DrumBeat: March 10, 2007
Posted by Leanan on March 10, 2007 - 10:15am
It certainly sounds great. Hydrogen, after all, is “the most common element in the universe,” as Secretary Abraham pointed out. Since it is so plentiful, surely President Bush must be right when he promises it will be cheap. And when you use it, the waste product will be nothing but water—“environmental pollution will no longer be a concern.” Hydrogen will be abundant, cheap, and clean. Why settle for anything less?Unfortunately, it’s all pure bunk. To get serious about energy policy, America needs to abandon, once and for all, the false promise of the hydrogen age.
When confronted with the indisputable reality of the peaking and decline of the world’s top-producing oil fields, the cornucopian camp points to new projects as the cavalry that will ride in and save the day. High crude prices, they argue, will make formerly marginal oil projects profitable and encourage the development of new oil fields.But given recent events, it seems their faith in the Invisible Hand is ill-placed.
Ambalat Block Dispute Heats Up
Reports of Malaysian aircraft and ships intruding the air space and waters off Indonesia have prompted the Indonesian Air Force to patrol the waters over the Sulawesi Sea where the two countries are disputing the boundary lines.
Gas price "outrage" - Another 20- to 30-cent hike expected in next few days
The reaction at the pump: predictable."I am outraged," said Todd Carey, a 30-year-old product support specialist at Horizon Navigation in Santa Clara. "Where do they get off raising prices so much so fast?"
It works a bit like a stock market index, except that instead of tracking stocks, it tracks mentions of certain key green phrases in the media. It's a way to gauge how much mindshare certain concepts have and see if they are gaining or losing ground compared to last week. Not very scientific, but lots of fun!
100 Things you can do for Peak Oil: Part 1 (Home, Garden and Clothing) and Part 2 (Community, Family, Transportation, Etc.)
Cuba-Venezuela: Making Biofuels Without Wasting Food
The governments of Cuba and Venezuela are planning to move forward together on biofuels production, but they will rely on producing alcohol from sugarcane, in order to spare food crops.
Fuel Lines A review of Lisa Margonelli's OIL ON THE BRAIN:
Adventures From the Pump to the Pipeline. Includes the first chapter from the book.
Chávez: Venezuelan oil sales to US will continue to fall
Venezuelan oil shipments to the United States will continue to drop as Venezuela continues to diversify its economy, and an example is the negotiations currently under way with China, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez told an Argentinean TV channel.
Garden Girl's peak oil video blog
States are ready to put up big bucks to speed up passenger rail service--if someone would just push freight trains out of the way.
When two causes collide, the resulting effect can become much greater than the sum of its parts. Such is proving to be the case in regard to world oil demand. We don't really have to "run out." There just needs to be enough doubt in people's minds regarding predictable pricing and the reliability of supply to create an extended crisis atmosphere.
Peoples Gas files rate hike request
"This is horrible timing," said Jim Chilsen, a spokesman for the Citizens Utility Board. "Illinois consumers are facing an energy crisis. Natural gas costs are climbing and electric bills are skyrocketing."
The idea of turning the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into a petroleum piggybank for the nation is gaining momentum in Washington.Senator Lisa Murkowski is working on legislation that would authorize the U.S. Department of Energy to contract with oil companies to conduct seismic and other preliminary work to prepare the 1.5-million acre coastal plain for oil development in case of an energy crisis.
Solar Energy: New power source in Jigawa
The village health clinics now benefit from solar energy. Lights enable health officers to see patients at night for the first time, vaccine refrigerators allow more people to be vaccinated at greater frequency and fans increase the comfort level of staff and patients alike. Village primary schools now have, at least, two illuminated classrooms and teachers report that they are being heavily used in the evenings for adult education and as places for children to come and do their lessons. Each school has also been provided with a computer and computer instruction for the teachers. These are the first computers in the project villages and there are plans to eventually hook them to the internet via the state’s broadband system – a process that can literally open the village to the rest of the world for healthcare, education and commerce.
Electic-powered Trucks in Russia
These days there are many talks on converting fuel cars to some new sources of power: hydrogen or electrical driven, many hybrids appear which use both electricity and fuel. But not many know that already 60 years in some Russian cities there are even big trucks are go solely on electricity without a drop of fuel. The only problem with them they are wired. Yes, connected to the wires which cover all the major streets of the cities so that such trucks and some passengers trolleybuses (which don’t use rails like trams but go just on any surface) are connected.
‘Coal rush’ pits utilities against Congress: Growing energy demand collides with desire to cut pollution levels
The coal rush in America's heartland is on a collision course with Congress. While lawmakers are drawing up ways to cap and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, the Energy Department says as many as 150 new coal-fired plants could be built by 2030, adding volumes to the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent of half a dozen greenhouse gases scientists blame for global warming.
Why Hybrids Are Such A Hard Sell
Given all the buzz about hybrids, not to mention the greening of the citizenry, you'd think they would be easy to sell. They're not. After growing nicely through much of 2006, hybrid sales began to slow early this year. The gasoline-electric vehicles now make up 1.8% of all vehicle sales, says Edmunds.com, down from a peak of 2.1% in October.
New technology outsmarting "peak oil"?
But the development of the new technology was itself spurred by high prices (so much for "objective" science), which were in part driven by "peak oil" fears. Which deepens our suspicions that the "peak oil" hysteria was instrumented by the oil industry all along....
Shell contains Nigeria oil spill
Royal Dutch Shell said on Friday that it has successfully contained a major oil spill in a production facility in southern Nigeria but yet to regain output loss of 187,000 barrels per day.
Travellers at risk from global warming on Tibet railway
Experts have voiced fears that parts of the track could become unstable, triggering derailments if warm weather melted frozen ground under the railway route.
Magazines go green with global warming issues
Some sports fans may now know as much about global warming as they know about women's swimwear: Sports Illustrated this week tells readers how a warming world is going to change the state of play.
Al Gore’s Outsourcing Solution
TerraPass charges $1,247.50 for one year of carbon offsets for a home like Mr. Gore’s, the price including a refrigerator magnet proclaiming the home “carbon balanced.” Initially I found it hard to believe anyone could counteract Mr. Gore’s prodigious energy lust for just $1,247.50, since planting about 20,000 trees would be required to neutralize even half his house’s carbon footprint.
Global Realignment and the Decline of the Superpower
The United States has been defeated in Iraq. That doesn’t mean that there’ll be a troop withdrawal anytime soon, but it does mean that there’s no chance of achieving the mission’s political objectives. Iraq will not be a democracy, reconstruction will be minimal, and the security situation will continue to deteriorate into the foreseeable future.
The Toronto Star's Peter Howell has panned the just released Peak Oil movie, "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash." Noting its depressing no-light at the end of the tunnel undercurrent, Howell concludes: "A movie this grim risks switching off the very minds it seeks to engage."...The challenge for environmentally conscious movie makers is how to educate their audience and instruct them as well. If we cannot take any hope away with us from the theatre, then what's the point?
Peak Oil Passnotes: Markets Don't Work Anymore
Even those people with a casual acquaintance of the markets should be interested in the way we have seen a multiple change in the way equities and energy inter-react. Normally if stocks went down for a non-energy reason such as panic, the price of energy would follow. The idea is that weaker companies will breed weaker performance, resulting in lower consumption. This is no longer the case.
...I've been mulling it over ever since and I have reached this one: fashion as we know it doesn't have a future.It doesn't have a future any more than the internal combustion engine does. I don't know how long it will take for the current fashion system to become unworkable, but I'm certain it will happen. Just call me Pradadamus.
Daniel Fortier spends his summers studying the permafrost on Bylot Island, high in the eastern Canadian Arctic. While hiking there early in the 1999 field season, he distinctly heard the sound of running water yet saw no streams nearby. "I thought to myself, 'Where is this sound coming from?'" says Fortier. "So, like a good researcher, I started to dig."
Coal India now digs the world for mines
After oil expedition, it’s time for a global coal hunt. The government has decided to acquire coal mines in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa to secure India’s energy needs.
Chinese lawmaker suggests developing nuclear energy in inland areas
Development of nuclear energy in China's inland areas is not only feasible but necessary, said a deputy to the National People's Congress (NPC), the top legislature of China.
Beyond oil - Reappraising the Gulf States
Falling per capita oil and gas production: The pace of reform in the GCC has been uneven. States with relatively low ratios of oil and gas production to the number of citizens will find it increasingly difficult to sustain standards of living for their people.
China: Offshore oil projects opening up
Foreign giants are gearing up to further tap China's offshore reserves since the country's top offshore oil firm opened an unprecedented number of blocks for international collaboration.
South Africa: Gore Urged to Put Brake on Biofuel Production
An international coalition has appealed to former US vice-president and environmental campaigner Al Gore to take up their concerns about the world's rapidly developing biofuels industry.They have told him that large-scale biofuel production and new incentives to promote biofuels, based on "energy-crop monocultures", are having a devastating impact on biodiversity and contributing to global climate change.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Hello energy friends,
I personally regard this decision as a major milestone on the way towards a society which will be - eventually - supplied almost completely by renewables energy sources.
The EU is a political Union with around half a billion people and certainly among the largest industrial areas in the world. The decision to achieve a supply of 20% with renewable energy sources will boost all these technologies in a unprecedented way! This is a pivotal step which will alter the energy industry on a global state.
My questions for the TODers.
Whatever will happen now in the coming years. The combination of passing the PO and the emerging of a new big energy cycle will be a exciting time. I am curious if we will succeed to tackle the problems.
cheers, marotti32 in berlin
I wish I could share your optimism, marotti32, but I stand by my numbers from yesterday.
"The European Union leaders hope their commitment to tackling climate change will encourage other leading polluters, ... to agree on deep cuts in emissions ..."
- but what they proposed is not a cut at all! That is because of the unstated but implicit assumption of "economic growth".
"The leaders agreed that the EU will produce 20 percent of its power through renewable energy, an increase from the current figure of around 6 percent."
- that's nice, although they did not (in this article) define "renewable", and there is a mention of nuclear further down, so does that count?
"They also pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 20 percent from 1990 levels"
- that is completely different from the other 20%, as I'll explain, again, below. Meanwhile, most of the countries that signed Kyoto are far from complying with its modest goals.
"The plan also called for one-tenth of all cars and trucks in the EU nations to run on biofuels made from plants."
- do the emissions from the production of the biofuels count? Even if they occur in other continents?
Now back to my numbers: suppose you start with 100 units of fossil fuel usage. After 13 years, with a growth rate of 2% per year (very low according to the growth proponents, not even keeping up with population growth in some countries), the energy use is up 29%: (numbers slightly rounded for clarity)
100 * 1.02 ^ 13 = 129
Now assume that they indeed get 20% of the total from renewables, that reduces the fossil fuel use, but the end number is still higher than what you started with:
129 * 0.8 = 103
If the total energy use growth rate is higher, the numbers get worse. E.g. with "only" 3%, the same calculation is:
100 --> 146 --> 117
And that is while the climate issue requires true "deep cuts" in the absolute number. Until "growth" is tackled explicitly, all is lost.
That said, I do note that some European countries have negative population growth, and some have had flat total energy usage in recent years. But many influential people in those countries see those achievments as a problem (to the "growth" paradigm), and seek to reverse them, via increased birth and immigration rates.
vtpeaknik,
as there is a reduction aim of 20% till 2020 there could (actually) not be a growth of emissions by 29% within the next 13 years. Emissions should be 20% less than in 1990.
The decision to increase the use of renewable energy to a number of 20% is IMO something different. And this is the important message of this day.
Today, around 11% of domestic electricity production in Germany is performed by renewable energy. A few years ago it was around 4 or 5%. Now the expected capacity the offshore wind farms is more than 20.000 MW. Alone this will increase the amount of renewable energy tremendously. And there is still biogas, deep geothermal energy, PV. All this will contribute as well step by step more to the entire energy production.
Within a few years the PV industry emerged from almost nothing. Today there is already 1% of the electricity supply in Bavaria generated (if I can use this verb in this case) by PV. Alone in Bavaria are more solar panels than in Japan or in the entire USA.
All this development has happened quite swiftly. Wind energy is growing every year worldwide by 20%, PV even much more. Now, with support from this decision this industry will speed its development up.
In the year 2020 the calculation of times will not stop. A highly efficient technology will strong enough to increase its percentage on energy supply continuously in the following years. This is the special thing I expect.
I can only repeat. This decision will spur the development of new technology in an unprecedented way.
Marotti32- I share your optimism. After all, I saw smoking vanish from airplanes, blacks get the vote in our USA south, and other impossible things happen in my lifetime.
Right now I am enthused by the prospect of solid biomass as the mandated heat source for buildings, combined with small stirling engines to generate most or all of the building's electricity. I know it is possible because I have done it for my own house. My steady state use is 350 watts electric, and about 10kW (shame on me!) heat rate in the winter. Wood does it just fine.
Better houses, as made in Germany, would meet their requirements at less cost.
I live in hilly country, and pumped hydro seems quite feasible as an energy storage method- and would offer opportunity for heat pump source/sink.
Wimbi, I just come from a Sunday afternoon walk, I don't know why but today I passed the "Berliner Mauer" memorial just a few hundred meters away from my flat. The last left-over pieces of this ugly building still look cold and inhuman, even on a sunny spring day. But it is already almost 18 years ago, when this wall became history
Change is almost a question of bold and determined decisions. On ever scale. My optimism about the EU decision is simply based on the experiences I could see going on here. There is change going on, still very small, but as many TODers know it is the exponential growth which is difficult to understand.
The exponential growth, the environmental pressure and the political support will result in more change than many people can anticipate know.
Agreed it's a positive development. One interesting thing with these legislated renewable energy goals, is that one gets the impression they are sometimes undertaken as token gestures, however, once in place they are often fulfilled far ahead of schedule. This was certainly the case with wind energy in Texas. While there are many problems ahead it is encouraging to see a large group of nations take, what I think almost everyone would agree, is a nice step in the right direction.
These measures I suspect also have a secondary benefit of getting people to begin to think about these issues and consider what sorts of behavior they condone and find admirable. That is to say, despite all the car chase movies, it may no longer be cool to be "going 90 mph drinking Prudhoe Bay" (you know, as an aside, that phrase popped into my head one day and I always thought it would make a great starting point for a country song - I digress).
If this is done right, the solutions will likely vary greatly, i.e what is useful in a sunny dessert clime might not work in a coastal northern fishing village and vice versa. The appeal of renewables and thus what is implemented and how will also vary from people to people. For some an appropriate sense of civic mindedness will be important. In America with its almost ingrained suspicion of government and ideal of independence and self-reliance (yes, the last is painfully ironic considering national and often individual debt, ongoing international entanglments, over consumption, dependence on oil and large complex centralized power generation) one sees a long term movement of "living-off-the grid". Will wrap it up and just say yes this is a positive development, if PO continues to play out as a gathering storm, then I think Europe may have been dealt the worse hand but North America has the farthest to go.
BTW - Thanks for the good news!
I participated in a conference call this week with API Chief Economist John Felmy. I am going to write up my impressions as soon as I get a chance, but Robert Bluey, one of the participants, has written the up some comments at his blog.
I will post some of his comments, as all of the pertinent links are there. Just a bit of background. I did not know that there would only be a few of us participating, or I would have spent more time considering my questions. For all I knew, there would be 50 people on the call and I would get to ask maybe 1 question that I would formulate based on Felmy's comments. So, if my questions and comments seem unscripted, don't worry, they were. I also don't know much about the fellow participants, but I will try to find out something before I write this up. It should go without saying that I have some issues with what was presented – and a lot of ground was covered.
The intent is to do this on a regular basis, and I think it would be far better to solicit questions from TOD viewers than to just submit my own questions. After all, he doesn’t have to convince me that oil companies aren’t ripping you off. So, if you have some questions on climate change, profits, ethanol, or energy issues in general, give me some of your questions. I will make a list, and I will try to get them answered.
Here are some of Robert Bluey's comments:
From the transcript:
I believe the fact that Bush's proposal refers to alternative fuel rather than renewable fuels has been overlooked in the discussion of his plan. I know I didn't catch the difference and was assuming it meant ethanol and biodiesel until reading the above.
I believe the fact that Bush's proposal refers to alternative fuel rather than renewable fuels has been overlooked in the discussion of his plan. I know I didn't catch the difference and was assuming it meant ethanol and biodiesel until reading the above.
Yeah, there was a bit of discussion about this after Bush's speech. He clearly was throwing some non-renewable options out there.
By the way, Dave Mathews has now infected my blog. Check out the comments following my most recent essay:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-are-gas-prices-rising.html
I had an anonymous poster post in that weird sort of Dave Mathews style, so I called him out. Sure enough, he admitted it in the next post.
Hi Robert,
I just read your 'D.M. infected' article and came across your statement that: "some argue that Saudi Arabian oil production has peaked (although I disagree)".
If you have explained what your 'disagreement' is in your writing here on TOD or elsewhere would you kindly direct me to it. If not, would you mind taking some time to explain what the basis is for that disagreement is?
I am glad to see an opposing view, they tend to bring out the skeletons and either change one's opinions or firm them up. While I do not mean to put you in the same boat as Freddie H., he does more to convince one of PO than otherwise.
If you have explained what your 'disagreement' is in your writing here on TOD or elsewhere would you kindly direct me to it. If not, would you mind taking some time to explain what the basis is for that disagreement is?
You can read the gist in my debate response to Jeffrey:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/8/223354/987
Some have also asked what would convince me that peak is upon us. I got that question this morning in my blog comments. Here was the question, and my answer:
Robert, just out of interest, could you list some criteria that would convince you that the peak is nigh? e.g. price point, inventory levels, sustained fall in production while prices are rising etc.
Robert,
Could you clarify this? If I am not mistaken, commercial US crude oil stocks were around 20 million barrels higher in the Eighties in some years. Are you including the SPR?
Speaking of the SPR, I have wondered for some time about the drop off in US commercial crude oil stocks after 1987, both in absolute terms and in terms of Days of Supply. From 1983 to 1987, we held an average of 30 Days Supply (first week of April, each year).
From 1988 to 2006, we held an average of 24 Days Consumption. Early April, 2006, at 24 days, was right at the average for the past 20 years.
