DrumBeat: April 2, 2007

Supreme Court rebukes Bush on global warming

In a defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a U.S. government agency has the power under the clean air law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

The nation’s highest court by a 5-4 vote said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “has offered no reasoned explanation” for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that contribute to climate change.

The ruling came in one of the most important environmental cases to reach the Supreme Court in decades. It marked the first high court decision in a case involving global warming.

Stay in the City and Don’t Buy Guns or Gold

Albert Bates doesn’t think that either peak oil or global warming will usher in the apocalypse. Nor does he advise citizens to start stockpiling firearms and Krugerrands.

“There’s a contingent of peak oilers who are survivalists at heart,” Bates told me. But he isn’t one of them. “We don’t need to think of defending ourselves from packs of feral animals, we need to think of getting together quilting bees and sowing bees to make things.

GM considers bringing mini cars to U.S.

General Motors Corp. GM’s top global product planner said Friday the company is taking a serious look at bringing low-cost mini cars to the U.S. market capable of achieving as high as 50 miles per gallon of gasoline and breaking ground in a virtually nonexistent segment in the world’s biggest auto market.

Iran's Long Term Energy Problems

While Iran has the world's second largest reserves of Natural gas and also one of the world's largest reserves of oil the long term energy situation here is far from bright. This is the life line of its economy yet the Iranian government is investing surprisingly rather small sums in maintaining the infrastructure and or increasing current production. Daily production is coming at 3.9 million barrels which is actually 5% under its OPEC quota; they have not been able to meet their quota for over 21 months now. Shortage of technical skills and huge delays in new projects are the main culprits for falling production. In fact if nothing is done soon within a decade Iran's net oil exports could fall to zero. Oil minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh has stated that without additional new investment daily out put could fall by as much as 13% a year more then double what outside experts had expected.

China's wind power generation capacity may top 5 million kw next year

China's installed wind-power generation capacity is likely to top five mln kilowatts next year, two years ahead of what was envisaged in the national development plan, Xinhua news agency reported.

EU biofuel push 'to ruin forests'

One government official told the BBC: "The policy is running ahead of the science; we have to be very careful that this doesn't all go badly wrong."

EU’s new Central Asia Policy and its Energy Dimension

Central Asian republics’ desire to optimize their benefits through increasing the number of players in this “New Great Game”. It can be interpreted that EU’s wish to be active in the regional policies is an indication of increasing competition in the region.

DOE Regional Partnerships Find More Than 3,500 Billion Tons of Possible CO2 Storage Capacity

The Department of Energy's Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships have identified the powerplant and other stationary sources of more than 3.8 billion tons a year of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the United States and Canada and companion candidate storage capacity for more than 3,500 billion tons. The results are detailed in the new Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada which became available online today.

Reflective scientist sees a red roof and he wants to paint it white

SYDNEY'S red-tiled roofs should be painted white to help battle global warming. That is one idea of a thermodynamics expert who believes that besides cutting carbon dioxide emissions, we should also be cooling the world by reflecting solar energy.

Scientists weigh downside of palm oil

Only a few years ago, oil from palm trees was viewed as an ideal biofuel: a cheap, renewable alternative to petroleum that would fight global warming. Energy companies began converting generators and production soared.

Now, it's increasingly seen as an example of how well-meaning efforts to limit climate-changing carbon emissions may backfire.

UK report calls for wider climate change fight

The world needs to fight more polluting gases, and not just focus on carbon emissions, in the fight against climate change, according to a report published by the UK's Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG) on Monday.

UN experts set to issue grim warming on climate impact

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The world's top climate scientists were gathering here Monday to hammer out the summary of a massive report that predicts dire consequences from global warming, especially for poor nations and species diversity.

Even if dramatic measures are taken to reduce the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that drive warming, temperatures will continue to climb for decades to come, the experts conclude.

By 2080, according to the report, it is likely that 1.1 to 3.2 billion people worldwide will experience water scarcity, 200 to 600 million will be threatened by hunger, and each year an additional two to seven million will be victims of coastal flooding.

The brunt of these problems will fall squarely on to the world's poorest inhabitants, who are least to blame for the fossil-fuel pollution that drives global warming.

Climate change could carry huge, hidden costs: UN report

Climate change will inflict steadily rising costs that could become astronomical if greenhouse gas emissions rise unabated and countries delay preparations for the likely impacts, UN experts will say next week.

Oil prices at seven-month highs

World oil prices rose on Monday, trading at seven-month highs above 68 dollars a barrel in London, on supply concerns caused by the Britain- Iran sailor crisis, traders said.

DIW warns of rising oil prices over Iran-UK row

The ongoing crisis between Iran and Britain over the arrest of 15 British sailors who violated Iranian territorial waters, may trigger a rise in crude oil prices, according to an energy expert at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), IRNA reported.

