quantities of energy, with the use of these recent tools of industrialization to access it and follow our inclination to 'Obey our Thirst' as unstrenuousely as possible. The pendulum has swung wide, probably off the charts.. so it's all too likely it will have to swing back. Whatever that will mean.
Im in the same boat turning 24 later this month and graduating with a BS in finance in the spring. I have been looking at all this BS for probably a year and there is no real solution. There's lots of small patches, but when this dam breaks, it's going to get nasty fast.
I have formed opinions on the matter, only to realize it's worse than I first thought. More likely we're at peak now, which really doesnt bode well long term. I've been talking about this with a really good friend for a while and he didnt wake up until about a week ago.
Literally I told him about the GOA rumor and what it could mean. He stood there and finally got it. He looks at me and goes that's really really bad. I told him that pit in his stomach would pass. It does, as humans we go deeper into ignorance. I try and view things from as large a perspective possible and in that vein you must maximize your condition. By that I mean, prepare to leave when it gets bad or even prepare and move accordingly. Read as much as possible on as many subjects as possible.
I read like nobody's business. I speed read, but I get the points I need too. If I get confused I'll read it a second time, slowly. Point is...the more you understand...the better your tool kit to deal with anything...be it people(really complex and fund to dissect) to machines. Learn as much as you can! History is my favorite because Mark Twain penned it best, "History doesn't repeat, but it does ryhme." Understand science most of all. Science trumps just about anything on the planet! I keep telling people money can't trump geology, but no one gets it yet.
I hope to weather the next decade in Finance (bad choice) and somehow get out of this country. The next fifty years of growth(yes there will still be growth somewhere within the international system) is not going to happen in the US. UNderstand the dire financial position the baby boomers have put us into and realize you wont get SS that you and I pay into each week. It hurts everytime they take my few hundred bucks each month. It KILLS me, but like you, I must live with the cards I've been dealt.
Prepare for the worst and hope for the best and the boy scouts taught me well, be prepared...well in these circumstance...as much as possible. Keep in mind there are angles that will make you fantasticly rich if you know HOW the fat gets trimmed and do the trimming so to speak. I've got a few ideas and I'm pretty much waiting to finish my degree before starting to stake my positions.
Good Luck....
http://thefinancedude.blogspot.com
Thanks for the ideas. I have a lot of interests (I read everything from Sagan to Chomsky to Robbins) and am well versed in a lot of different matters. Now that I think of it, I think that my parents may have inadvertantly helped me out with surviving this potential catastrophe. When I was younger, my family had a small boat and I learned how to do effective coastal fishing. When starting high school, my family moved to a relatively rural town and I learned how to effectively garden and raise livestock (sheep, goats, chickens, etc) for about 7 years or so (through high school and summers in the beginning of college).
I am both excited and terrified about the changes that we may face. One thing that I think might be a problem with our generation is that a lot of people get quite depressed about our future as we are the first generation to grow up in a completely information saturated world. I would like to thank TOD for providing a forum where ideas such as these can be discussed in a logical fashion without prejudice or the blatant "cheerleaderism" that most people use to back up their predictions of our future.
My son is only about 3 years younger than you, so I spend a lot of time thinking about how his future will be, and what to say to him about it. Sadly, my conclusion is much similar to yours. There seems to be a shortage of time, and a lack of understanding of the real issues underlying peak oil, climate change, species and habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, and the like. I happen to agree with Matt Savinar that a "lifeboat" is probably about the only thing you can do at this point to respond.
Hooray, a fellow 23-yr-old TOD lurker! My advice is, don't fall into the whole "might as well live for now" or "live it up while we can" state of mind. That is the typical response to PO when its brought up with our peers. I have a 3-yr-old so I refuse to squander her future so I can "live it up for now".
Hello,
i'm 25 yo. I suggest, if you can, that you take your bike to go to school. I for one drive ~7 miles each day (round trip), it would not be a problem to drive more if needed.
After a while, it is not so much an effort anymore..
The most important thing is, to have a light and reliable bike. I've got an US bike, a specialized. Work perfect.
Just out of curiosity, I checked sitemeter this morning, and noticed that we had a spike in traffic yesterday, and again about a week ago - both on days when Stuart's articles were up.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm6peakoildrum&r=12
There are other spikes in traffic as well, and I haven't taken the trouble to look and see what articles were up on those days.
i think those articles made the front page of digg.com (science section) -- anything that hits the front page gets a lot of traffic.
digg is one of the fastest growing sites on the internet - and they just announced more than 1 million registered users.