I wonder if refiners decided to go to a Just In Time crude oil inventory, because they had the SPR as a backup? I think that the SPR crossed the 500 million barrel mark around 1986.
This theory seems reasonable to me. If it is correct, all we are seeing with these inventory fluctuations, relative to five year averages, is minor fluctuations within the Just In Time inventory limits.
In any case, one of the posts that I made the other day described the "Rich Town" and "Poor Town" analogy. I stipulated a food shortfall. Rich Town had plenty of food. Poor Town didn't. The problem arises for "Rich Town" when food supplies continue to contract.
But fundamentally, I think that the approximately two-thirds increase in average world crude oil prices after 5/05, relative to the 20 months prior to 5/05, versus the cumulative shortfall in crude oil production relative to 5/05, is telling us what is going on in world oil markets.
Could you clarify this? If I am not mistaken, commercial US crude oil stocks were around 20 million barrels higher in the Eighties in some years. Are you including the SPR?
Yes.
There were some higher levels many years ago, but there were also more refineries years ago. So what the absolute levels were 20 years ago don’t really tell you whether they were higher or lower than normal, and level alone is not the entire story anyway. You need a level and a trend. When the Saudis cut they had a high level and it was trending higher. So while price may have given them a motive to keep production steady (at least until it started to fall), the inventories denied them the opportunity.
I think that the approximately two-thirds increase in average world crude oil prices after 5/05, relative to the 20 months prior to 5/05, versus the cumulative shortfall in crude oil production relative to 5/05, is telling us what is going on in world oil markets.
But does the fact that oil prices have fallen well off their highs, despite the Saudi cuts, tell you anything? It tells me that the world would have been oversupplied had they not made the cuts. Which is precisely why I believe they made them.
Think about this. Had the Saudis not made the cuts, where would all of the oil have gone? It would have plummeted the price. I don't see any other option.
While I was at lunch, I realized what you meant when you said "This Century."
As best that I can tell, the all time record high US commercial crude oil inventory was 372 million barrels, for the week ending 2/25/83, when the crude oil throughput was 10.9 mbpd, a Days Supply of 34 days.
For 6/16/06, we had 347 million barrels (7% less than 2/25/83), versus crude oil throughput of 16 mbpd, for a Days Supply of 22 days (a 35% reduction relative to Days Supply for the week ending 2/25/83).
But in neither case does it tell us what was going on in areas like Africa.
Also, what about the theory of refiners going to a Just In Time inventory plan, because of the SPR?
The question really is, what would have happened if world oil production kept increasing in 6/05, instead of declining. The price spiked followed the production decline, starting in 6/05.
If oil production had kept increasing, I think that Yergin would have been correct, oil prices probably would have stayed at about $38 per barrel, which was the average monthly Brent spot crude oil price in the 20 months preceding 5/05.
Instead, as Deffeyes predicted, world crude oil production has fallen, relative to 5/05, and the approximately two-thirds average increase in oil prices following 5/05 was necessary in order to balance reduced supply against reduced demand--much in the same way that my example of "Rich Town" would be well supplied with food while "Poor Town" had to get by on reduced rations.
The problem is that the post-Peak Oil environment is dynamic--not static.
We will see a period of equilibrium, and then production--and especially exports--drop again, leading to another round of bidding, and a new definition of "rich" and "poor."
In any event, note that you are forced to ask a question which is contrary to fact, to-wit, "What if Saudi production had increased," when in fact it declined--as predicted by the HL model.
In any event, note that you are forced to ask a question which is contrary to fact, to-wit, "What if Saudi production had increased," when in fact it declined--as predicted by the HL model.
Well, I didn't ask if they had increased, I asked what if they hadn't decreased. Given that price fell even though they cut production, I think the answer to the question is obvious. Then the question becomes: Was the world just fortunate enough to have Saudi peak just as the market was becoming oversupplied, or did KSA see that the market was oversupplied and make a preemptive move?
But you keep saying "as predicted by the HL model." Yet the HL model didn't predict that it would decline in 2006, did it? 2004 would have been consistent with the HL, 2003 years ago would have been consistent, 2008 would have been consistent with the HL model. So let's put last year's "prediction" in perspective. You could have a span of many years that would work. It just happened to decline last year - and whether it is voluntary or not you have latched onto that as "HL predicted it."
But at least be honest enough with yourself to look at the HL and admit that if production had started declining in 2010, it would have been consistent with the HL and you could still say "as predicted by the HL."
To be clear, I want the readers to understand that the HL did not predict that KSA would decline in 2006. It predicted, according to what you have said, sometime between 50 and 60% Qt. And given that the % Qt has been moving backward for a couple of years, we don't really know how long the prediction was good for. As I have indicated, I looked at Texas and a Texas decline at any point between 1960 and 1977 was consistent with the HL prediction.
In fact - and I think this is a very important point - I bet the last Saudi decline - which was voluntary - was within the range of the HL prediction. I need to check this out, but I bet I am right.
Based on Saudi production data through the end of 2005:
http://static.flickr.com/55/145186318_27a012448e_o.png
That was a complete dodge.
True or false: A Saudi peak in 2003 would have been consistent with the HL?
True or false: A Saudi peak in 2008 would be consistent with the HL?
Both cases are true, and you have inspired me to make this the topic of my next essay: HL's Throughout History. The fact is that your parameters are such that you have a very, very broad range of years in which you could claim a "hit." Why is this so difficult for you to acknowledge? You are really overstating your case every time you say "as predicted by the HL", because "as predicted by the HL" doesn't define a precise time."
This is about like me predicting in 2000 that based on his age, Ronald Reagan was on the verge of dying. Four years later, I say "Just as I predicted." Or, had he died in 2001, "Just as I predicted."
I was typing an edit when you blocked me out, with your response.
What we had in 2005 in Saudi Arabia was a high level of production at a fairly advanced stage of depletion, so I knew that the decline would be past 58% of Qt.
Of the HL plots of large producing regions that I have looked at, Texas showed the latest peak, as a percentage of Qt (57%).
Since Texas was also the prior swing producer and since I could find no examples of large producing regions showing sustained steady increases in production past the 55% to 60% of Qt range (and given Matt Simmons' book), I thought that 2006 was the most likely year for a decline, but I agree that it had to be by 2008.
So, the Lower 48, North Sea, Russia, Mexico and the world fit the 50% of Qt model.
Texas and Saudi Arabia fit the 55% to 60% model. What Saudi Arabia has demonstrated is that we still have no examples of large producing regions showing sustained, steady increases in production past the 60% of Qt mark.
What Saudi Arabia has demonstrated is that we still have no examples of large producing regions showing sustained, steady increases in production past the 60% of Qt mark.
What you will soon be surprised to learn - as I was - is that this claim is not remotely true. Stay tuned. :-)
OK Jeffrey, I am going to do something I should have done a long time ago. I am going to do something that every fan of the HL method should have done a long time ago. I am going to investigate the precision in my next post.
Here is what I would request from you. Define for me the parameters in which you would say "That region has peaked." I presume this is not a problem. I am thinking 50-60% Qt with some defined intercept. But I am going to let you define the parameters, and your reasoning. Then I will proceed with the analysis. Texas and Saudi will be my test cases. My hypothesis is that the precision is going to be very poor.
I think it's quite stupid to hope for the best and do nothing because the precision is bad and the peak could be later. It's like driving a little bit to fast in fog and hope for the best because everything has gone well before.
Although I personally believe we are at or past peak, Robert has stated many times that even if peak is further down the road as he believes, that it is critical that we start preparing now. He has never said, "Relax, be happy, go for a drive."
The Texas/Lower 48 article has the HL data and production data.
Just a suggestion though. Before going to great lengths to continue to attack the HL method (even as recent data support the HL models), you might want to wait for some evidence of rising crude oil production in Saudi Arabia and the world.
I could be wrong, but I am willing to bet that many people on the website--at this point--would be willing to pay us to not further debate this topic, at least until we have data contradicting the HL models.
hey robert & westexas,
i'd be quite happy for you to continue this debate (although i might not go as far as paying you to do it :-)
even it doesn't help with Saudi Arabia, it might teach us something about the Russian HL plot for instance.
i'm starting my own HL work to try and get my head around how good it is (or isn't) as a predictive tool. we have some good production and reserves data for several sufficiently large basins here in Oz. i expect that the data will show that HL isn't very useful once you have large new basins coming onstream within a country that already has declining production from other regions. HL could not have anticipated the very recent rise in Australian production, and similarly in Russia now. HL would have predicted Russia to go back into decline for several years already (after post-Soviet recovery). not sure what i'll find as i dig into it..
cheers
phil.
Westexas, all you have to do is STOP.
I just scroll by now anyway.
As I have been saying, IMO it's a question of whether the Titanic sinks in two hours or four hours.
Exactly!
If I recall correctly, RR said his belief in peak is 2012 +/- 3-4 years putting next year within his guesstimate zone, so why all the bickering... is it just to score debating points or is it to score bragging rights as to who correctly called Peak first?
It seems to be a tad pointless to obsess on pedantic details when all agree the ship is sinking!
Thats $0.02 from a dedicated fan of the Oil Drum.
(even as recent data support the HL models)
This is exactly the reason that I need to evaluate the precision. I think this is what you are failing to grasp. Do the data "support the HL models" because the error bands are so wide that any data over the course of 20 years would have supported the models? That is a key question, especially when you are using these models to tell the world "Saudi has peaked."
From my perspective WT & RR are actually very close in their respective positions. RR doesn't refute HL methology, only the precision of the results.
It's like one person saying that that fish is 12.4 inches long and the other person saying it's about a foot, plus or minus an inch or two.
In the end it's still a fish about one foot long.
B.W.
I am writing up my results now. They are pretty shocking. All I can say is: HL, RIP. The precision is horrible beyond belief. I will have the essay up ASAP.
Stuart did a bunch of analyses last year about how well curve-fitting techniques such as HL work, when applied to different data sets. I think he used the US as an example. For example, fitting a curve based on 1930-1960, when would you have predicted a peak? How about 1920-1970? Etc.
He came up with all these graphs showing when the peak would be as a function of the two years that defined the beginning and ending of the curve-fitting, and then compared different types of curves to see which produced the most stable peak predictions. I think his preferred method, a quadratic based curve, came out better than Hubble's linear method, which corresponds to the logistic curve.
Unfortunately it would be hard to find the posts right now, but there was plenty of information for someone who wants to look at how accurate Hubble-style predictions of the peak tend to be.
The issue of methodology, predictability and resolution were also evident in FH's skepticism of the Texas and Bakhtiari studies several weeks ago (which have vanished).
This does not apply to RR's KSA upcoming effort, due to its current nature, but the essence wrt to Texas would be that using today's corrected EIA database would not be entirely indicative of what analysts would have deducted in 1969. I have addressed this very recently.
The corrected data of past years has discrepancies of as much as 0.5 mb/d in some provinces and 4 mb/d globally. Using the 2007 database will be an interesting exercise, but only by performing the same task with the *then* available 1970 or so database will it be shown what MK Hubbert and others were viewing at that time.
This will become apparent with RR's test if it (Texas) does not show Hubbert's curve apex if one exists. In 1956, Hubbert's data revealed that the Texas Peak would be 1.15 GB/d (3.15 mb/d) in 1962 assuming a URR of 60 GB. I do not recall if he attempted further calls. Westexas posted in January that the actual Texas peak was 3.5 mb/d in '72.
Okay, here are some of Stuart's posts on the issue. It appears that Khebab was actually the first to use the method of varying the start and end year in looking at HL stability, but I can't find his posts on that right now. Khebab produced this graph, which is very informative if you take the time to study it:
Stuart's final and most informative post:
Projecting US Oil Production
Earlier posts:
Four US Linearizations
Predicting US Production with Gaussians
Linearizing a Gaussian
Turns out that contrary to my memory, the HL method is the most stable in terms of predicting things pre-peak. However as you can see in the plot above, the URR estimate varies from about 160 to 240 depending on what years you pick.
There are a few posts on PeakOil.com:
How Reliable is the Hubbert Linearization Method?
How Reliable is the Hubbert Lin. Method? the world case
I've started an article on wikipedia in order to try to clarify what is an HL and its properties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_Linearization
RR, great if you do this.
I'm not sure exactly what you were planning, but this may come in handy:
Uncertainty in Peak Oil Timing (Marcel Schoppers)
http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Schoppers.ppt
As you, I believe that we should stick to the stuff that matters (risk assessment, mitigation) and talk about things we can have a reasonably certainty of.
Thanks for the link. I am working on it now, but I keep getting distracted. I need to stay away from TOD for a while. It takes a lot of data-mining to come up with this information, and when I have to address someone's misconceptions every half hour it doesn't help matters.
I think the time and effort you spend on this site is a fantastic service to all. Please, don't burn out on it though! Let the minor stuff slide...
I'm sticking my oar in here because I wasn't convinced by Stuart's explanation of the SA production curve. I'm backing RR in this debate. It's too early for the SA peak.
First, demand. The global economy is slowing - witness Alan Greenspan's comments last week on the risk of a US recession in Q4. It takes up to 2 years for rising interest rates to effect the economy according to the Swiss central bank.
Then supply. Not only is oil demand slowing but a number of large projects came on stream last year. I think we are seeing SA cutting production because the demand isn't there, just as they say.
Why try too hard? The Saudi's don't need the money right now. They have seen the world economies cope with $60/bbl so that is likely to be their preferred price. If the futures price is in contango you make more money by deferring production.
IMHO Stuart is reading too much into his SA chart. There are two variables at work - capacity and demand. I don't see how you can tell them apart. Surely, prior to global peak, the oil production curve is a demand curve. There has been spare capacity for most of the last century. If demand had had a different shape (World War III, bird 'flu, asteroid strike, anything) then production would have looked different. And that would blow HL out of the water.
Bottom line - we are looking through SA's swing producer role. We don't know what we are seeing. Moreover, my bet is that SA will produce as little oil as possible from now on.
Does anyone know how I can change my username to DemandSide? ;-)
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the quicker than expected reply I quickly scanned your two references and will read all three of the postings(Westexas has added more) tonight, but at a quick glance these two things struck me.
From your discussion with Stewart,
About the "85 million bpd with little excess capacity", where was Saudi Arabia as a 'swing producer' at this time?
And in this current article,
I am no more competent to say this is any more correct than to say that PO has already occurred, but would you consider qualifying that statement by saying that this small difference in dates is immaterial in considering the necessity to 'get on with the job'. (Not much point worrying who is in front with a cement truck bearing down).
Actually, I do believe Robert has said that it makes no difference whether he is right or WesTexas is right regarding the year of actual PO-- that we need to prepare now as the time difference is essentially meaningless. Robert, correct me if I am wrong.
Cheryl
Robert, correct me if I am wrong.
No, you are absolutely correct. And I am doing my best to prepare as if peak is upon us; I am making changes in my life and trying to set an example for those around me. My main concern - explained above - is that if peak is still 4 years away we are going to completely lose our voice because we called peak now, and the 4 years are going to be lost time.
Hi Robert,
Yes in your debate you do state that response should be immediate. Sorry about that bad oversight of mine.
But I do not see why, if on this point you and Westexas are in close agreement, a statement to this effect shouldn't be broadcast, with force, while explaining the limits of the PO forecast.
It seems to me that a stumbling block to this forecast is the inability to access the Saudi figures necessary to a quite definite prediction? The Saudis must hold accurate knowledge of their reserves and I would think this information would be available to the US government as well. Oil reserve figures for SA are a US security matter that would be of foremost concern and given the political relationship between the SA and the USA this information would be common knowledge between them.
If the US Government holds this information would it not be an idea to request it directly if only for public relations value for TOD in MSM .
Further,
SamuM (above, I think) gives the following link,which I will repeat here:
http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Schoppers.ppt
I couldn't copy and paste the bit that interested me so will quote it as follows: from the article by Dr. Marcel Shoppers and DR. Neil Murphy. Pleasantly for us lay guys they end with afterthought #!:
2.5% chance the peak occurred by 2003
15% chance the peak will occur by 2006
50% chance the peak will occur by 2009
85% chance the peak will occur by 2012
95% chance the peak will occur by 2015
2.5% chance the peak will occur after 2015
This sort of approach if validated, I think,would stifle the 'wot year is this supozed to hapen?' sort of criticism, while limiting 'Cry Wolf' concerns.
BTW Robert, Still beavering away at all the material you loaded on my plate...thanks a bunch..I think. And if you have anything on how you are preparing for APO I would appreciate hearing about it, but only at your leisure.
Hi Black B.
re: "But I do not see why, if on this point you and Westexas are in close agreement, a statement to this effect shouldn't be broadcast, with force, while explaining the limits of the PO forecast."
Thank you. I second this (as I've been making similar comments for a while).
I very much like the Shoppers/Murphy way of presenting it. Add what you say above, (summarize the analyses that give rise to one or more predictions) - and this should do it. Something rational and scientific (yes?) upon which to base positive action.
If it is 4 years away, and don't get me wrong, I wish it was 20 yrs away, I believe they will not care if it was called early. They will be saying, "oh sh*t, what do we do now?", and turn to anyone who seemed to know something about it. They certainly won't be listening to CERA.
Hi Cid,
I just wanted to respond (though no one may be reading by now) - To me, the issue, as I've said above, is to lay out, with care, the parameters and methods of any and all predictions - for all to see.
It should be doable to come up with a statement that summarizes the range of methods and outcomes.
The reason this matters, as I see it, have to do with the following:
1) There's been much discussion about how things might unfold once peak is upon us (or even if it has already begun). The evidence of "peak" per se - ie., "peak"-as-the cause-of-the-outcomes-of-peak, might not be at all evident. We need a clear statement about what we are saying re: world supply of oil, in order to be able to draw connections between events and what we view as the cause (major cause) of those events.
2) Most people (in my experience) have very little of the relevant knowledge that might enable them to grasp the significance of peak. So, in other words, they might not have anything at all resembling the response you imagine. They may not know; they may not be able to know. They may draw the wrong conclusions, for example, the recession is temporary. The Depression is temporary. Things will return to "normal"...just as an example. Hence, it's important to be able to make extremely well-reasoned, well-evidenced "predictions" - or even background statements.
3) Even people with relevant background may not understand how oil functions (or energy for that matter) in the economy. and finally...