"The oil price will develop towards the 70 dollar mark and won't drop again," DIW expert Caludia Kemfert told Saturday's edition of the Duesseldorf-based Rheinischen Post.

She warned that a military escalation in the Middle East could spark a major energy crisis.

Azerbaijan doesn’t cut gas exports to Georgia after April 1

Azerbaijan has not halted gas exports to Georgia while it had been expected to do on April 1.

If the agreement is prolonged, Georgia may completely refuse to buy high-priced Russian gas during summer.

Jordan plans nuclear energy by 2015

"Ynet" news reported today that Jordan is planning to construct a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes. Quoting a report in London today by "Al Hayat," Ynet said that Jordan intended to operate its first reactor for the purpose of energy production in 2015, "to ensure a better future and achieve continuous development" for the kingdom, which lies in a desert region and suffers from a severe energy shortage.

Kenya: Row Over Fuel Metre Rule

A row is brewing between the Kenya Revenue Authority and some major oil companies over the introduction of fixed flow metres.

The meters are being used to check quantities of petroleum products pumped into the country.

This, according to sources could be behind the 'artificial' shortages of diesel being experienced in major towns of the country this week.

Ghana: Getting Serious With Energy

The most pressing issue confronting Ghanaians today is dwindling power supply, which has resulted in load-shedding affecting many homes and enterprises.

Ghana: Don’t Force Our Hands, President Warns GHACEM

In a rare display of indignation, President J.A. Kufuor has expressed concern about the current high prices of cement on the local market and warned the Ghana Cement Works Limited (GHACEM), the sole local manufacturers, to check the trend otherwise the government would be compelled to revoke the monopoly it enjoys in the country now.

How to counter the 'curse' of North Sea oil

ECONOMICS has been characterised as the "dismal science" and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, did little to dispel that image with his statement in the Budget that tax revenues from North Sea oil had failed to reach his earlier forecasts.

However, taking a broader and longer view, there may be more reasons to be cheerful about the potential contribution that North Sea oil can make to public finances.

Russia's 'cool war' against the US in the Middle East

Moscow's growing attention to the Middle East continues, part of a new global strategy espoused by a more assertive and ambitious Russia. President Vladimir Putin pays much more attention to the region than his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, ever did. In the last two years, he has paid a historic first visit to Israel, visited oil- and gas-rich Algeria and, in another diplomatic first, toured the Gulf states.

Saudi Relations With U.S Cooling

Recently there has been a shift in Saudi King Abdullah's attitude, behavior, and rhetoric towards the U.S. Based on this, some analysts are reporting that their alliance is crumbling -- but is it?

Foreign workers sue U.S. companies

Labor leaders overseas are turning increasingly to an obscure 18th-century law that could for the first time make U.S. companies liable at home for the violent and sometimes murderous actions of their employees around the world.

...Chevron, headquartered in San Francisco, is fighting a lawsuit filed by Nigerians who say the company should be held responsible for the killing of protesters by Nigerian security forces outside a refinery owned by its subsidiary.

Why Growth Is Bad, Gardens Good and Cuba Key to Oil-Free Future

Bill McKibben makes it clear what he abhors: Wal-Mart (the scourge of small retailers) and Archer Daniels Midland (the bane of family farms).

Instead of a growth-oriented economy, he writes in ``Deep Economy,'' we need one that meets deep human needs, such as the sense of community that he says has been vanishing from the U.S. along with all those businesses and farms.

The implications of peak oil and the shortcomings of alternatives

I’m always hoping to find books that I think will speak in an engaging way to people who would not be drawn to the subject of oil: the people who are not activists, scientists or business people in the energy field, the people who think about oil only when they fill up their cars, pay their heating bills, or happen across a rare reference to oil in the corporate news on Middle East war.

For that audience, Crude is the best of the lot I’ve read.

Dale Allen Pfeiffer: Connecting the dots between energy depletion and the “War on Terror”

If the population realized that the glory days of our oil-based civilization were over, and that no alternative energy source can provide the quantity of energy that we require for continued socioeconomic prosperity (see How much Energy do We Consume? in The Mountain Sentinel, Vol. 1, No. 4), the economy would collapse overnight, before the major players are ready. What is worse, armed with such an awareness, the public might just rise up and demand a better accounting. They might seek to transform our society into something more egalitarian, threatening to completely unseat the major players. And they certainly cannot have that.

Crude Impact

On balance, I give Crude Impact a "thumbs-up". Without falling into despair, it clearly tells a number of stories related to petroleum through various lenses, and weaves these stories together to paint an overall damning picture of oil in a compelling manner.

Climate change, rising oil prices imperil B.C. food supply

The report, titled B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance, says that the area of farmland with access to irrigation in B.C. would have to increase by nearly 50 per cent by 2025 to provide a healthy diet for all British Columbians.