Could be, I guess. I had never heard of it until I saw it here, but then again I am a dinosaur (relatively speaking).
I refuse to register for the things - my inbox is out of control as it is, and the last thing I need is more spam.
I signed up to Digg just for SS's articles. They are well worth the time!
http://thefinancedude.blogspot.com
The Guardian, UK
This is a tremendous milestone in energy and climate politics. OK, cutting the emissions by 20% is really an ambitioned goal, but reaching 20% renewable energy in just 13 years until 2020 will shift the energy industry dramatically. The EU is home of almost half a billion people. Developing cheaper and more efficient energy technologies will trigger a new energy world.
Maybe I sound a little bit euphoric. But this is more than anyone could expect. It is necessary to start tackling these problems. Albeit there is still no direct mentioning of "Peak Oil" this effort will help as well mitigate the impact of this looming crisis.
I hope many other places in the world will now "feel compelled" to achieve similar steps.
cheers, marotti32 in berlin
"cutting the emissions by 20%" and "reaching 20% renewable energy" are two very different things. Assuming only 2% annual growth rate in total energy use, that's about 29% increase in the 13 years, thus even if renewables will make up 20% of the total, it's still a 3% increase in emissions.
Meanwhile, according to Monbiot, we (the industrialized world) need to cut emissions by 80%-90% over a similar time period if we are to avoid the worst of climate change.
One goal is cutting the emissions by 20%. This is a fixed number. How, according to your opinion will there be a emission increase?
There is 1990 level and there will be a 2020 level which will be (hopefully) at least 20% less.
Increasing the use of renewable energy up to a level of 20% will help us to decrease the carbon emissions. The most important message behind this goal, however, is the technological improvement which will be triggered by doing so. Time and history will not come ta a halt in 2020 but will continue.
Just one example: Costs per kwH from PV here in Germany is today a little bit less than 50 € Cents per kwH. The price for electricity for normal customers is around 20 € Cents/kWh. So it is necessary to cut the costs for PV more than by half. Is this possible? Actuallly yes. Economics of scale already result is swiftly dropping production prices in PV. Cutting the wafers much thinner will increase the amount of cells out of one (ingot) wafer block and will make this product cheaper.
The ecpectation for this progress makes my euphoric, because the decision to reach the 20% will boost developlemt in alle renewable energy technologies. And based on this, the increase in using renewabler energy beyond the year 2020 will be (1) cheaper and (2) even faster. Apart from any kind of political decisions. Not to mention the energy crisis which looms in the oil and natural gas sector...
Applied Materials (AMAT) , which is installing a giant thin film production plant in India thinks they can get thin film solar down to $1 or less per capacity kw in the next few years. I hope this is not b.s., because if this is realistic the days of being able to compete with coal may be sooner than we have thought.
We still need a dispatchable base load, however, and Germany seems to be phasing out nuclear. I think this is a big mistake. What will they use for the base load? Coal? Or are they coming up with some great storage scheme for wind,solar, etc?
One fear I have is that countries are putting too many chickens in the biofuel basket. Subsituting a gallon of ethanol for a gallon of gas does not reduce co2 emissions by the co2 from gasoline. One must take into account all the fossil fuels used to produce the ethanol. Hopefully, they are doing the math right when they are planning to cut overall emissions by 20%.
I think we can phase out coal and I think we should bet on the come that solar and wind will be able to fill much of the gap, meaning we shouldn't give utilities a choice.
Waiting for carbon caps or carbon taxes to cut in is a mistake. If the goal is to get rid of the coal, anyway, why dick around with incentives and disincentives to reach a goal which should be mandated?
Except, this leaves nuclear as absolutely essential.
I'm so with you on the biofuels problem. That's a big reason why I expect something like the "Sustainability" model to take off.
China to start filling Huangdao oil reserve base by mid-year
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=29676
I saw a story somewhere about people testify before congress on meat prices rising due to ethanol. We're about to see which side is more influential. I think we know that answer.....
http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2007-03-09-corn_N.htm
http://thefinancedude.blogspot.com
Don't you wish Hank Paulsen was talking about conversion of US transportation system; instead of trying to convince the Chinese to let Wall Street manage their economy.
This came at the end of Hank Paulsen's speech in China, which I was directed too by Policy Pete. Policy is a funny guy.
Dubya and Lula signed a profitable deal just this afternoon.
Slaves!! Brilliant!! Why didn't we think of that before? Who needs that stinkin' oil when we got slaves. This is the answer we were waiting for, that extra little push that will finally get that EROEI where we want it to be.
No no no! Kill everyone. that will reduce demand!(Sorry, I fell off my rocker.)