4) My experience is that the ability to grasp (let alone respond in a constructive fashion to) the idea of "peak" has almost nothing to do with anything at all - education, etc. There is something quite uniquely difficult on the emotional side about this topic, in other words.
This is why I believe the statement Black B makes (I have made, also) is important. It does matter. To be able to give a coherent summary matters.
Hirsch et al did this (in a way) in the first Hirsch report, by simply listing the various "calls". We need to take this further.
About the "85 million bpd with little excess capacity", where was Saudi Arabia as a 'swing producer' at this time?
Oh, I think up until they started making the cuts, they were producing all the could. In other words, I do believe they lost their ability as swing producers during the time of high demand. Now, is that because they were peaking, or was it because they failed to properly anticipate demand? Given that they still have lots of projects in the pipeline that will bring new oil online, I would say they failed to properly anticipate demand (and supply, for that matter) and have these projects coming on later than they should have.
this small difference in dates is immaterial in considering the necessity to 'get on with the job'.
I think you are kind of new here, so I will repeat my position. In no way do I think we should relax. We need to get on with the job. If we peak in 2012, we are still going to be in dire straits, because we won't be prepared.
Here is my concern. Many people have gone on record now and said "Saudi has peaked." Some of them are using the HL model to back them up. Some very influential people are picking up on this and repeating it. Therefore, it is important to understand the precision of that model.
Here is the worst case scenario in my mind, and the whole reason I argue these points with Jeffrey. What if production starts to rise next year? He, and others who have been calling peak last year or in 2005 are going to be finished prognosticating. The influential people who repeated these claims won't be taken seriously on this subject.
Yet we may still have 4 or 5 years in which to convince the policy-makers that we have a serious problem, and it is nearly on top of us. But they aren't going to listen, and those 4 or 5 years will be wasted as well. Folks like CERA are going to point to yet another failed prediction of peak, and credibility will slide. But I feel we will need our credibility more than ever in the next few years, and I am determined to fight anything that may chip away at it. If the methodology for calling peak in 2006 is sound, so be it. If not, I want to make sure that is understood.
It is better to have 2 or 3 years to prepare than no years. Maybe only marginally better, but for some people this may be the difference between life and death. I fear that if Jeffrey is wrong because he overstated his case, we are going to end up with no years to prepare because people are going to start viewing these predictions as "end of the world" religious beliefs that continue to be wrong.
Yes, just a bouncing baby meathead who finally has figured out how subthreads work...I think.
By that logic he is out in right field and and you in left, while the ball is somewhere in the middle. Westtexas takes a risk in loosing credibility while you with caution hold back and risk losing a lot of important years. Each of you strike me as intelligent people but, in your individual rigors, perhaps both going to miss the ball. I would suggest a large net that the two of you hold up for a possibly, maybe, sure 'out' on.P.O. (of course nets don't always succeed...I've been out and about for a mighty long time).
and now to tackle a greased piggy-wigg...the Parent subthread...whatever that ferocious looking creature is.
Westtexas takes a risk in loosing credibility while you with caution hold back and risk losing a lot of important years.
That's just the thing, though. I am not saying we should hold back with respect to preparations. I think we should prepare as if a meteor is bearing down on the planet. But I think the message is going to lose a lot of its urgency if those who forecast peak last year turn out to be wrong as production starts to rise. We may have 4 or 5 years to keep beating the drum: Start preparing for event.
I do like that approach that you copied above where they give probabilities. Those probabilities are not too far from what I would suggest. That approach really emphasizes the urgency without the risk of credibility loss.
how much of saudi's oil does the us consume directly?
i wonder if the saudi's are all that interested in us inventory.
good point
how much of saudi's oil does the us consume directly?
We get about half of our oil from OPEC, and between 10 and 15% directly from KSA.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a...
i wonder if the saudi's are all that interested in us inventory.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the argument. It isn't that Saudi is interested in our inventory. We are a major customer of theirs, and our tanks were high and rising. What does that tell you? What if your bathtub is filling up with water? What if you don't stop the rising water? That is exactly the situation in the U.S. when the Saudi cuts began. The U.S. was purchasing more oil than we needed prior to the Saudi cuts. We could only do that so long because our storage levels were already high.
I can't believe so many people struggle with this. It is not rocket science. It was physically what was taking place when the Saudi cuts began: If your tanks are high and rising, you slow down your purchases. Given that the timing also coincided with refinery turnaround season - as I showed in my debate with Jeffrey - and you also don't buy crude when your refineries are down, their story checks out. That doesn't make it true, but it does make it consistent with the demand picture of the world's largest oil consumer.
"What if you don't stop the rising water?"
You open the drain.
"how much of saudi's oil does the us consume directly?"
Does anyone actually have the data, current and past, indicating Saudi Arabia's customers and their share of Saudi crude oil exports?
A point I tried to make to Robert in a thread below Stuart Staniford's brilliant analysis the other day, was that he, Robert, didn't really have much to go on when making his assertion that inventory levels were driving production decisions in Saudi Arabia. I used poor wording by saying that he didn't have any real data, when what I meant was that he doesn't have enough data to support his interpretation of Saudi Arabia's recent production profile.
A National Petroleum Council Report of 2004 makes an interesting point:
"Since crude oil quality varies significantly from one supply point to another and refineries are designed to operate using crude oil of given qualities, sudden changes in crude oil supply could cause a reduction in refinery throughput even though there appears to be ample volumes of crude oil available."
Michele Markey, an experienced analyst at Apache, reports:
"There currently is no way to quantify what types of crude are in commercial U.S. storage."
There is also no information on the mix of crude oil in commercial storage in the other OECD countries. And there is no information, that I can find, or Robert appears able to offer, at all about commercial crude inventories in the non-OECD countries. These latter countries have accounted for 3/4 of the growth in oil consumption since the turn of the century and now account for more than 41% of total consumption.
Robert refers to remarks made by Saudi and Iranian officials about growing inventories in south-east Asia. But this hardly amounts to information. In fact, it could easily be disinformation. In either case, it doesn't amount to useful evidence. (Nonetheless, if anyone has links to these statements, I would appreciate them, as I am slowly accumulating a dossier on some aspects of the spin surrounding the Peak Oil issue.)
Not only is there an absence of a clear picture of crude oil inventories, there are also other factors at play in the time frame we are dealing with. Contango in the futures market is referred to in numerous IEA monthly stock reports as factor encouraging increases in inventories. The above mentioned (and below linked) NPC report of 2004 described markets concerned "about
increased geopolitical risk in a number of oil-producing
countries." The potential impact on inventories of storms was made unforgettably clear in the wake of Hurricane Ivan in 2004. All these factors create a reason to hold more crude in inventory. Surely, the Saudi's read the reports of the NPC and the IEA.
http://www.npc.org/reports/R-I_121704.pdf
http://www.apachecorp.com/Explore/Explore_Features/20060828/Topic_Report...
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
You open the drain.
Excellent answer, and one that I was hoping someone would come back with. So, what do you do if the drain is plugged? In the case under discussion, refineries were being taken offline for maintenance. The reason for refinery maintenance in the spring and fall is that it provides a combination of good weather and lower demand. So, this is probably a universal happening (nobody plans maintenance in the heat of summer or dead of winter). All refineries have to be maintained. And we do know why and when U.S. refineries undergo peak maintenance (refinery utilization is one of those tracked statistics). So, in this case the drain was plugging up. Then the only other option is to close off the supply.
Does anyone actually have the data, current and past, indicating Saudi Arabia's customers and their share of Saudi crude oil exports?
I linked to it above.
Robert, didn't really have much to go on when making his assertion that inventory levels were driving production decisions in Saudi Arabia.
I have a lot to go on. I know the inventory picture for about half the world, and I know when peak refinery maintenance season is. Some of you people seem to believe that if you just choose to ignore these things, then they aren’t really true.
"There currently is no way to quantify what types of crude are in commercial U.S. storage."
When we turn in crude inventories from a refinery, we also provide information on gravity and sulfur. So, there is certainly a way. The government has this information. And I could have sworn I have seen it made available, but maybe that was just the SPR.
There is also no information on the mix of crude oil in commercial storage in the other OECD countries.
So now we are back to appealing to the unknown for support? Please. I have provided actual data, and what I have provided supports me. I have provided a logical basis for my argument. In return, I get “We don’t know everything.” Well, Stuart doesn’t know everything either. That is why this is a debate. Stuart is making some assumptions about the timing of Haradh III that may not be accurate. But some of you lose your objectivity in this debate and pick and choose which assumptions you like based on which scenario you support. Why don’t you just throw Stuart’s argument out since he can’t prove that the bump is Haradh III? After all, you realize that he doesn’t know that, right?
Robert refers to remarks made by Saudi and Iranian officials about growing inventories in south-east Asia. But this hardly amounts to information. In fact, it could easily be disinformation.
Again with the appeals to the unknown. Do you think the refiners in SE Asia don’t know what their inventory picture was? If their inventory picture is not what the Saudis and Iranians said, what kind of reaction might they have? Might they lose a bit of trust for their supplier? Personally, if I was a refiner in SE Asia and my supplier misrepresented my inventory situation, you would read the contradictory reports in the news.
Contango in the futures market…
When you start talking about contango it is clear that you are not understanding the argument I am making. Contango is irrelevant to what was happening when the Saudis began their cuts. Look to the physical data we have at that time, and you will see support for their statements.
I said I wasn’t going to keep doing this, and I won’t. There is my argument. I believe the Saudi cuts were consistent with what the market was calling for, and the fact that the price fell despite their cuts seems to validate that. If it was involuntary, gosh it was convenient timing for us all.
I think I starting to understand why you are having some difficulty here. You appear to be gazing at the US navel exclusively.
I, following Edelmore, ask for information on Saudi exports and you propose a link to US imports.
I propose that the way to deal with rising inventory is the usual way to clear markets (within your metaphor - drain), by lowering prices. And you start discussing US refinery practices. Well, subtracting US consumption as shown in the aforesaid link of Saudi Arabia oil from EIA reported Saudi production levels, does suggest that there are other customers for that production elsewhere in the world, and that this lot is buying most of the stuff.
I note, for example, that while crude oil stocks in the OECD Pacific countries grew by 5.4 mb in the first quarter of 2006, they were at the end of 2005 almost 14 mb below 2004 year end levels (down 2.5 days of forward demand) and nearly 23 mb below 2003 year end levels. Was their bathtub overflowing?
I cite Michele Markey, an experienced analyst at Apache, as saying:
"There currently is no way to quantify what types of crude are in commercial U.S. storage."
And you respond: "When we turn in crude inventories from a refinery, we also provide information on gravity and sulfur. So, there is certainly a way. The government has this information. And I could have sworn I have seen it made available, but maybe that was just the SPR."
You could be right that there is a way, but, no, you did not see any report containing aggregated data for the types of crude in commercial US storage. And so, no, you do not have much more than a fuzzy picture for the half of the world. And even then it is a half that represents less than one quarter of recent growth in oil consumption.
"If their inventory picture is not what the Saudis and Iranians said, what kind of reaction might they have?(...) Personally, if I was a refiner in SE Asia and my supplier misrepresented my inventory situation, you would read the contradictory reports in the news."
Honestly, Robert, I've been googling and yahooing and haven't come up with any reports from anyone. I suppose you might swear to having seen them, but, frankly, I'm starting to wonder if your imagination isn't playing a whole bunch of tricks on you.
I'm not surprised that you refuse to deal with the Contango argument, or the implications for inventory practices of geo-political and weather events. I however don't think that the Saudi's are as immune to the import of these implications as you.
"I believe the Saudi cuts were consistent with what the market was calling for, and the fact that the price fell despite their cuts seems to validate that."
I'll just leave you this comment from the NPC report to contemplate:
"However, statistical analysis of the simple relationship between inventories and prices or inventory changes and price changes finds only a modest correlation. This conclusion is indicative of the fact that the interaction of inventories and prices is complex. Inventories are an imperfect measure of the supply/demand balance, and prices for crude oil and petroleum products are influenced by many factors in addition to inventories."
edit:
I've been assuming that the KSA started their contraction at the beginning of the 4th quarter 2005, when according to the EIA production dropped from 9.6 mb/d to 9.5 mb/d. Is this correct?
I think I starting to understand why you are having some difficulty here. You appear to be gazing at the US navel exclusively.
I am not the one having difficulty here. You see, I actually understand what takes place when crude tanks start to fill up. I understand a bit more about the physical constraints than you seem to believe. I have been there and done that. I also understand that some factors that affect U.S. refineries affect other refineries in the same way.
But you seem to have a selective attention span. Again, we know more about the U.S. than any other region, and we do have good information for the U.S. The U.S. is a big customer of the Saudis. We have OECD data. We know when and why refineries do maintenance. But you want to ignore all of this, so Presto!, in your mind there’s nothing there to see. No relevance, no significance.
I, following Edelmore, ask for information on Saudi exports and you propose a link to US imports.
There’s that attention span again. He asked “how much of saudi's oil does the us consume directly?” I cited the information and gave him the link. We don’t have data on all of their customers, so we try to interpret what we have, and we try to fill in the blanks based on other factors. You know, like Jeffrey’s “export model.” He doesn’t know the sum total of Saudi’s exports either, but that hasn’t stopped him from sounding an alarm bell that exports are down. What he really means is “some imports are down.”
I propose that the way to deal with rising inventory is the usual way to clear markets (within your metaphor - drain), by lowering prices.
So you propose, when tanks are filling up, that we lower the price on the crude? The U.S. was already buying more than they need; how is lowering prices going to help the crude tanks go down? I think you are very confused here about crude, products from crude, the refinery constraint between the two, and where the significance lies.
Well, subtracting US consumption as shown in the aforesaid link of Saudi Arabia oil from EIA reported Saudi production levels, does suggest that there are other customers for that production elsewhere in the world, and that this lot is buying most of the stuff.
Of course they do their refinery maintenance at the same time as everyone else. Again, review my debate response to Jeffrey. None of this is new. All of this has been covered.
I note, for example, that while crude oil stocks in the OECD Pacific countries grew by 5.4 mb in the first quarter of 2006, they were at the end of 2005 almost 14 mb below 2004 year end levels (down 2.5 days of forward demand) and nearly 23 mb below 2003 year end levels. Was their bathtub overflowing?
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Here are the data on total OECD – which includes Pacific countries – and it shows inventories growing during the time in question.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/surveys/oil_web.xls
My guess is that you are looking at total inventories – which includes refined products (irrelevant for obvious reasons) but you are going to have to start citing some sources if you want me to address the claims.
You could be right that there is a way, but, no, you did not see any report containing aggregated data for the types of crude in commercial US storage. And so, no, you do not have much more than a fuzzy picture for the half of the world. And even then it is a half that represents less than one quarter of recent growth in oil consumption.
If you wish to argue that perhaps inventories were filling up because the crude suddenly heavied up, then it is up to you to demonstrate that. I have shown actual data demonstrating that refineries were down. Do you think refineries that are down continue to buy crude at the same rate? Do you think the rest of the world doesn’t do maintenance at the same time as the U.S.? If you don’t, please explain why.
Honestly, Robert, I've been googling and yahooing and haven't come up with any reports from anyone. I suppose you might swear to having seen them, but, frankly, I'm starting to wonder if your imagination isn't playing a whole bunch of tricks on you.
OK, I think we’re done here. Believe what you wish. You have yet to address any of my arguments with anything but “unknown factors might refute you.” When you dig up some of these unknown factors, let me know.
But one more thing:
I'm not surprised that you refuse to deal with the Contango argument…
Other arguments I refuse to deal with: What phase the moon was in, who won the Superbowl that year, and what Nostradamus predicted.
I will explain again. Very slowly. Contango has no relevance when crude tanks are physically filling up and we have data that tell us why (refinery utilization is down). I don’t know how to make that any clearer. I am not going to deal with an irrelevant argument.
It's sort of like the theoretician and the research scientist. The theoretician may have it in his head how things should be, but the scientist working in lab knows how it really is because he has conducted the experiments.
Now, unless you have some new data (or some data at all, I should say) then I think we are done. I honestly can’t continue to waste this much time on this fruitless discussion.
"My guess is that you are looking at total inventories – which includes refined products (irrelevant for obvious reasons) but you are going to have to start citing some sources if you want me to address the claims."
Here is the link to the IEA site. I did post it upthread I believe. Year over year data up to 2005 for regions is available in the annual statistical report. Data for 2006 is in monthly reports. I did post this link farther upthread, but thinking that you actually did some research before posing, I didn't think to necessary it repeat the link.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
The rest of your argument speaks for itself. While I have been impressed with your work on ethanol, especially after you adjusted your position on brazilean sugar-based ethanol, I will be taking anything you post with a large grain of salt henceforth.
That's it? I hit you with facts, the logic behind my argument, a link to OECD inventories, and an explanation that lower refinery utilization means lower crude purchases, and that's your rebuttal?
I will be taking anything you post with a large grain of salt henceforth.
You do that. Meanwhile, I will continue to go to work and actually get paid for knowing this stuff.
Tell you what. I have an essay setting in the queue. It is an expose of the HL as a predictive model, and it is pretty shocking. Take your best shot. Of course one of your heroes read it in the queue and already e-mailed me a hearty endorsement, so you may want to be careful before you overdose on the salt.
You really are quite full of yourself.
I can see that proposing that you contemplate the observation of the NPC on the relationship between inventories and supply/demand was wasted.
A week ago, I didn't know much about oil inventories. Working my way through the discussion on Saudi production, I observed your comments about how inventory levels belied the notion that SA oil production declines were involuntary. Interesting, I thought. So I asked for links to data on inventory levels and set about finding my own.
It didn't take long to conclude that the available facts were limited to OECD countries, and that even that data was of limited value, in that it didn't provide any information on the mix of types of crude oil, information which seasoned analysts such as Michele Markey and the authors of the 2004 NPC report identified as significant in the context of inventories. I also learned that the rate of oil consumption growth was 3 times higher in the non-OECD countries, a fact that could not possibly elude the Saudis, and a fact which further diminishes the value of the available OECD stock information.
On my own, recognizing that you are a busy and ambitious young man (politics?), conducting interviews and so on, I tried to follow up your reference to Saudi and Iranian comments expressing concern about high stock levels in south-east Asia. I found nought. I said as much, but you have chosen to keep your links secret. Still statements aren't worth much in the age of spin, so I don't really mind.
But I did find evidence that within the OECD the inventory trends varied from region to region and that, at the time that Saudi production began dropping, in the fall of 2005 according to the EIA, the Pacific region possessed commercial stocks below the levels of the two previous years. And furthermore, the increase in stocks in the OECD-Pacific during the first quarter of 2006 didn't close the gap.
It was really quite revealing that you were ignorant of this data, especially given your haughty pronouncements regarding the role of inventories in the matter of Saudi Arabia's recent production profile. It is also revealing how you choose to ignore the presence of incentives, noted by the IEA in numerous monthly reports during this period, to increase discretionary stocks. Incentives that logically were as present in the OECD Pacific and the non-OECD countries as they were in the US and Europe.
In the time I've paid attention to TOD, I have witnessed you on your soapbox lecturing others about the necessity of arguing from evidence. I sadly conclude that it turns out to have been a show.
A week ago, I didn't know much about oil inventories.
Believe me, it was not necessary that you tell me that. It showed then, as it does now. Your comments have reminded me of the Creationist, who, after having learned all there is to know about evolution in a week of reading Creationist websites, ventures out into the world with misplaced confidence and starts telling the evolutionists they don’t know what they are talking about. Same attitude from you, just a different topic.
It didn't take long to conclude that the available facts were limited to OECD countries, and that even that data was of limited value
Of limited value to YOU. But you don’t even know what you don’t know.
On my own, recognizing that you are a busy and ambitious young man (politics?), conducting interviews and so on
Politics? Whatever are you on? Have you listened to nothing I have ever said? You have one of the most selective attention spans I have ever seen. I am a chemical engineer. I am in the oil business. I have much direct experience with inventories. Right now, I am in charge of a 12-person team carrying out projects in the North Sea. Like your Michele Markey, I am seasoned. I have been doing this for close to 20 years. People call and write to me for information because they recognize that I have a long track record of knowing what I am talking about. When I tell you that rising inventory levels affect purchases, or explain why refineries will all tend to come down in the same season for maintenance, it is because I know. I am not reading a couple of web pages and constructing a hypothesis. But, bravo for you that you have chosen to ignore all of this in favor of your week’s worth of earned knowledge.
I tried to follow up your reference to Saudi and Iranian comments expressing concern about high stock levels in south-east Asia. I found nought. I said as much, but you have chosen to keep your links secret.
You are asking me to take time to look up something for you that you have already indicated that you reject. You already discount the statements, but still want me to take time to look them up for you, personally. I posted them and linked to them the first time around. They may in fact be in the comments following that essay response to Jeffrey. Whether I saved them, I don’t know. But believe me, I have better things to do than go digging up statements for someone who has already indicated that he rejects them regardless.
But I did find evidence that within the OECD the inventory trends varied from region to region and that, at the time that Saudi production began dropping, in the fall of 2005 according to the EIA, the Pacific region possessed commercial stocks below the levels of the two previous years.
That’s not when the Saudis began their cuts. In 2005, they stepped production up by 100,000 bpd and then back down by 100,000 bpd. The trend was very flat. Starting in the Feb-March 2006 time frame, they started to make some real cuts that continued through refinery maintenance season. The U.S., the largest oil consumer in the world and a major customer of the Saudis, had high and rising inventories during this time - which tends to support the Saudi explanation for the cuts. I know that my refinery was reducing purchases during this time. I am glad that you feel you can so easily ignore this information. Again, all the data is provided in my response to Jeffrey. Feel free to have a look.
It was really quite revealing that you were ignorant of this data, especially given your haughty pronouncements regarding the role of inventories…
Again, you don’t even know what you don’t know. I don’t even know where to begin. You are confused about even the “role of inventories”, which has been clear by your insistence that contango matters here. The inventories by themselves are not the significant factor, as I have explained a dozen times or so. So it isn’t that I am ignorant about any of the data. In fact I have linked to all of this data numerous times. The problem is that you don’t understand what is significant and why, and so you crib quotes that you think might have some bearing, when in reality they don’t.
In the time I've paid attention to TOD, I have witnessed you on your soapbox lecturing others about the necessity of arguing from evidence. I sadly conclude that it turns out to have been a show.
Ah, the hubris of the amateur analyst. Good stuff. When people start paying you for what you know in the energy business, let me know. I will take your criticisms more seriously then.
Picture this. There are a bunch of debunkers making $7.00 hr. sitting at computers in little cubicles. They have a printout telling them what to try next if the previous post was challenged. It has things like "Demand links to obscure data, as the longer you keep them occupied searching, the longer it keeps them from posting." "Challenge them emotionally, the longer you can keep them defending themselves, the longer you keep them from posting something meaningful." "Lie, they will have to waste time proving what you said was wrong." I believe that is what we have had to deal with here since Stuart's 8% decline article.
Mixed in with the rhetoric, and the ad hominem attack, something else, which when practised by others, gets you on your soapbox, there is this :
"That’s not when the Saudis began their cuts. In 2005, they stepped production up by 100,000 bpd and then back down by 100,000 bpd. The trend was very flat. Starting in the Feb-March 2006 time frame, they started to make some real cuts that continued through refinery maintenance season. The U.S., the largest oil consumer in the world and a major customer of the Saudis, had high and rising inventories during this time - which tends to support the Saudi explanation for the cuts."
Let's see, the first 100,000 barrel cut in production from the peak of 9.6 mb/d, which lasted six months, doesn't count. Well, I guess that's one way of trying to make the facts fit an argument. Cuts and 'real' cuts. That ought to stand up in court.
Then, of course, you're back to the US.
Because you never did post a link to information showing Saudi Arabia's exports by destination, confusing a request for this information with US imports by source, I searched away until I found it. I'll put the link at the bottom (OPEC).
What I find is that in 2001, the US took just under 25% of SA's exports and that by 2005, the US share of Saudi's exports had dropped to a little more than 18%, and had dropped in absolute volume.
Meantime, 'Asia and Pacific' customers increased their share from 48.9% to 54.6%. The share of Saudi Arabia's exports to other Middle East countries increased from 2.6% to 4.3%, and more notably, nearly doubled in absolute terms. Effectively all of Saudi Arabia's increased exports in this century have gone to Middle Eastern and Asia and Pacific countries, in and out of the OECD.
At the same, the OECD-Pacific region ends 2005 with the lowest commercial crude oil inventory of any year since at least 1986. Inventory continued, according to OECD monthly reports, to decline during January in these countries, before beginning to climb in February. At the point at which you think fit to place Saudi Arabia in 'real' cut mode, the OECD member countries in the most important regional market for the Saudi's, have stocks well below the average level of previous years.
And to repeat a concern I’ve had from the time I first investigated your claims regarding inventory, there is no reliable data on the stock situation in the ensemble of countries which represent 75% of the growth this century in consumption.
We do know that the Chinese have undertaken to build a strategic reserve. Of course they have, since they are as aware as anyone else that production is generally constrained and subject to frequent interruptions from geo-political and natural disturbances. It is in the interest of all consuming countries, because of these factors, to increase discretionary stocks. It is not surprising to find this trend noted frequently in industry reports. In this context, the historically low stocks during the time that Saudi Arabia began and continued its production decline appear even smaller.
On March 8, in a response to Suyog you said:
"We have OECD inventories, but then the Saudis have also cited high inventories across SE Asia as a reason for the OPEC cuts. Iran has also stated concern about high inventories. So, the evidence we do have indicates high inventories. The only rebuttal I ever hear is "we don't know about the rest of the world." Well, we know about a lot of it, and the part we do know about supports my point. I am waiting for someone to show me the part that doesn't."
The reality turns out that OECD-Pacific had had historically low inventories when Saudi cuts (100,000 b/d) began in the fall of 2005, and that when the Robert Rapier "real" cuts (150,000 b/d) began inventory levels had reversed a declining trend, but still remained well below the average levels of each of the twenty previous years.
In sum, Saudi Arabian production held at peak levels this century for six months before beginning a long-term decline at the beginning of the 4th quarter in 2005, according to the EIA. During this time stocks in the OECD Pacific countries, very significant customers in the most important market for Saudi crude, were at historically low levels and declining.
http://www.opec.org/home/ See Annual Statistical Report and Monthly Reports
Robert,
The debunkers are wearing you out and trying to take you away from what you should be doing. Let the rest of us handle them while you get us your new "shocking" post.
(You notice they jumped all over you as soon as you said that.)
Is it your opinion that Robert should get a pass on those of his assertions, which are backed only by other assertions, vague references and credentialism?
No. I just wanted him to make his new post first. Then, if so inclined, he would be free to saly forth and do battle.
So we really are just going to have to wait it out? Has there ever been another attempt by anyone else to model oil production curves? Just curious, as important as this is it would seem to me that someone would model it. If not Hubert then who and how? This is not meant as an
attack in the slightest just a question.
Hi Robert,
Thanks so much for the offer to submit questions.
re: "Having said that, I do think world oil production will peak around 2012, plus or minus 3 or 4 years."
What are you basing this on?
There are a lot of pieces that go into that, and the picture obviously evolves. But basically I am looking at the projects that are in the pipeline, discounting somewhat for delays, problems, etc. and then trying to estimate whether that will stay ahead of depletion. You can read some background on Chris Skrebowski's mega projects list - discussed here from time to time at this link:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/539
That's not the most recent version, as he has updated the list. I am also aware of various projects in the pipeline that haven't shown up on the list because they have not been announced yet (Note: I am not arguing from propietary sources here; in fact I never use this as the basis of my arguments).
There is obviously a lot of art to go along with the science, but my best guess is that new supply is going to stay ahead of depletion for a few more years. However, I don't know that new supply is going to stay ahead of increasing demand - my Peak Lite scenario.
In my opinion, the best case scenario we can hope for is for Peak Lite to occur for 3 or 4 years before true peak. This would force us to begin to come to grips with the oil situation before the production curve turns downward.
Thanks, Robert, I'll look into this further. I'm wondering how you analyze the depletion side of it. (But I suppose I'll learn when I look in more detail at the "megaprojects" approach - ?).
I sure hope we do get the best scenario.
So, how about this? What if sa production continues to fall throughout this year, say 100kb/month, to around 7.6Mb/d end year. Then, assume further that oecd stocks (now down 80Mb from the oct peak) continue to decline, as predicted by eia, another 80Mb by end year. And, further assume that price at year end is at or above last year's peak, so 80/b. Would this combination of events move you to the other camp, or would you still be waiting for more data?
IMO ghawar is going down 18%/y. If true, and assuming all of their new projects come on line as scheduled, I see production over the next five years at 7-8Mb/d.
Hi j,
I find this interesting, and wonder if anyone has seen it. Perhaps you might repost today?
Looking forward to your post. We need the oil companies more than ever.
Looking at your blogger list, talk about preaching to the choir.
That was my impression during the teleconference. I had heard of Jerry Taylor, but didn't know the other names. It definitely was not a hostile audience.
I want to set the record straight when I don't think it is straight, but I am not going to go forth and preach a message that I am delivered. That's not how I work. I don't agree with a lot of stuff in that presentation, and I will make it clear. And if I had known a little more about the format (I wasn't even sure I would get to ask a question) then I would have come up with some different questions. And that is a reason I posted this: To give some who aren't the choir a chance to have their questions/comments heard and addressed.
Strange. The people on the teleconference demonstrate clearly fundamentalist wingnut leanings. Mary Katherine Ham blogs representing the Hugh Hewitt show and only wants to denigrate progressive ideas. Witness her question on Al Gore's energy usage of which several analysts have debunked.
These people excluding Rapier are losers. They don't want to see any progress made.
Witness the fact that Ham has not posted anything on the subject at :
http://www.townhall.com/blog/MaryKatharineHam
I say ignore the conservative pinheads, including the RedStaters.
Right, and so you post a link to her blog? Way to go.
Strange. The people on the teleconference demonstrate clearly fundamentalist wingnut leanings. Mary Katherine Ham blogs representing the Hugh Hewitt show and only wants to denigrate progressive ideas. Witness her question on Al Gore's energy usage of which several analysts have debunked.
I don't know who Hugh Hewitt is, but I definitely got the impression during the call that they had tried to pick a sympathetic audience. I had heard of Jerry Taylor and I think he is a Libertarian. I of course work for the oil industry, and while I am sympathetic to some of the things presented (because I do believe the public has a very distorted view of oil companies), I am not sympathetic to all nor am I a right-winger (although I am frequently confused with one because of my oil company association). In fact, I am a universal health care, protect the environment, help the less fortunate kind of guy. (I would say "liberal", but that was used as a curse word when I was growing up in conserative Oklahoma).
I am going to try to pull pieces out of the presentation and highlight my agreements and disagreements, and I want to solicit questions that you would ask of the oil industry. Then I can't be accused of not asking the tough questions. It is certainly not my intent to participate in a mutual admiration society event.
Every time we have a runup in prices, we just ratchet up the calls for so called alternatives to oil, combined with calls to force the oil companies to lower prices.
The issue with me isn't excess profits. Whether or not the oil companies have excess profits is immaterial to me. However, what is material is the refusal of the American people to take step steps to wean themselves off the oil tit. No. They want their gas. They want it now. They want it in abundance. And they want it cheap. And the fault, of course, always lies elsewhere.
I don't want lower prices; I want higher prices in the form of a carbon tax and/or a gasoline tax. The best alternative to gas is to cut one's consumption. But politicians will continue to flail the idea that we can all get ourselves out of this mess by switching to the magic of biofuels. No mention of what the net impact is. No mention of the fact that we cannot possibly even come close to satisfying current or projected demand with such a scheme.
Yes, we have various proposals rumbling around in congress promising to do something meaningful in the way of higher cafe standards. But then we have these approaches that will just make things worse. Good God!! We have this proposal both by the President and some in congress to establish different standards for each class. Nice. Why, under this approach, an auto company could just decide to provide big car and trucks and have a standard tailored to that decision. Meanwhile, there would be no incentive to push small cars, whether hybrid, electic, or not.
My question to the oil companies would be, how are we going to get off your product, not what are you going to do to provide more product.
Robert,
Thanks for the invitation to ask some questions - I appreciate it. I skimmed the transcript of the teleconference and I would like to hear him answer a question directly about EROEI for coal-to-liquids and/or tar sands. Your first question touched on the huge capital investments the industry requires in order to bring oil to the consumer. With coal-to-liquids and tar sands it seems the capital investments required are another order of magnitude greater for an equivalent barrel/day production. I would think that surely someone out there has studied the decreasing marginal returns on capital invested in projects dealing with a lower quality form of carbon-based energy. So for my question I guess I'd ask -
What are typical yoy cost increases for bringing new oil online in conventional oil fields and in alternative fields (tar sands), for say the last five years?
This question is not directly about EROEI but in my opinion the numbers are probably just as valid since companies track this kind of thing, but they are less likely to try to compute precise EROEI. YOY cost increases take account of many things such as skilled labor shortage etc. But it couldn't hurt to see if he is even very familiar with the concept of EROEI by asking what a CTL or tar sand's project EROEI is.
Thanks again.
I haven't seen the movie so this is more a comment on the one sentence above. I've met so many people that argue in this same vane of logic. Its like the U.S. is filled with emotionally handicapped adults who were overindulged as children. Here is the above sentence paraphrased: "I don't want to hear the truth unless it conforms to my own personal preferences." Grow the f**k up. Whats the point? Reality is the point. Having an accurate picture of your world is the point. I want the truth no matter how ugly it is or how much it doesn't conform to my personal preferences.
But where is the pony? I want my pony! :-(
Change? Who me? You have got to be kidding...someone else needs to change so I don't have too...my lifestyle is "non-negotiable".
Mark B, I think you hit the nail on the head and touched a rather sore spot at the same time.
As I attend my kid's school activities and do business each day, I am amazed at the number of people who simply fit a definition of "intentional ignorance."
Intentional Ignorance: "I do not know enough to care. I also do not care enough to know."
This can be a matter of pride or hubris for many.
For most of us, it is a simple matter of the way we are wired. When our bellies are full and the kids seem fine and we have enough left over for some sort of play or entertainment, our brains have a tough time engaging in thoughts of planning for hard times.
Others actually fear shattering upon finding out the truth. Many people are terribly anxious, but hope that if they continue life as usual, it will all be OK somehow.
Sometimes animals perform routine actions when immediately faced with a powerful predator. This is a denial response when faced with no where to run and no possibility of fighting.
We have been made to feel helpless and totally dependent upon the very corporations and their servant government who have designed the foundations of our infrastructure -- energy, transportation, food, shelter -- all is mediated by corporatists who only fatten the consumer in order to bind them in debt and wage-slavery. The predator has us pretty well caged in.
It is unusual for people to think for themselves very much, and when they do, they immediately stop because it is simply too overwhelming. Back to routine behaviors.
So how do we raise awareness?
First, I think we do as much as we can to live the way we know that we need to live. We walk the walk.
Second, I think we try to notice and reach people who already show a willingness to change.
Third, I think we communicate in ways that are as smart and careful as possible. There is no one right way to do that. We need to understand and care about the people we are talking with.
Finally, I think we need to recognise and emphasize that none of us can control other people or outcomes, but we can control our own behaviour, engage responsibly within our own circle of relationships, and make changes within our own lives and community.
It is important not to try to save the whole world or to lay that burden on others. It is also important to help people understand that we can make good decisions to "powerdown" and economise, localise, and produce sustainably.
This is right. I justify my telling friends things they don't want to hear by telling myself: better to hear something you don't want to hear now than experience it later with no warning whatsoever. Kind like an innoculation. (I have some friends who say 'I don't want to hear it' -- and I dont't press it -- I value my friends.)
The related attitude I sometimes see is disavowal of doomerism. Well, short of large meteor coming at the planet, I don't think there is absolute doom facing us
soon. But there is a wide range of estimates of difficulty that is facing us, and I'm definitely on the side that says they are humongous.
It's useless to speak of doomerism, because I (and others) are simply saying that the measures needed to deal with what we face are radical. Some regard living without a car as doom, or living as many people do in the second and third world do now as doom. But that's because we have been so corrupted (me too) by living in this very brief period called the oil-age, and in the smaller part of the world that has been able to enjoy it (if that's the right word.)