Trying to point out that just because it solves the problem, desn't mean it's a good solution.(I guess THAT depends on whether you are on the side being killed or the side doing the killing.) For accuracy I have to point out that this is how African tribes have been dealing with resource shortages for some time now.(i.e. Zimbabwe)
9 March 2007 "Today's Newsmakers"
The Examiner Baltimore MD
I suppose if we're going to criticize Gore for using too many KWH, we can criticize Roscoe for being pro-Growth. Then again, maybe he's trying to help Marylanders Localize and Produce.
Well, at least they (NAM) have a national energy strategy:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=14&DID=238283
It's not much of one, but at least they recognize energy issues as important.
Likely for Bartlett to get the award (apparently a score of at least 75% on NAMs congressional action list) votes on issues of labor and taxes are the most important. That is what they mean by "pro growth".
Stupid is as stupid does.
http://realestate.msn.com/lawns/Article_wsj.aspx?cp-documentid=3009246
Pave it over? Brilliant!
Patrick
That calls for a tax on pavement.
Trying to go inorganic can run afoul of city ordinances, too. Darren MacLennan, a software salesman, bought a home in Washington, D.C., two years ago that was shaded by two old oak trees. He aerated, mowed, seeded and fertilized but couldn't get anything to grow in his backyard except moss. Finally, he decided to have one of the trees taken down so he could put in a big flagstone patio and outdoor kitchen. To his shock, the city made him pay a fee of about $1,200 and plant seven saplings elsewhere on his property to make up for the lost mature-tree canopy.
I had a pool installed a few years back, the home owners association told me i can't put the pool equipment in a certain location (utility easment), there was no ther place to put it, I told the guy at a hearing " if you make my house payment each month you can put it wherever you want", long story short, they backed off and it got installed!
HOA, bah!
I wrote a response to
Energy Taxes, Oil Prices and Economic Illiteracy. I reproduce it below; you can tell me how well I crystallized what the real analysts here on TOD have said over the last 1.5 years:
Your editorial about energy taxes is good, but it is based on several unstated assumptions:
1.) That markets are perfect.
2.) That market information is transparent.
3.) That the suppliers have no interest in gaming the system.
Obviously, (3) would be impossible if (2) was true. However, it is obvious that the producers of the Middle East have no interest in allowing e.g. their reserve claims to be audited. (These claims doubled suspiciously about 20 years ago, with no obvious advances in oil discovery or recovery to justify them.) Despite this, some analysts have gone over data from the pre-nationalization period and what's leaked out since, and concluded that the major producers, Saudi Arabia chief among them, have almost certainly overstated both what they have and how fast they can produce it.
Why would they do this? Because knowledge is power. The response of Homo Economicus to news that oil supply would fall well below the demand and prices would triple in, say 2020, would be to work on both efficiency and replacement measures. Homo Economicus would have his economy measures and replacment sources scheduled to come on-line just as the price of oil made them economical.
Homo Petroleumicus has different interests. H. Petroleumicus does not want to be faced with a declining supply of his one product combined with capped or declining prices. H. Petroleumicus is far better off if H. Economicus doesn't start his investment program until after the supply crunch is well under way. This forces H. Economicus to buy a lot of the declining supply at much higher prices, increasing H. Petroleumicus' total return on his resource at the cost of H. Economicus.
Homo Governmentus Strategicus knows H. Economicus well from his writings, and has an inkling of what H. Petroleumicus is likely to do (based on what is in his interest). H. G. Strategicus can achieve a near-optimal end using taxes to force up the price of H. Petroleumicus' resource. This gets H. Economicus to put money into efficiency and replacement programs "too early" (grumbling the whole time) while preventing H. Petroleumicus from achieving the economic stranglehold he'd like to have. By the time the real crunch hits, H. Economicus is ready for it - even though he didn't have the information which would have made him do it on his own.
Or that's the way it would work, if H. G. Strategicus had the authority to act, and acted in time. Oil prices have already tripled; today could already be too late.
So, did you make a final decision on your blog? I saw your note, and noticed you haven't updated it for a while. I have been thinking about doing something different myself, because mine has more or less outgrown my initial purpose.
I've taken out ergosphere.wordpress.com but I haven't had the free time to do anything with it yet. Little things like 300-odd page documents for the client have taken priority.
This presumes H. Petroeumicus does not control what H G Stratigicus can do, or indeed has not previously replaced H G Stratigicus with themselves.
You assume there is still a shepherd there to prevent the wolves from eating the sheep. I believe that has not been the case for a long time.