Personally, we are individually all doomed, which is why I like to think about the future of the species. And I don't think there's any more interesting subject in the world than the study of the planet and our relation to it. Peak oil is one critical component right now, but there are many other. If I had it to do over, I wouldn't have wasted so much time on computers, math and physics.
By the way, the meteor thing is probably what will end our story. The size and timing of meteors is a matter of statistics. So I think I read that it's most likely a matter of tens of millions of years of years before we face something that will end our story. I don't think we have the power to completely wipe ourselves out -- but we sure as heck can put ourselves back a long way.
MarkB's comment really sums it up for me...I've never seen so many people who prefer to believe in fantasies rather than face reality. It's exactly the reason that most of the ideas promulgated on this site are political non-starters in the US. If we can't even acknowledge the problem, how can it be mitigated?
"....most of the ideas promulgated on this site are political non-starters in the US."
That is most of the problem we face and unfortunately it will take a serious oil price crisis to get us off our collective laurels.
I tried contacting and writing to my democratic congresscritters. Most of them evaded the questions or just plain refused to answer. I came away with the feeling that they are all aware of it to a certain extent, but that they felt openly discussing it would be political suicide. The closest I got to a response was that "if you believe that the government wasn't/isn't being honest with the American people or is corrupted by money and big business, then you need to stay involved."
Stay involved, hmmmm, with whom pray tell? If TPTB won't discuss it or even acknowledge the problem except to say we are addicted to oil, then other than my local community there isn't much to stay involved in (except the oil drum, natch).
But I still try to spread the word and encourage people to give it some serious thought whether they think it is total bunk or not. If I get a chance, I work on the kids...you know, discussing finite resources and the need to conserve and take better care of our planet, not pollute, and the need to share. I do it without bringing up peak oil since I fear their parents will flip if I lead their kids to believe the world isn't a fairy tale. I also encourage the kids to get their folks to help them plant a few veges and a fruit tree. It worked with one family, the little girls (3 and 5) convinced their parents to plant a little garden. The girls loved it and so did mom and dad. Dad even starting trying to make biodiesel and thinks he may have some ready to go very soon. Small steps are good steps. Their little girls are very bright and I expect they will spread the word to their friends. Gotta get them while they are young.
Cheryl
"stay involved" ....... i think he/she meant send the cash in a plain brown wrapper.
Regarding the review comments about "A Crude Awakening":
After giving a very downbeat Peak Oil talk five times now, I can sympathize with the criticism. Presenting a problem this big without offering some kind of emotional escape valve in the form of mitigation suggestions risks having your audience reject the entire message out of hand. The big problem for a Pessimistic Peaker is what sort of suggestions they can offer without feeling like they are promoting magical thinking or undercutting the foundation of their message.
The approach I've settled on is suggesting a series of changes that promote adaptation to and accommodation of our new circumstances, with an emphasis on the need to change our value systems away from "Growth = Success". A few examples or suggestions in each of these areas serve to give the audience the sense that there is something they can do, but without giving them the hope that they will be able to continue driving to Walmart to buy Chinese bath toys. The idea that there is something they will be able to do, even if the whole world won't, is enough to keep their ears open and let the weight of the message sink in.
I also use the acronym "HELP" (Humanize, Economize, Localize, Produce) as the keystone mnemonic for personal action: "Whenever you wonder what you can do to help, remember that you should HELP." I've had positive comments on that message after each of my talks.
Giving mitigation suggestions isn't a cop-out - it's one key to getting the message across. The other key is, of course, humour, but I've found there is a dearth of Peak Oil jokes. So far I use the Arab saying about grandfather riding a camel, father driving a car, me flying a plane, son riding a camel, as well as calling Hubbert the anti-Moses because he pointed the way out of the promised land. Other suggestions would be most welcome.
I have not had one person take issue with the message itself, though. It seems the idea of Peak Oil is hovering on the fringes of general consciousness right now, just about to crystallize into full view. When you describe it systematically to people, their usual reaction seems to be "Of course, that makes perfect sense."
I also end my lectures with the HELP acronym and it seems to be fairly well received, although students are always sort of shell shocked. Regardless of how one fits on the doomer scale (mitigation - adaptation - mere survival), HELP is something they can hang on to and realize they are not powerless.
I seem to recall that problem with talking about nuclear war - you know, the ending where the survivors would envy the dead, as noted by some silly Russian communist.
Luckily, we don't talk too much about that subject anymore, since there are only hundreds, not thousands, of warheads ready for rapid launch, and they are so much more precise these days. For example, I'm sure that the nuke targeted for the Pentagon will actually hit the Pentagon, and not land a mile or two away from it - though that old expression 'close only counts with atomic bombs' is hard to get out of my head.
See? A happy ending - instead of only have a few minutes to kiss your ass goodbye, you could have hours, maybe even days.
Since peak oil pretty much only involves changing how you live, and not actually in how human beings die in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust - no wonder peak oil is so depressing to talk about compared to nuclear war, since if you are lucky in a Russian sense, you will be among the tens to hundreds of millions of dead, and the future where you can't drive to the mall will not be important.
Or else, you learned in the Reagan era that a shovel was all you needed to survive in such a post-atomic world - the Reagan era was full of such optimism and can do spirit.
Gliderguider:
Regarding the use of humour in your presentations, I have a number of cartoons that I have picked up off the web that can add a light touch to a powerpoint presentation. I will send them to you if you like.
Yes, please! You can email them to paul(underscore)chefurka(at)rogers(dot)com
Thanks
Glider,
I would like to comment on one aspect of your statement, the "H" part of your acronym, humanize.
Humanize. That is the key to getting people to feel activated, rather than deactivated when they leave the meeting hall.
One of the main reasons we are so reluctant to make any sort of change in our society is our "screw-you," "me-first" mentality. I cannot count the number of times, after having explained the basic tenets of peak oil, where some of the assembled declared that they'd just take what they wanted from the tree-huggers. In effect, they would become predators. This mentality arises out of our laissez faire political paradigm that reinfected the political scene as a reaction by extremely rich and powerful interests to the improvements made to our economy by FDR and in reaction to our social improvements, such as civil rights, women's rights, and a new-found respect for the environment. The powers that be came to the stark realization that, in a democracy, they needed the people to make the changes for them. They needed the people to abet and subsidize their own enslavement. Through such incredibly evil hate tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute founded in 1943, they came to realize that using a counter-intuitive message asking common people to voluntarily give their rights and wealth to the rich would not work. They instead conflated certain abstractions such as freedom and individualism with their own interests, the subjugation of the people.
Now, whenever someone advocates that we take care of some common resource, such as the air or water, the conflationists trot out the various amorphous abstractions and fully expect the people to rise up and defend the landowner's right to pollute everyone's air or water -- and, sadly, the people often do exactly that. Another example: let's say a biologist wants to stop a landowner from eliminating a wetland. According to the conflationists, this wooly-headed scientist is robbing the landowner of their individual rights to do whatever the hell they want with their land. Because the average American has been hammered for years upon years with the idea that freedom and individualism trump the common good, they will often go along with an action that actually harms themselves. The same techniques have been used to undermine unions, universal healthcare, food safety, global warming prevention, and the peak oil trope.
So, what do we offer at the end of our dark vision of the future? Humanism. We humanize, or rather we re-humanize. A post-carbon society must offer local, intimate connection with local society. The right-wing has also poisoned this well, unfortunately. They will trot out the word "utopian." They will say it with a sneer. Since we all know humans are not perfectable, and since we know that "utopia" is perfection, we will never achieve utopia. We therefore must never try to better our situation.
Rectifying the damage to local community created by the rightwing authoritarians and fascists will be no easy accomplishment. The psychological damage is deep and hard to root out.
I always tell the people I speak with that the best part of post-carbon society is the inherent power they will regain: the power to make decisions that will actually change things in visible ways, the power to shape the community directly, the power to leave a legacy to their children and grandchildren, the power to live fully for oneself and the community.
There will be those of the right-wing bent who will object to what I say, and you will see in what they say the insidious messages the rich and powerful have worked so hard for so many years to implant in their minds. These synaptic pathways are deep and hard to climb out of, but those people who are not yet fully part of the tapeworm economy, who have recently started questioning the meaning behind recreational shopping, who have not become entirely blinkered by the Parasites That Be, these people may be able to see the alluring siren calls of "screw-you, me-first" tropes for what they are, the culmination of sixty odd years of psychological and sociological manipulation.
When next you take the time to tell one or many people about the coming post-carbon world, you do not need to explain how and why their lives have become so empty. They do not need to know about the fascists. Just know that they will be able to trust again, to come together as community and believe that they matter. They will know that what you offer is better than parasite world. They will know.
The Electric truck link- is it not working or overloaded?
Alan - New Orleans - did they have these as well as rail? This seems like the fastest way to electrify while adding rails. Any comments?
It's working for me...
I keep getting Error:(dns_server_failure)
(edit) these - I meant "electric buses" sorry
More trolley buses are point #4 in my plan to reduce US oil consumption by 10% in ten to twelve years using mature technology.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
New Orleans, at it's Peak Electrification had 222 miles of streetcar tracks, over 600 streetcars and about 100 electric trolley buses.
Electric trolley buses are best suited for lower density routes, or routes where rails might have problesm.
Their negatives (compared to streetcars) are:
More electricity needed (rubber on asphalt/concrete & sidewall flexing vs. steel rolling on steel).
Higher operating costs
Shorter bus life than rail cars
Two overhead wires required instead of one (neutral/return is the rail for streetcars).
ETBs are more attractive to pax than FF buses (quiet, smooth acceleration, no fumes) but not as attractive as Urban Rail.
ETBs do not create Transit Orientated Development ! So they do NOT get the indirect energy savings that Urban Rail does. For Urban Rail, the indirect savings are larger than the direct savings
But, yes, in an emergency, we could build them faster. Were I in charge, I would build both as fast as possible. But at the first sign of resource constraints, I would slow down ETBs in favor of Urban Rail.
Today, in the US, ETBs are used in San Francisco, Seattle, Dayton OH, an abortion hybrid in Boston and I think Philly still has them.
I am a fan of trolley freight; running containers off-peak on Urban Rail tracks for local deliveries. This is the first time I have seen electric trolley trucks though ! Interesting !
Best Hopes,
Alan
Alan, from yesterday's Independent:
We, the people of New Orleans, are doing the best that we can.
One action that I am proud about is that I paid/loaned the money and hired the contractor to repair an elderly man's home (485 sq ft ~48 m2)that was in danger of structural collapse. Not in great shape before Katrina, hurricane damage + water damage would have likely lead to collapse before he got his check (if he gets one).
We also insulated his home and put in a tankless hot water heater (he uses hot water twice a day) and put in CFLs. This should reduce his too high utility bills (and help Peak Natural Gas & GW).
I will be repaid from any Road Home monies or upon sale of his home (likely after his death). And I am not alone.
The Road Home program has been poorly administrated by the State of Louisiana, but it has had to deal with changing regulations imposed by the feds. How do SBA loans interact with Road Home grants ? How is the LOW cap of $150,000 applied to expensive homes (see $260K in example) that got some flood & wind insurance money but not replacement value ? The feds ALWAYS push for the rules that minimize outlays (and make the local Democratic admin look as bad as possible. Michael Brown recently admitted this).
Best Hopes,
Alan
The most depressing - for some people - and least often stated component of the future reality is that of population. Taboo. Sustainability increases as population drops. Perhaps some sort of existence, sans carbon, is possible at 9 billion, but prosperity as we know it is only sustainable at maybe half a billion. As it is, we only have some version of that non negotiable 'American way of life' for perhaps three or four times that.
Will these remaining half billion be white? Moslem? Confucian? Hindu? Catholic? Welcome to the fun house, planet earth. When the hockey stick population graph points back down, who does it point to?
We're nowhere even close to sustainability at seven billion so where's Paul Erlich now? The population bomb has been dropped, but nobody wants to notice.
I want to hear some serious discussion of population or I'm not interested. If that's off the table, then I'm out.
"I want to hear some serious discussion of population or I'm not interested."
First, all celebrities and politicians (redundant?) at all levels should be sterilized immediately. Start with the Bush, Cheney and Clintons. Maybe just sterilizew California, the narcissist state, as a whole.
Seriously, We will not do anything about our population. Nature will. The hard way. Especially for the titbaby first-worlders who depend on Mommy Government to take care of all their wants and needs (including nap time in some parts of Europe).
Most of us here have looked forward to the day that "the Masses" wake up and realize we are at Peak Oil.
I think we will not enjoy it when it happens. It will be like having to babysit several billion whining Downs-syndromers.
The reason I don't personally take convo's on Population very far is because, as you said, in effect.. Nature will do that.
I do think, however, that instead of the occasional 'unPC' call for Sterilization, truly our best tool historically for birthrate control is education and empowerment of women. I would suspect that improving water-supplies, healthcare and employment opportunities (ie, stable societies) in the third world would have the effect of letting ballooning birthrates steady down, (See, USA, Europe) instead of the opposite.
In any case, I maintain that population is simply a function of the energy available, and will settle to it's possible level like water in a pond.
It is a good day to die..
- followed smartly by my brother's..
'Never put off for tomorrow what you can put off for the day after tomorrow!'
Bob Fiske
While I agree that "our best tool historically for birthrate control is education and empowerment of women," as they say in the investment business, "historical performance is not a guarantee of future performance." While birthrate reduction will be helpful, its main benefit will be to keep our social planners busy while Mom Nature gets on with the heavy lifting.
Humanity is in at least a 25% overshoot situation, and has been in overshoot long enough to seriously erode the underlying resource base required to carry the human species along with the rest of the biosphere. Given that we are in overshoot, the fact that our population is growing at 75 million per year means that simply constraining our birth rate won't cut it. We would need 75 million excess deaths per year just to stabilize our numbers at the current excessive level. There is no plan humanity can devise to achieve that level of self-destruction (at least not one that leaves the rest of the biosphere intact).
The only forces of nature that give that kind of attrition are pandemics and starvation. Heck, even WWII only produced 10 million excess deaths per year. The Spanish Flu with its 50 to 100 million deaths is more on the scale required, but even that only lasted for a couple of years. Even the most cursory examinations of the World Problematique and human behaviour indicate that any rational response will not be on the same scale as the problem. Impersonal forces will play this one out.
We can use the last of the gasoline to fuel the hearses and light the pyres.
When things get real bad, I believe there will be some kind of intentional controlled depopulation. If you have targeted bioweapons that can take out specific populations, would you rather let nature do it and possibly take you with it or do it yourself so you can chose who, how many, and where. Don't even think humans would never do that. Hitler proved that wrong(and developed an extremely efficient infrastructure for doing just that). Soon as the power elite begin to feel their positions may be in jeopardy, it will happen.
Population is hard for people to talk about all right.
I don't think that population decline will be predictable in terms of "who is left after the die off."
Between resource depletion and global climate change, everyone will be affected around the planet. Diseases will spread differently, and new diseases will spring up. Famine and drought and pestilence and flood and storms will render everyone vulnerable.
Add in resource war and we really have a strange mix. Various weapons will be used along the way that will do things we have not so far predicted. Armies will become more desperate and brutal, eventually fighting more for themselves than for anyone else.
Population will be reduced quite dramatically, IMO.
We are all equally vulnerable in the culling of the population.
But why is the topic avoided?
Various religious beliefs prevent some from talking about it.
The obvious enormity of the problem scares most people away. Feeling helpless tends to end discussion, so many people just act as if they would anyway.
Politicians do not talk about it because to do so would mean that we would need to outline a response to the problem and this would mean talking about getting along with less and taking responsibility for our reproductive choices within some sort of shared convention.
MSM exists to sell cars, McMansions, and various appliances. How could discussion of population help sell these things?
Population is like Peak Oil and like Global Warming. "Intentional Ignorance" is the easiest way to deal with it.
We are swimming a bit against the current here.
And so it goes....
Yes, I am pretty certain that a half billion Europeans will just starve down to maybe 50 million, because if oil production declines from 85 mbpd to 68 mbpd in 5 years, they won't be able to eat Chilean air freighted grapes.
And as Europe has a flat population growth curve at this point, I guess this is just proof - as Germany's population declines, for example, it won't be due to demographic trends stretching back decades, it will be because oil and natural gas production is declining.
Yes, people will die as oil production declines - but then, a few million North Koreans seemed to starve to death even as world oil production was increasing.
There are many articles of faith which people seem to accept as part of the peak oil package, though it escapes me why. You want to talk megadeaths? Let's talk nuclear war - after all, more of American's tax money has gone into making that a credible part of our world today than any other single budget item. The real government entitlement program for two generations was MAD.
Even if the Iranians are likely to only play the poor man's version - as they might soon say in Farsi, as broad as a tanker's hull.
You complain about the money spent on the cold-war defense policy known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD, for the under-40 readers). Your whine is badly misplaced: Obviously nuclear war with the USSR didn't happen. Liberals claim the USSR was never a threat to us. May be, but a *great* deal of history suggests the opposite. Seems to me if a problem has fatal consequences IF it exists, and you're not sure, better to err on the safe side even if it means directing an extra 3% of government's spending to defense.
Back in the Cold War, of course, there was no defense against ballistic missiles. So we did the next best thing: we built and honed a force that could withstand a nuclear first strike by the Sovs and still deliver effective retaliation.
You want to claim MAD was a big waste, fine. In that case I'm guessing you would have agreed with Neville Chamberlain when he came back from meeting with Hitler and claimed he'd achieved "peace in our time."
My late father was a fanatical believer in MAD. In his last 17 years of his career he was a GS systems analyst is SAC underground facilities in Bellevue NE. He had occasion, when tasked, to attend Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings in DC.
I had many an argument with him over it. As my life has progressed I have come to the conclusion that my view could have beeen summed up in: "There are nuances that are intentionally/nonintentionally being missed."
Yes, there was no nuclear launch by either side. Whatever nuance was possibly missed didn't result in a lauch event. I don't personally credit MAD with that lack of event.
Your Nevielle Chamberlin remark smacks of the same kind of fantaticism that my father had
Resource depletion will not be as forgiving as human affairs allow and fanaticism is a liability not an asset, IMHO.
true believers can not be dissuaded by logic.
Unfortunately, despite my disdain for un-examined belief, I have come to believe that I, too, am a true believer -- in fact, that seems to be the natural state of the human mind. Without intending to, I seem to have given up on logic and have adopted the belief that Global Warming and Peak Oil have taken the place of MAD as logical foci for anxiety.
MAD existed. I did what I could locally to stop it (we had meetings and events and protests and you name it in the 80's). There was never any interest in what we were doing (except for those who who wanted us jailed for treason.) There was simply no interest in the logic of MAD. However, when a FEMA document was leaked that showed that the exit strategy from Portland called for the Black section of North Portland to be displaced to the little town where I was living -- now that did get a brief response.
Now there are new entrants to the MAD club and there is even less concern than before. But Peak Oil has taken off.
Logic would suggest that we could all learn to consume less and form local networks -- and we would be much happier. Some peculiar belief system convinces us that salvation is "out there" -- the oil companies, Congress, cheap stuff from Wal-Mart -- maybe because it feels so much more secure?
I'm baffled
James Carroll, House of War, makes a great (revisionist) case for the Cold War as being largely a waste begun by the paranoids in the House of War (the Pentagon). Once of his theses is that granted we did not use nuclear weapons but only just barely.
BTW, the "liberals" as you call them were some of the fiercest cold warriors.
Yeah. I wouldn't want to see Cheney and GWB try to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis. Would you?
I think the Chamberlain reference above actually makes the point against the poster, as it seems that England let the Reichsfuehrer play the charade of 'Peacemaker', just like we named one of our gallant Warhead systems. With the US developing new Nukes, we've clearly only sat through the first act, so far.
And come to think of it, I don't really remember hearing people claim that the USSR wasn't dangerous, just that we were making the situation worse, not better, with our reaction to it.
Bob Fiske
I am always depressed by the simplistic view that Amurica=good, USSR=bad; therefore we had to defend ourselves against godless communism. Try the Russian perspective in 1945:
-Devastated by Germany in WW1
-Invaded by England, France and US in 1919
-Treated with hostility by all western governments until..
-Invaded by Germany in 1941, losing 20 million dead.
-Virtually declared an enemy by all western powers immediately after the end of hostilities.
I firmly believe that if we had opened up to the USSR when Stalin died in 1953 most of the cost of the cold war could have been avoided. But the US, and most of the western powers, could not bear the thought of a non-capitalist government suceeding anywhere in the world.
Petrosaurus, I hear you but I must also be the bearer of bad news news. You are fighting a losing battle.
I have been preaching about the evils of overpopulation since the mid 60s. No one wanted to hear it. Now I am trying to tell people about peak oil. No one wants to hear it.
I have made the following statement so many times in the last several years, on this list and several others, that I know people are tired of hearing it as well. But here it is again, it goes something like this: Only a very tiny percentage of people are ever convinced of future dire events by logical argument.
Only the actual arrival of these unwelcome events themselves will ever convince the vast majority of people. Only the actual arrival of the dire consequences of peak oil will ever convince people of the dire consequences that a forever decline in the energy will bring. Logical argument is a pitiful weapon when pitted against emotion. Witness even the brightes minds of the peak oilers, like Stuart Staniford, as the distance them from the doomers like us.
There are many believers in peak oil but only a tiny few of these believers will even entertain the argument that a falling energy supply means a falling food supply and likewise a falling people supply. They hold out hope for “renewables” or some other magic potion that will save civilization as we know it.
And it is the same with the population problem. About a year ago I left the Running On Empty list because the list owner warned me against religious posturing. My religious posture: “The world has a serious overpopulation problem.” His position: “Organic gardening will feed the world after peak oil and believing in overpopulation is just a religious belief.”
One thing few people understands is: Believing that this good life will continue on for our children and grandchildren is a very emotional belief. It has virtually nothing to do with reason or logic. When people hold beliefs on an emotional level they cannot be reasoned out of them on a rational level. You cannot reason a person out of something he was not reasoned into in the first place.
We all view the world through tinted glasses. We distort objective reality to make it conform to our needs, our hopes and our fears. We over emprise facts that support our desired beliefs while relegating those that do not conform to what we desire to believe to the level of meaningless trivia.
Of course there are a few, a tiny few, who accept the coming death of civilization as we know it just as we accept the fact of our own impending death. The short life of the age of fossil energy will soon end. And with it will end the good life that dozens of energy slaves have enabled us to live. And disappearing with fossil energy will also be the mass of humanity that that it spawned.
I tremble with fear when I contemplate the future of humanity. I truly wish it were in my power to deny it as well. But at least I find some consolation in lists like this one. They provide endless hours of good entertainment. And I have also have some very good bourbon.
Ron Patterson
Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that this is emotional and irrational. Look at it like this:
If they believe your prediction that a precipitous peak oil crash will happen and that doom* will happen - there is nothing they can do to prevent it. They are powerless, and depressed.
If on the other hand they disbelieve you they continue on as before, no problem.
In this scenario, unless there is lots of damn good evidence on your side, they are best off disbelieving you since they are happier and there is no consequent downside. If maybe you could get that evidence together then they would be better off having a damn good party now, since they can still do nothing.
They are making completely rational decisions, which hinge on the fact that you have no acceptable solution route they can take. If you want them to believe you, you have to present a solution they will accept before you stand any hope of the majority listening. This is also why most here see peak oil as an intellectual exercise - it more acceptable in that frame.
People accept CF lamps, recycling, etc. because they feel that doing this much is enough to 'do something about' global warming'. Once they are told its not and that big structural changes are required they stop believing because its no longer the rational choice.
The dividing line comes where 'I would rather be dead', than live in that world. Once the picture you paint crosses that personal line for them, you've lost the argument. You might say that's an emotional line, but its a line that everyone has and decisions made that take it into account ARE rational.
[* where doom stretches from having no food to include: not being able to drive, not being able to fly on holiday, no coffee in the mornings, wearing the same shoes for more than one season.]
I argued that Believing that this good life will continue on for our children and grandchildren is a very emotional belief. And you provided absolutely no argument against that statement. You instead argued that this is not an emotional or irrational belief. So I had to then figure out exactly what you meant by the word this.
But of course. Did you expect them to jump with joy.
Absolutely correct! No problem. Well no problem until the events themselves actually take place.
Correct again except for on caveat. There is nothing they can do to avoid the coming catastrophe. There is something they can do to increase their chances of being among the survivors. And there will be survivors.
And as to that evidence, the evidence you seem to think does not exist, I assume that if I presented it in 250 words of less you just might read it. But not likely. Obviously you have not read Catton’s “Overshoot” or Reg Morrison’s “The Spirit in the Gene”, or even Kunstler’s “The Long Emergency”.
The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and is there for anyone who will bother to examine it. But people who don’t wish to hear it simply do not wish to hear it. All the evidence in the world will not even persuade them to examine the evidence. They shut their eyes and close their ears to all evidence.
A few weeks ago I made this same argument to another who wished to believe that this primrose path we are currently enjoying could go on forever. I simply asked him to read David Price’s excellent, and very short essay, “Energy and Human Evolution”. http://dieoff.org/page137.htm
This short essay can be read in only about 15 minutes. It lays out in a nutshell why, after the advent of fossil fuel, the earth’s population will be dramatically reduced. What do you think his reply was? His reply was: I don’t read doomer porn!
The very fact that the proof is there but not examined but by only a tiny minority of people is proof enough that my argument is absolutely valid.
Exactly correct! But there are no solutions! Your only hope is to try to save your own ass and that is reason enough to investiguate. That is reason enough to get your head out of the sand and examine the evidence. But I am not holding my breath.
Ron Patterson
See I think you agreed with what I was saying, but didn't understand what it meant.
You say people are closing their minds to the reality of where we are headed - that they are reacting emotionally. However you also accept that there are no solutions. As I laid out, its rational in that circumstance to reject the whole argument - you are better off. Maybe you might say that they could do something 'to save themselves' - but as I tried to make clear if 'save' means living a life below their personal minimum standard, that's akin to death for them. Most people told they would be paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of their lives will say they would rather die. This is akin that that level of unacceptableness for most people - to live a daily fight for survival without hope of release.
Acceptance of the likehood of the world you paint goes hand in hand with acceptance of the solution. No solution = no acceptance. If you want them to listen, believe and act - you have to present that solution as part of the package. The two are intimately connected.
And for the avoidance of doubt, yes I've read LOTS of books, papers, etc. and I'm persuaded that the scenario painted is likely - say 80-85% prob. My work suggests that probability is intimately connected with the decline rate, and that we currently face a rate above our ability to cope. However I always suggest careful reflection that A>B>C>D>E>doom is a seductive argument that often tends to forget other feedback effects that can derail the smooth progression of simplistic linear arguments. Declining oil != no oil, expensive petrochemical fertiliser != no food, relationships aren't one-to-one or simple.
The only sensible behaviour is not to give up, but to search out the escape routes; not personal escape routes since that can't last, but routes where large percentages of our civilisation can survive. There really is no other option.
"However you also accept that there are no solutions. As I laid out, its rational in that circumstance to reject the whole argument - you are better off."
It's not rational. It's understandable, given human nature, but it's not rational. You are NOT better off. You are happy for a short time until TSHTF, and then you are bewildered and helpless. Accepting the argument means taking measures to prepare yourself, at least psychologically.
To say that someone is "better off" because they ignore a coming crisis, because it makes them happy, is absurd.
You're confusing "better off" with "feeling good for the time being."
Hi s,
re: "Accepting the argument means taking measures to prepare yourself, at least psychologically."
My take on the exchange is that gary has a good point, taking it strictly on a logic basis (to begin with). Whether one calls it "better off" or "feeling good for the time being", the point he was trying to respond to is that Ron had said there is "no solution". No solution. Period.
One reading (and the way I read this) is that therefore, nothing (nothing at all) one can do (in any sense) is part of Ron's argument. (Ron?)
Okay, so then...as I read it, then even psychological preparations are disallowed. Because they are a type of preparation - a type of "doing".
This seems to be a bit of a contradiction. It is this apparent contradiction that is part of what Gary is addressing, it seems to me. A valid point (it seems to me.)
My thinking differs from Gary's in that I don't agree with the analysis that any change or discussion of change necessarily evokes the same response - that there's a continuum, which equates the different prospects.
(If I could backtrack without losing my page, I'd write more.)
Just to add: My view is these are important things to think through carefully, and to talk about. I appreciate the discussion and hope we can continue it.
Darwinian,
Thanks to your efforts I decided to order a copy of Overshoot from the US (none could be found in Finland, not even at the generally good Helsinki University Library) and received and read it a few weeks ago. I must say Catton's case is compelling and very well argued; I too have become what many would call a doomer.
Just keep repeating the message, some people will inevitably hear you, even though they may be a small minority!
Jussi, I am sure you will not regret ordering Overshoot. It is one of the best books ever written. And it is just as pertinent today as it was the day it was written. Catton was truly a prophet. He saw this all coming almost thirty years ago. And he also sees the futility in what many, even on this list, advocate and brag about in "doing their part".
Ron Patterson
I'm a long time listener, first-time caller and I've been following the stories and comments on TOD for a while now, and read many of the peakoil books and articles - half-way through Kunstler at the moment. And I am finding that the whole idea of peakoil/dieoff and wherever along that spectrum we all finally end up is really starting to affect my work - in that I am an academic and suppose should be applying for research grants - but now am thinking "what's the point" - in 5 years the university might just be an empty shell. Should I have more kids if there's no future for them, should I worry about paying off the mortgage if the banking system goes down the toilet. (Should I keep watching "Lost" if I'm never gonna find out what the hell it's all about.) I find all of the stuff on peakoil very compelling but why is the MSM not paying any attention to this? "The Economist" had an article on oil a few months ago that said everything is just hunky dory - though it looked like a load of BS to me.
So how do the rest of you stay motivated in your lives/jobs?
Just a couple of thoughts:
1. Try to make every day you have now as good as it can be. This may mean taking a less stressful job, or just looking for the good things that are around you every day. You may not be able to make things better, but you can at least enjoy what you have.
2. Try to become less attached to "things". Most of the schemes to invest money to avoid the impacts of peak oil are probably not going to work. Buying lots of additional "stuff" now, in advance of declining oil supplies, makes sense in theory but also leaves you very vulnerable to theft. Thus, whatever savings approach you choose is best combined with adopting a philosophy that puts less emphasis on earthly goods.
Hi DrC,
Thanks for your post. I'm reading a couple of days behind. If you'd like a response, please feel free to email me - listed.
Meanwhile, best wishes.
I wake up every morning in a disaster area. Still lots of suffering and friends and other people needing help. Trying to help restart the economy, plan for the future and make rooom for returnees.
TOD is my diversion, my entertainment if you will. The hypotheticals do not phase me, been there; done that. It is my balance to the very real and very pressing issues outside my front door. It is real enough that I feel no guilt in diverting some of my efforts from the immediate to the future.
Timing is uncertain, as are the results of post-Peak Oil. So make what you can of today. and tomorrow and 5 years from now.
The # of unknowns exceeds the # of knowns in future predictions post-PO. To make the equation, so many assumptions are required that some of them are bound to be wrong. OTOH, we know many of the things that need to be done; that will make any scenario work better. So I work on those :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
I'm a long time listener, first-time caller and I've been following the stories and comments on TOD for a while now, and read many of the peakoil books and articles - half-way through Kunstler at the moment. And I am finding that the whole idea of peakoil/dieoff and wherever along that spectrum we all finally end up is really starting to affect my work - in that I am an academic and suppose should be applying for research grants - but now am thinking "what's the point" - in 5 years the university might just be an empty shell. Should I have more kids if there's no future for them, should I worry about paying off the mortgage if the banking system goes down the toilet. (Should I keep watching "Lost" if I'm never gonna find out what the hell it's all about.) I find all of the stuff on peakoil very compelling but why is the MSM not paying any attention to this? "The Economist" had an article on oil a few months ago that said everything is just hunky dory - though it looked like a load of BS to me.
So how do the rest of you stay motivated in your lives/jobs?
Start by sorting out the stories to get at the good information. Contrast the following information by published and peer reviewed demographer, Philip Longman, with the stuff written above about titbabies and so on:
"Today, the average woman in the world bears half as many children as did her counterpart in 1972. No industrialized country still produces enough children to sustain its population over time, or to prevent rapid population aging. Germany could easily lose the equivalent of the current population of what was once East Germany over the next half-century. Russia's population is already contracting by three-quarters of a million a year. Japan's population, meanwhile, is expected to peak as early as 2005, and then to fall by as much as one-third over the next 50 years -- a decline equivalent, the demographer Hideo Ibe has noted, to that experienced in medieval Europe during the plague.
"Although many factors are at work, the changing economics of family life is the prime factor in discouraging childbearing. In nations rich and poor, under all forms of government, as more and more of the world's population moves to urban areas in which children offer little or no economic reward to their parents, and as women acquire economic opportunities and reproductive control, the social and financial costs of childbearing continue to rise.
... because Mexican fertility rates have dropped so dramatically, the country is now aging five times faster than is the United States. It took 50 years for the American median age to rise just five years, from 30 to 35. By contrast, between 2000 and 2050, Mexico's median age, according to UN projections, will increase by 20 years, leaving half the population over 42. Meanwhile, the median American age in 2050 is expected to be 39.7.
.... Fertility rates are falling faster in the Middle East than anywhere else on earth, and as a result, the region's population is aging at an unprecedented rate. ... Postrevolutionary Iran has seen its fertility rate plummet by nearly two-thirds and will accordingly have more seniors
than children by 2030.
"Countries such as France and Japan at least got a chance to grow rich before they grew old. Today, most developing countries are growing old before they get rich. China's low fertility means that its labor force will start shrinking by 2020, and 30 percent of China's population could be over 60 by mid-century....In China, the ratio of male to female births is now 117 to 100 -- which implies
that roughly one out of six males in today's new generation will not succeed in reproducing.
"All told, some 59 countries, comprising roughly 44 percent of the world's total population, are currently not producing enough children to avoid population decline, and the phenomenon continues to spread. By 2045, according to the latest UN projections, the world's fertility rate as a whole will have fallen below replacement levels."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83307/phillip-
longman/the-global-baby-bust.html
I left RoE a bit longer ago than that when Sharon decided not to abort her FOURTH FETUS and everyone thought it was wonderful. I was appalled.
Seriously, if educated, intelligent, informed, active people won't control their reproduction, what hope is there for the population in general?
There are two solutions to population overshoot: lower the birth rate or increase the death rate (or a combination of the two). I wonder which will happen?
I think it's going to "increase the death rate," barring a China-style one-child policy.
The population growth rate is slowing world-wide, but I think all that will unwind. The factors that have encouraged people to have fewer children - urbanization, improved medical care, education of women, etc. - are going to be hit hard by peak oil.
Someone probably studies the steady stream of predictions of disasters. From time to time there are books forecasting economic collapse, stock market collapse, environmental collapse, asteroids from outer space, gold prices sky rocketing, gold prices collapsing, killer plasma blasts from the sun, gamma-ray super bursters toasting the world and moral collapse from teenage drinking and more.
My point is that there is always some sort of threat of disaster clamoring for public attention. The problem with something like peak oil is that it is an extremely subject and it is very technical and the data is noisy. It is very hard for the average person to sort out who is speaking the truth and who is obfuscating.
It is also very hard to know what to do about this if it is correct. Will we somehow muddle through? Will we discover a "silver bullet" to solve this? Will we end up in a "Mad Max" world? Who knows? Some people can go back to the land, most of us are not trained for that life. Even if one did purchase a farm in some remote area how would you protect yourself if society breaks down. I'm not trying to argue this, just pointing out how confusing it can be.
play it like a game of chess, you don't try to play the whole game through your head with your opponent before you play. you just try to get think a few moves ahead of them.
''Will these remaining half billion be white? Moslem? Confucian? Hindu? Catholic? ''.
Naah. They will be rich. And 10 million bucks doesnt even get you in the game.
But dont worry, they will keep some of us peasants alive as serfs and villeins, peasants and peons and helots
I reckon about 1 billion serfs, with an elite / military support structure of about 100 million to keep the knout on the backs of the serfs.
Somebody has to grow the biofuel...
Like I have said before:
The Saxon villein who husbanded the Cow / Pig / Sheep etc got it to table for the Norman feudal lord where it was eaten as Beef / Ham / Mutton
Dorme Bien
Much depends on the level of societal breakdown should these doomer scenarios come to pass. Someone is (materially) rich because the rest of society agrees that he is so. Likewise, someone owns something because the rest of society agrees that he owns it. King Louis and Marie Antoinette were obstinately rich, but that didn't end well. Own lots of land? Well... maybe not.
I would say that many of the survivors (assuming such a worst case doomer future).. would be the isolated, and those already able to live with meager resources.. Some of the mega-rich, right down to the Suburbanites with well-horded stashes are natural targets. Dirt-farmers are vulnerable, but also increasingly expensive to bother getting to. If ANWR survives another couple decades without drilling, or survives THE drilling.. the Gwich'in might be better sheltered and prepared to make it than anyone in the lower 48s towns and 'burbs (climate permitting)
'Keep your money, Mr. Hocksley, it'll no more save you than me.' Titanic
'Keep your money, Mr. Hocksley, it'll no more save you than me.' Titanic
Ha Ha.
That about sums us up.
IMHO market forces no longer guide corporations towards investing in any production or development of any product, including crude oil. The majority of share holders just want to get rich today and so are only interested in short term share value and large dividends. Perhaps most of the computer based trading is set to this parameter too. The paid managers now only represent share value and dividends and not any long term strategy. We see how stock value falls as soon as lower dividends are announced or even simply that the dividend increase didn't hit some analyists target. In this situation I don't see any difference between an Exxon Mobile and a Pemmex. In both cases the share holder just wants their dividend and woe be to a manager who reduced the dividend to invest in more development. It doesn't help if the manager knows that the investment will be futile anyway as is the case with oil exploration.
Stuart's now-famous "8% Saudi Decline" post was mentioned in a post yesterday evening on the well-read blog firedoglake.com. The post was entitled "Double Whammy" with Stuart's post, and peak-oil in general being Whammy #1, and Global Warming being Whammy #2. The post was a good, quick synopsis and hopefully it spread the word it to more people. (252 comments, though firedoglake readers aren't exactly in the "Adam Smith's invisible hand will save us" camp.)
So people understand how hard the problems are we face, these double whammies really do need to be linked in the public consciousness. "Quit burning stuff!" is perhaps the simplest admonishment.
Africa as a roadmap for our future
I know a person in a foreign diplomatic service, stationed in an African country. As Leanan has documented, they are having to deal with constant disruptions of electricity. They were living on the sixth floor of a building, with a baby, and it was a real chore to manhandle the baby, the stroller, and any groceries, etc., up and down six flights of stairs when the elevator was not working. So, they moved to a residential compound, where every home has its own generator.
As this example illustrates, it's not that petroleum is unavailable in some parts of Africa. It's available--if you can afford to buy it. Of course, this has been true since Drake drilled the first well in the US. What is different is that increasing numbers of people worldwide are either unable to buy petroleum, or unable to buy petroleum in the amounts that they used to--because of the ongoing contraction in world crude oil production (and especially crude oil exports).
And of course, what is true of energy is also largely true for food.
In the future, I expect to see something similar in the US, where individuals, and groups of individuals, will provide for their own electrical generating capacity, as the US grid becomes more unreliable.
Again, it won't be a case of food and energy not being available, what will be different will be the increasing number of people who can't afford to buy the same amounts of food and energy that they used to buy.
But somehow, I don't think that many formerly middle class Americans are going react placidly to the prospect being unable to buy food and energy in the same amounts that they used to--especially when they have been repeatedly promised, by ExxonMobil, CERA, et al, that high energy prices are temporary.
Going along with your thoughts on the export-land model, there was a newsblurb today on Russian vehicle production:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070310/61800845.html
As you know, here in the East there is much hope being placed on Russia as a supplier of oil, to alleviate the extreme dependance upon the Persian Gulf. However, all signs seem to point to Russia's internal demands for oil facing strong growth too.
So the question is, in what year will Russian production just meet Russian demand, given decreases in the former soon?
When I did the first post on the Export Land model, in January, 2006, I focused on Saudi Arabia, Russia and Norway. I noted at the time that Saudi Arabia was at about the same stage of depletion that Texas started declining, but what everyone focused on were my Russian comments.
Based on the HL plot, Russia is about 90% depleted--at least in mature basins. The recent rebound in production was largely just making up for what was not produced following the Soviet collapse (combined with some new fields coming on line).
IMO, Russia will start showing lower oil production--and probably sharply lower production--this year, but no later than next year. Just my opinion--it's worth what you paid for it. In any case, from 2005 to 2006, Russia reported rising production, but declining exports (because of sharply higher consumption)
In any case, flat production worldwide = lower crude oil exports (because of rising domestic consumption). But what we are seeing in most of the large exporting countries is both rising consumption and declining production--which means much lower exports.
As I posted before, Jim Rogers sees an additional set of problems hampering Russia's oil:
Based on the HL plot, Russia is about 90% depleted--at least in mature basins.
If am am not mistaken, and correct me if I am, that is a new caveat.
Nope, I conceded the point during the discussion following my original post in January, 2006, where I predicted that net exports by Saudi Arabia, Russia and Norway would fall, which come to think of it, is what happened in 2006, but I digress.
I basically conceded the point that current production in Russia may be to total Russian production as the Lower 48 is to the Total US.
However, I don't think that production from lightly explored basins will reverse the Russian decline/crash. Note that adding Alaska to the Lower 48 only increases the estimated URR by about 15%.
“The worst continued to get worse . . .”
Some of you guys laughed when I talked about "Tiny Houses" (100 to 200 square feet). Ultra low cost living isn't looking too bad as time goes on.
Sorry to be sexist, but the problem seems to be convincing the fairer sex that very small housing is a good idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/11mortgage.html?ei=5065&en=8a...
March 11, 2007
News Analysis
Crisis Looms in Mortgages
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
From the Housing Bubble Blog:
Potential solutions such as little houses are why I am not a doomer. Necessity can make the 2oo sq ft house socially acceptable. Bikes work too.
Kinda funny, Jeffrey, I decided earlier today to not post the Morgenson article. She's so far off the mark, considering the resources she has at her command, it seems evident she's writing with handcuffs on. If she would have read just Bloomberg and CNN on mortgages the past week, she would have been able to go much further than she does. My guess is she read it all.
This keeps the idea alive that it's not all so bad. She mentions all the big banks, but not the extent to which they all are exposed to the implosion.
Next week she'll be able to write more, but will still be just as far behind. Which puts her in the same spot as the Bear Streans guy in her article, who gave positive advice on New Century when it was already clear that it was folding.
An example of where she should have gone:
New Century, the biggest "victim" so far, had running credit lines of $3 billion with Morgan Stanley and $2 billion with UBS, and $17.4 billion in total with main banks.
This doesn't seem too much, on a total of below prime mortgages that runs in the trillions, but you have to realize how it works. These are running credit lines.
They would close a billion worth of mortgages. The bank would then package those as securities, and sell them, and the risk, on the Street. That takes the loans off the books, both for the lender and for the bank. They can then restart the $3 billion credit line afresh.
Plus, because the whole thing is fractional, loans worth $10-15 billion have been issued on that $1 billion. Do that once a month, conservatively, and count your blessings.
There must ba close to a trillion in securities out there backed by New Century mortgages alone. They're big, but still just one in a large crowd. But that whole crowd is backed by Morgan and Goldman and Citigroup and HSBC and a handful others. And they are now negotiating with Washington to bail them out when the inevitable happens, so the same taxpayers who are in debt for the rest of their lives wil also be paying to keep those alive that they are indebted to.
I'd like to make a general comment that US inventories are often used to back up certain assumptions.
My biggest question about the us of US inventory data is that Peak Oil is a world event and its a supply demand problem not just supply. The interaction is complex and certainly its complex on a world wide scale.
The problem is that we only have good data it seems on US inventories and even here the quality of the data is suspect.
No one has really taken a hard look at the inventory data we do have vs how much is missing etc. To determine if its even valid to look at the data in the first place. It is useful I'd assume to the local US market since the US market is so large it probably has a larger impact on spot prices then might otherwise be reasonable but using the data in argument about peak oil has not been proven.
In a contango market or one where you in general expect the price to go up later or supply to drop you would expect storage to remain relatively full. In fact I'd expect
countries that have both money and storage to keep their storage filled until well after peak oil is obvious. Only when pricing pressure gets so high that the wealthiest countries are competing for the remaining oil will we see storage finally declining and real shortages develop. Between now and then demand destruction will be focused on taking out the weakest consumers.
I think its time we step back and take stock on the meaning and relevance of the storage data we have and the data we don't
And last but not least we did not in the past we did not need to pump all the oil we have year around at its maximum rate. Capacity and demand will continue to be seasonal.
Lately China at least has added a fairly significant amount of storage to ensure steady oil supplies. Maybe this has happen world wide but the general trend one would expect is that we will move to the producers producing at their maximum rate year around and storage used to balance demand and supply. Yet again it points to high inventories and high production sign of peak oil. For example although KSA has backed off production by a small percentage of the worlds oil output. World wide I believe we are starting to see production stay at its maximum almost year around.
Certainly with consumers aggressively storing oil and producers in general operating at their maximum capacity a disconnect from time to time resulting from lack of storage capacity will result in a brief glut. The system is far from perfect.
I'm sure more reasons would present themselves but I see that when we finally start to see persistently low inventories not only is peak oil long past but we will probably be close to real shortages. This would happen several years after peak production.
I actually don't want to take the stance of not taking much stock in inventory numbers but until we form a firm foundation on what they mean in the context of peak oil arguments based on inventory and esp only inventory for one consumer are at best spurious. The challenge is to put these arguments on a firmer foundation. As of now I simply don't think we have enough info on worldwide demand and storage to make any sort of reasonable argument using storage.
On the "Gas Price 'Outrage'" in California. The critters are sacrificing themselves to save the environment:
"...two Los Angeles-area refineries lost power when an opossum and a raccoon broke into separate electrical substations and electrocuted themselves."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/09/MNGF9OID9N1....
The lead article on hydrogen is a fairly good take down of the hydrogen myth. Well said.
Unfortunately, the conclusion enters the land of nightmares.
To wit:
All that alcohol production will drive up food costs, increase pressure on farmland, help to destroy the Brazillian rain forest and other sensitive areas, and so on.
It is a nightmare for human survival on this planet, and of course for the poor before the rich. (It's an even worse nightmare than hydrogen because we really could go in that direction, while it may be that the worst we can do with transition to the hydrogen economy is waste a huge amount of resources on something that will be unlikely to work...)
A sustainable future involves not just replacing current fuels with new fuels, but re adjusting the level of energy utilization to one consistent with the bio-energetic sustaining capacity of the planet and with maintenance of the genetic resources in a biodiverse planet.
The article attacks one technological illusion, only to substitute another. Very disappointing.
Only the technology of maintaining civilization while engaging in energy descent... redefining the good life at a lower level of energy utilization, is worth talking about.
Just like the last article in the series points out: http://allafrica.com/stories/200703080650.html
I see that a draft of the second IPCC report is now out. This one deals with expected impacts of climate change.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4618797.html
The part I think is wrong and likely misleading is the part about food supply. According to the Houston Chronicle:
People will read this and think, "Let's go plant lots more acres in biofuels. There are no food problems ahead in our life times, or even in our children's lifetimes." No one thinks about the oil and gas shortages ahead, and they don't consider what could be the more adverse impacts of climate change.
This is a good point that others have hinted at but have been largely ignored. Firstly IPCC haven't factored PO's enforced reduction in fertiliser use. Secondly warmer and wetter climate on average can mean more storms and heatwaves so I wouldn't be confident that agricultural output will increase. Add to that the emergence of new crop diseases resistant to current control methods. For example I predict widespread failures of oilseed crops due to caterpillar plagues.
Put it this way; the 20th century climate was fairly predictable and we had cheap oil based farm inputs. That won't be the case from now on.
What's for dinner?
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=29722
Greetings, all!
We have a biodiesel plant forming in our local area (SW Colorado). I have just returned from a presentation at our "Ag Expo" by Jeff Berman, Project Manager for San Juan Biodiesel.
This presentation was mostly directed at farmers who might produce feedstock for the plant. The target crop is sunflower, though they might try to do something with rapeseed down the road. Sunflower grows well in this area, both in dry and irrigated fields.
The plant has been in the planning stage for a couple of years. Last year they contracted for 3000 acres of production, which is now in storage waiting for the plant construction. At full production the plant is expected to produce 5 million gallons per year (yes, that is gallons, not barrels). Initially, they will produce around half that.
Full production will require the output of 100,000 acres, with a mixture of dry and irrigated land. He said it would be around 120,000 acres if all the land was dry farmed.
Dry yields are expected at around 1000 pounds of seed per acre, irrigated yields at around 2200-3000 pounds per acre. Last year was a dry year, and they only averaged 700 pounds per acre on dry fields. They are paying 14-15 cents per pound this year. This compares favorably to other dryland crops in this area (compare to beans at 500 pounds per acre and 19 cents per pound), but is not a good return for irrigated land. They are willing to contract as far away as 200 miles.
He addressed EROEI, saying that corn ethanol has an EROEI of 1.2-1.8, and claimed an EROEI of 3 for biodiesel (it was not clear whether that was specifically for sunflower biodiesel).
He spoke at some length about products other than biodiesel.
Hulls from the seed are to be burned at the plant to generate steam for use in the process, and that there would be steam available for sale to other businesses. Note that this plant is being built in a town of about 400 people (the largest in the county, IIRC), so I'm not sure if there are any potential customers for the steam at the moment.
The seed has about a 40% oil yield. The material that remains after pressing can be sold as a protein supplent for animal feed. I didn't grab that handout, but IIRC it was not quite as high a protein content as soybean meal, but had a higher oil content. The advantage to local livestock producers is a savings in transportation cost.
He also mentioned that sunflower has a small wax content that can potentially be extracted and sold, perhaps for candle-making.
The part I thought was interesting was that a competing use for the sunflower oil was as a food. Prices on sunflower oil have recently climbed from 2.70 per gallon to 4.40 per gallon. This is because sunflower has no trans-fats, and chip manufacturers are switching over to it to reduce the trans-fats in their products. At this point, they can get more by selling the oil as a food than as a fuel. That could change at any time, however. They would not sell the oil directly, but to some other business that would purify, refine, and one other term that escapes me, rendering the oil suitable for food use. They could install that equipment themselves, but that might not be a good investment.
I am quite happy that this plant is going in, and the jobs are sorely needed in this area. I like the idea of flowers as a fuel and food source. The EROEI is not hopelessly bad, and farm equipment runs on diesel. Instead of having acreage set aside for hay and oats for draft animals, you set aside acreage to make biodiesel to feed the tractor.
Also note the tradeoff between food uses and fuel uses, as we are seeing for corn ethanol.
Finally, note the yield - 100,000 acres to produce 5 million gallons per year - 50 gallons per acre per year.
http://www.cortezjournal.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type...
I've driven through on US491 a few times. What do they grow there now?
A bet on a biodiesel plant (or ethanol distillary) is an interesting one given that it's really a bet that gasoline or diesel prices will rise faster than input crop prices. There is also the water issue:
http://kmgh.iewatershed.com/index.php?pagename=ow_watershed_sanjuan_dolores
Irrigated fields grow alfalfa, mostly. Beans (pinto and Anasazi) and some wheat on dry fields. A very little corn, at lower altitudes. There is an organic orchard and truck farm down the road from me that grows peaches and apples and quite a few types of vegetables. My neighbor is growing grapes and threatening to open a winery.
The point on growing sunflower on irrigated fields seemed to be one of rotation : every 5 years or so you need to plow up the alfalfa and plant something else. Sunflower seemed to be a better option than other "something elses". But mostly it seemed to be a better dryland crop.
50 gallons / acre / year... is this supposed to be a good thing?
Average gasoline consumption for a car in the US / year is 581 gallons /year (see, for example: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f00013.htm )
So that's 11 acres / car for routine fuel needs
Factor in whatever greater fuel efficiency you believe is available from diesel or smaller cars (I'll give you even 50%), and subtract out whatever factor for the energy required to farm that fuel you believe is reasonable (an EROIE of 3 implies 33% doesn't it? 1 unit to produce 3... or 1 in 3 of the units produced need to be recycled into next year's production.)
Bottom line is that each car in the U.S. ties down close to or around 10 acres of land for transportation fuel production.
I don't call that a solution... I call that a agricultural and planetary biodiversity disaster waiting to happen.
Fortunately we can avoid that by finding ways to liquefy coal... oh wait... that would involve doubling our carbon output per mile traveled... at least.... and thereby "saving" the land and ruining the atmosphere.
---
GreenMan's comment however is a good example of how failing to change the energy demand side of the equation will create all sorts of "good deals" in the energy field for farmers that will turn out to be really bad deals for the environment, and agriculture and everyone else.
After you remove the energy you invest in the crop, it is less than a barrel per year per acre. Contrast that with even a crappy slow direct lift well that produces a couple of barrels per DAY. Weren't some KSA wells producing 10,000 barrels per day?
That is the distinction between a solar economy and a petroleum economy.
It is hopeless to expect to run automobiles this way. It is hopeful that one farm can supply fuel to two other farms, that in turn can produce food. At least until we can breed enough draft animals. That will take decades.
Hey Greenman,
I live north of you up around Paonia and we have a hay/cattle ranch. I thought about raising corn, because of the price surge, but the price of hay seems to be rising even faster than corn.
Some of the hay being sold now is $10 a bale, instead of the usual $2 to $3. I personally think hay is much better for the land than intensive corn, so maybe being a "solar-grass" farmer is the better way to go.
Hay not only self-seeds but also thickly enough to choke out most weeds. Clover and cow pies should give a lot of the required nitrogen and hay bounces back after snow and hail. By comparison other crops are sissies that need a lot of attention. The main question for dryland hay is how reliable will be the spring rains under GW. I also think there will be less demand with fewer kids ponies and thoroughbred racehorses as the global economy slows. Longer term I think we will keep less cattle (and eat less red meat) when cropping for biofuel becomes more profitable.
Great post. There may be a lot of solar energy out there, but it's diffuse, and collecting it with biomass or wind turbines or solar panels is not going to make up for oil. You can't support a Paris Hilton lifestyle with a job at McDonald's, no matter how many hours you work.
Maybe I misunderstood your original post as supportive of this idea... if so, I apologize. Thanks for your comment. Sounds like you were presenting it as an example of absurdity, not reason, and I agree with you.
The leader of the Liberal party in Canada is P.O aware.
http://www.richardheinberg.com/node/182/view
New ASPO newsletter is available
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/newsletter/en/pdf/newsletter75_200703.pdf
Note that the peak year has been revised again.
IS THE ASPO NEARING THE END OF IT'S ROAD?
Alan says,
New ASPO newsletter is available
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/newsletter/en/pdf/newsletter75_200703.pdf
Note that the peak year has been revised again.
Indeed. And this must be said by someone, the emperor is getting close to wearing no clothes.
Below is the post I did for my own private group, which is populated by a small group of people who are not patisan to ASPO or the Peak cause, CERA or the "Cornucopian" cause, but as I do study this issue for the purpose of enhancing our own, and hopefully by extension, the U.S. and world quality of life, liberty, and safe and environmentally clean sustainabiity. They are, as I consider myself to be, "students", and only interested in knowing the future possibilities of energy options and alternatives truthfully, so as to have a better life by means of being prepared, and perhaps by better investing and career planning based on this knowledge. Now, the post:
Once more, we see a revision of ASPO graph and numbers. This is not to be completely unexepected, as Colin Campbell himself in this as well as prior newsletters bemoans the lack of reliable, or sometimes any valid information at all on which to base projections.
However, it is becoming humiliating in the way in which the revisions always seem to move only one direction, and the size of the revisions purely strain credulity to far, far past the breaking point. One begins to feel like the foolish horse, with the apple on a pole just beyond his nose, galloping gamely along behind the Peak, with ASPO and the "peak" partisans acting as ring masters, controlling the length of the pole.
I know that if even I, who has had a lifelong fascination with energy, efficiency, conservation, alternative energy, and energy national security, have become extremely doubtful and mistrustful of Mr. Campbell and the credibility of the ASPO, then those less prone to accept Mr. Campbell's pronouncements and numbers on faith (that being the public at large) will now, after these latest revisions, and the revisions listed below ongoing for that last 4 years plus, be almost impossible to convince, based on Mr. Campbells own charts and pronouncements, to whit:
2004:
http://www.exitmundi.nl/oilproblem_2004Scenariovan_deaspoassociation_for...
(Downslope shows world producing as much oil and gas in 2045 as it did up to any year including 1967, top just barely topping 30 Gb/a at Peak before dropping to 12 Gboe in 2050 (!)
2005:
http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/aspo_oil_and_gas.png
(Downslope shows world producing as much oil and gas in 2045 as it did up to any year prior to 1997, top just touching 50 “Gboe” at Peak before dropping, but not coming back down to the old “projected peak” of the 2004 scenario of 30 Gb/a until 2050, or the end of the chart (!!)
2007:
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/newsletter/en/pdf/newsletter75_200703.pdf
Downslope-flatter, showing as much oil being produced in 2040 as in any year up to 2000, and then a steep “tail” drop to as much oil in 2045 as in any year up to approx. the above 1997, top now at approx 52 “Gboe” before dropping, and not coming back down to the 2005 scenario projeceted peak of 50 Gboe until approx. 2017, and now ending the chart in 2050 at approx. 32 Gboe, or 2 Gboe above the once projected “peak in 2004 scenario (only 3 years ago) of 30 Gb/a in the approx. year 2048 (!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(yeah, let’s break out the draft animals and see half the world population liquidated for that!)
What we now see, USING CAMPBELL'S OWN MODELS, is more oil/gas barrel equivalent being produced in 2048 in the world than was projected would EVER BE PRODUCED IN ANY YEAR in the scenario published only 4 years ago.
It absolutely staggers the imagination that such a set of data could be published, and be considered useful in any way.
NOTE: I am using only ASPO's own projections and not the words, statistics or conjecture of their detractors.
This goes far, far beyond "fuzzy logic" and enters the realm of the farcical. Such non-sensical almost non-coherent revisions are (a) totally non-useful to base any planning or mitigation on, except one based on pure flight of fancy and (b) completely undercut the many in the peak movement who base the most horrendous prediction of doom and catastrophic failure on projections that are so far beyond the pale of usefulness as to be harmful and panic mongering for it's own sake and (c) completely undercut the dozens of valid reasons we as Americans MUST be deeply concerned about energy, not the least of which are national security, avoidence of national bankruptcy in buying oil/gas from abroad, and severe ecological concerns.
Mr. Campbell and ASPO are now becoming a serious liability to those who know the value of reducing fossil fuel consumption, by making them look completely non-scientific, and almost non-coherent. I personally am beginning to feel foolish and rebuking myself for being so easily persuaded without properly checking the evidence. However, this is only more validation of my often stated belief that we are running completely blind, and must attempt to prepare for whatever eventuality may occur on the energy front.
The complete blindness in which we operate is much more the danger to personal, organizational and national destiny than "peak oil" per se could ever be
From Campbell's ASPO Newsletter, a great quote sums it up:
“The last few days have seen a strengthing of oil price to above $60, and a strong fall of world stock markets. It is the sort of relationship to be expected, but time will tell if it is merely blip on a volatile market or a portent of what the post-peak world has to expect."
In other words, we know as little or less about whether we are anywhere near "peak", and what the downslope will look like than we did in 1978. or 1948, or 1938. It is not possible to be "more blind". One is either blind, or is not.
We are blind.
Thank you for your time,
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Roger - Your post angered me enough to draw me from lurk mode. Your assessment of Colin Campbell is completely wrong. This is not a game. We play with the cards that are dealt. Your wanting of bad news will not make it happen.
Please view this graph posted a short while back. The highest peak is 1999. The most optimistic model version was 2002. The scariest recent version was two years later in 2004.
There is no pattern. Campbell reveals for free the most recent available figures. Others involved in Peak Oil have agendas. Please don't shoot the messenger.
Who do you have in mind as a better ambassador?
edit: The dates were cut off. Sorry. The link is: http://trendlines.ca/TrendlinesPealOilDepletionGraphScenariosbyASPOColin...
Pacer in WestVan - When is the Peak?
Pacer,
Thank you for the reply, and allow me to apologize if my post angered you or anyone else, that was certainly not the intent. And thank you for the graph, I saw that one when it was made, but didn't have the presence of mind to save it at the time, I will save it along with my considerable collection of graphs discussing energy and peak.
The recent graph in ASPO's newsletter of this month are of course not included in the chart you reference, and it pushes peak out further into the future, and raises the backside downslope considerably for most of the first half of this century.
The moving of the "peak date" is not what has become troubling to me however. That is to be expected. As you correctly say, you play the cards you have, and the information base that is available to anyone making projections is very poor, and sometimes purposely obscure. You are correct that everyone has agendas. But of course, I care most about the ones that I have been partisan to, and have the most respect for, so my disappointment and need to say something comes not from any disrespect for Mr. Campbell personally, but instead from the very high place I have always conceded him and ASPO in the "peak" discussion. (as for other ambassadors to spread the message, the list is short, but Matthew Simmons is a very good communicator, but his numbers are at least somewhat based on ASPO's ideas, so his projections may be off, and Jean Laharrere, not because he is such a great communicator, but if he spots a problem in his numbers, he admits it honestly and moves on, and does not "marry" himself to a flawed projection and then try to make the data fit it.
Now, to the real problem for me: I assume that peak conventional oil will occur, and that it is a large enough consequence event to be preparing for in all sensible and sane ways (this as opposed to fleeing to the hills, and abandoning all investments, home and career aspects of ones life)
When Peak will occur is to be now of little consequence, simply because I think that all the "projections" are shots in the dark, based on bad data and manipulation of production by the producing nations and companies. In other words, peak may have already occured and we wouldn't know it (perhaps for a decade afterward), or it may not occur until 2020, 2030, or 2050. We simply have no way of knowing. HL would be useful with reliable input data, but that does not exist. Relying on production in world oil is pointless, because the tap is turned up and down at will, projects are stalled or held offline, maintainence schedules are designed for politcal, not technical reasons, "accidents" occur at the most convenient times, etc.
What is more interesting and damming to projections and scenarios is the huge adjustment up at the very back end of projections (approx. year 2050 in most cases). If we use Colin Campbells latest numbers, we can be pretty sure that, despite the wild rantings of many:
There will be no "collapse", dieoff, or melt down brought on by "peak oil". It is completely fantastical to believe that there could be such a thing based on oil supply issues, given the vast quantity of oil being produced even in 2045 or 2050, per Colin Campbell's ASPO.
The "back to the farm", "have to grow your own food", "return of the draft animal" stuff is likewise purely idiotic if we assume ASPO production numbers to be correct. The production numbers shown now are projecting more barrel oil equivalent to be produced in 2045 than was projected to be produced at the very peak of oil, all time, in 2000.
This is huge. It means that in 2045, the world will still be producing, per ASPO, more oil than it had ever produced yearly before this century began. That would make peak oil an almost non noticable event if it holds to be true, and generally, ASPO is one of the more pessimistic groups, darker in outlook than most others.
If the others are even half correct.....(????), well, you can forget any "death of suburbia" in our lifetime, and probably not until the old age of our children and midlife of our grandchildren. In other words, the business as usual crowd wins big, and, here is the most damming part, the real and crucially important need to reduce fossil fuel consumption will be reduced to a fringe movement, and have the importance on America's agenda of the "X" files.....searching for flying saucers will be considered more important. This was always the danger of marrying the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption to some presumed "peak" rather than to national security, financial balance of payment, or the ecological issue. Locking the need to conserve and develop alternatives to the "peak" cause may soon be seen as a losing bet.
The loss of credibility will be damming for anyone, group, or business who knows that over relience on imported oil and gas is a financial drain that is reducing our standard of living and quality of life, and an ecological crime.
In other words, we will have bought into a slow slavery, because we preached a fast catastrophe, one that had little or no chance of actually happening (don't get me wrong, it could happen....a meteor could strike the earth, an earthquake could split the continent, or we could get into a nuclear war. But those are the kind of events that you cannot plan for in any real way, you just have to discount.
But, you bring up an interesting point, whether you intended to or not. I may be biased in my view of ASPO's validity not by what they themselves say, which is based on the science as they are able to use it, but instead by the followers of the Peak Oil movement, in the way they have stretched the implications of the original peak numbers into a catastrophe cult, something that is not the fault of ASPO per se. I cannot let ASPO completely off the hook however, because they have themselves often preached dire outcomes that simply do not match the actuality of their own numbers.
I have also seen the results of the "dieoff" and "into the wilderness" preachings on impressionable people. Make no mistake, some people are taking this stuff as valid and in fact, an assured outcome. It has, whether intended or not, created panic, depression, and in some cases, caused people to take radical and non-sensical actions (divorces, moves, thoughts of suicide, dropping out of college, etc.) in some people, especially those who may have already been prone to depression and pessimistic outlook anyway.
I fear that I am becoming "peak" apostate, at least as it regards the way that "peak" is being presented by most peakers. That may be a bad or good thing, only time will tell, but my search is still for the way to be prepared, and to deal realistically with the facts as they are given.
Either way, enough respected people (Campbell, Simmons, and good statisticians on the TOD group (Stuart Staniford just recently, and Westexas) are predicting peak NOW, that we will know soon. The summer before last was the first test, in which many predicted the last great collapse. Even after successive hurricanes, it did not happen, and oil instead this last half year began to fall back into a normal trading range (oil under $70 dollars is givaway cheap, and well within the bounds of normal world inflationary pressure) If by July or August of this year, oil is still below $75 a barrel, the U.S. economy is not in full retreat or collapse, and the last two giant official reports from authoritative sources, the GAO (General Accounting Office, or whatever it is called nowadays) report and the NPC (National Petroleum Council) report do not show clear evidence of a major emergency, then we can say this bird has flown, if there is an emergency coming we will just have to wait for it. Thank you for your reply and giving me the chance to re-examine my own thinking on this issue.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
What a bunch of drival. Let's see those ASPO Graphs. Let's see those articles where Collin Campbell says peak won't happen for decades yet. Give me a break.
Please check out the newest ASPO newsletter:
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/newsletter/en/pdf/newsletter75_200703.pdf
I did not say, nor would I say that ASPO has pushed "peak" per se back decades....as I said in my first post, it is once pushed out, like the apple dangling in front of the horses nose, to just barely out in front....always a bit more out in front than the last....just a bit more....
The depletion model chart is well worth really looking at.....and since many involved in peak research say the exact date of peak is not the most important part, but instead, the horrific downslide after is what will do the damage.....follow the line on out to 2045....what we see is a downslope roughly equal to the one suffered in the 1978 to 1982 period as a percent of total...about a one fifth drop in overall production, only this time taking 35 years to achieve instead of the 4 years it took in the 1970's!
Frankly, I will no longer argue the point, it only makes me look as non-coherent as those I argue with, much ado about nothing.....look at the numbers (and by the way, look at the Middle East section of the ASPO newsletter....it is very telling as relates to Saudi Arabian projections....and decide your own path, at least that's what works for me.
Good luck in all you do, and thanks for the reply....
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
IMO, aspo's me assumptions are extremely optimistic, don't show any reduction from sa, iran or kuwait, all of which imo will show lower production soon. And, I suspect that mexico may be shown similarly... sa may be down to 7.6Mb/d at year end, and if so aspo will have taken note and revised its assumption.
Roger - Thank you for your very detailed response on your position. I am relieved that the optimism of your long "freedom" essay of February has not been lost.
Too often I see posts where the author seems genuninely disappointed in good news. Mexico January upward revision. Rising Angola production. Downward Oil & Gas Prices. ETC. I know there is glee in being right about ones own predictions, but welcoming the bad news and gnashing teeth when it's good is suspect.
Laherrere uses a gaussian model. It is a marriage of the two conventional and nonconventional hubbert curves. I've put his 2006 graph in my sig today. His projections are an excellent guide. But they will never pass scrutiny when compared to bottom up techinicians. Campbell's tables and graphs have always been transparent. He is open to suggestions. His revisions reflect his methodology which has a conservative bent.
Your musings about 2050 are bang on. 40 mbpd and he has probably the lowest number of everybody for that year including WOCAP. Yes it will be shared with 9 billion humans but certainly it is not mad max fodder.
The sharing of your underlying sentiment is truly appreciated.
my sig: When is the Peak?
Freddy, How many sock puppets do you have?!?
Pacer, as you said,
"Yes it will be shared with 9 billion humans but certainly it is not mad max fodder."
Exactly, but still no easy run by a long stretch, and I am now becoming more convinced than ever that while we divert the public's attention with gnashing of the teeth about crude oil, which is now mostly a transportation/motor fuel issue, the bigger and much more pressing problem is natural gas....
But of course, that is what NPC (National Petroleum Council), Alan Greenspan and Matthew Simmons have been trying to tell us all along.....
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Ed Tennyson's Remarks on "Revving on the Rails" article in header
Please note that Ed electrified the Harrisburg-Philadelphia rail line decades ago (now operating at 110 mph), testified at the trial of GM for conspiracy to remove streetcars (GM was fined $1,000), managed the building of the San Diego trolley to Tijuana, helped design the Washington DC subway system (his ridership estimates, before it was built, were off by 3% decades later) and more.
..................
The GOVERNING report was quite good but has two gross errors.
(1) Freight railroads today have much lower carloadings than fifty years ago because the cars are larger and loaded heavier so there are fewer trains,
Most of the so-called congestion is either very poor dispatching or bad management. Under Bush management FRA will not enforce the law on passenger train priority. An FRA official last month told me CSX dispatching is absolutely incompetant I know he is right, Last year a VRE train derailed on CSX main line. the first noticable VRE accident ever in 13 years. The NTSB report found CSX failed to repair the switch after four reports on need to do so. Many CSX dispatchers have no familiarity with the railroad they are dispatching. Just an idiot board. CSX will tell Amrak they are shutting down for a few days while they work on the track, That was never done until, "modern" management took over run by John Snow, Bush's ex-Secretary of Treasury now working with Cheney's Haliburton subsidiary to cut staff at Walter Reed Hospital where veterans wait for care.
Union Pacific is another robber baron, It used to be chaired by Drew Lewis the head of the Reoublican Party. UP RR is like CSX. Put the passenger trains on the siding and forget fhem. Never mind the law, Political contributions take care of that, UP RR also had bad management like CSX. They consolidated with SP and tore up facilities that they still needed to justify the funding of the purchsae of SP.
Truely horrible congestion resulled and much revenue was lost. UP RR had to tell UPS to quit using trains. Put the stuff on trucks, UP does not want it even at premium prices. It is too much trouble to keep on time.
On a trip on Amtrak on UP they put my train on a siding in Arkansas to let a freight pass. It passed and still we sat. After 10 minutes another freight train passed and still we sat. Ten more minutes a third freight train passed and we moved out, I watched out the window and saw additional passing sidings along the line where each of those freight
trains could have been passed without delaying the Amtrak train but the dispatcher would have to do more work to arrange it, Forget it, Let 'em wait, Amtrak has to pay the overtime not SP. On another trip Donner Pass had deep snow so UP made Amtrak push through the pass and cause a
derailment Then they sent the snow plough.
It is much different at BNSF, CP and NS where well managed
railroads with honest management seeks to earn the Amtrak bonuses for on time performance. These railroads also make far more profit than UP or CSX percentagewise.
Maybe a new Congress will investigate some of these problems
(2) The other problem is the reported time for auto travel from Boston to Washington and Philadelephia to Harrisburg. We have driven Washington to Boston many tines and we can not do it in 7:44 or even 8 hours. It takes 10 as food and fuel stops are necesary. The train is much faster and not just Acela.
We have driven Philadelphia to Harris- burg many many times and can't do it in less than 1:55 using I-76.with no congestion, Often there is congestion in Philadelphia. The local trains are 1:45 and the express 1:35.
Amtraks problem is largely a political problem tnat may change witn Democrats in charge but the budget is all over spent.
E d T e n n y s o n