European Energy: Role Reversal

Knowingly or not, Britain’s geologists may have deceived their nation. Contrary to forecasts and models, oil and gas production has dropped precipitously. Britain, once the hub of European energy, is no longer energy self-sufficient.

By stark contrast, Germany has for years been jockeying to become the new source to fill European energy needs. It has a strategy to take good care of British energy security. But should Britons be concerned about growing too reliant upon their former enemy?

Photovoltaic solar energy: new map and interactive information

A new map published by the European Commission shows the photovoltaic solar energy potential of different parts of Europe. Photovoltaic Solar Cells convert sunlight directly into electricity. In addition the interactive on-line Photovoltaic Geographical Information System (PVGIS), developed by the Commission's in-house scientific service, DG Joint Research Centre, allows users to estimate solar energy performance at any given location in Europe.

The information in the map shows that an identical solar system will generate twice as much energy in sunny areas of Europe, such as Malta and Southern Spain, than in areas such as Scotland or Northern Scandinavia.

Secession anyone? The Once and Future Republic of Vermont

We secessionists believe that the 350-year swing of history's pendulum toward large, centralized imperial states is once again reversing itself.

Why? First, the cost of oil and gas. According to urban planner James Howard Kunstler, "Anything organized on a gigantic scale . . . will probably falter in the energy-scarce future." Second, third-wave technology is as inherently democratic and decentralist as second-wave technology was authoritarian and centralist. Gov. Jim Douglas wants Vermont to be the first "e-state," making broadband Internet access available to every household and business in the state by 2010. Vermont will soon be fully wired into the global social commons.

I didn't post this up top, because it's subscription-only. It's interesting, though...

From PIW:

In contrast to the gradual rise in global oil reserves that has been reported annually in most surveys based on public sources, the first PIW Reserves Survey shows that the trend in worldwide liquids reserves is actually one of stagnation and modest decline. The new survey uses a somewhat broader definition of reserves and applies it consistently across all countries, based upon recent historical figures from upstream data experts IHS.

PIW, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, was the one who reported Kuwaiti reserves were about one quarter to one half of what Kuwait was reporting officially:

But it said the data it had seen show that of the current remaining 48 billion barrels of proven and non-proven reserves, only about 24 billion barrels are so far fully proven -- 15 billion in its biggest oilfield Burgan.

PIW seems to be telling it like it is instead of what BP, IES, EIA and others are doing, telling the people what they want to hear.

Ron Patterson

This is a post by ACE!!! that was buried far down in the thread yesterday that deserves a new life...apologies in advance for bungling it (copied it from the source and removed stray HTML):

ace on April 2, 2007 - 12:53am

The Decline of Saudi Arabia: Updated Forecast and Field by Field Analysis Report
Hi Westexas,
That’s a great article that you’ve found – Riyadh bank predicts that Saudi oil production is expected to fall…to 8.44 million bpd in 2007.
My current forecast is showing Saudi oil production to be about the same at 8.43 million bpd in 2007.
Figure 1 – Saudi Arabia Production Forecast

Given that it is becoming more likely that Saudi has no surplus capacity the importance of the near term big projects Shaybah and AFK (Khursaniyah) becomes critical.
This Nov 2006 CSIS presentation by Obaid makes the following statements:
Khursaniyah (AFK) was ”originally scheduled for December 2007” but in Nov 2006, Obaid says that it will be earlier: ”by June 2007 to reach 500,000 b/d”.
Shaybah expansion was ”originally scheduled for January 2009” but again Obaid states an earlier date: ”by April/May 2008: 250,000 b/d will come on stream”.
On Mar 4, 2007, Phil Hart said that ”Khursaniyah group of fields..is not expected on stream until the end of 2007.”
I’ve assumed Khursaniyah (AFK) first oil is Feb 2008.
The desperation to deliver first oil earlier from AFK and Shaybah together with Riyadh’s downgraded oil forecast shows that Saudi Aramco is struggling to increase production rates. The forecast in Figure 1 from 2008 to 2011 may be too optimistic.
The following presentation by Hans Jud from Switzerland performs a field by field analysis for Saudi Arabia:
Figure 2 – Small Saudi Fields show “Great Future”?

The figure above is partly based on information also from Obaid’s CSIS presentation. The figure shows that there is justified scepticism over Aramco’s promise to suddenly produce huge amounts of oil from old small fields. Look at Manifa and Khurais – huge production rate jumps!!
Figure 3 – HL for Saudi Giant Fields

The figure shows a cumulative HL plot for the giant fields of Ghawar, Abqaiq, Berri, Safinaya, Zuluf and Marjan. The URR is 125 Gb. Jud also does HLs for each of these fields in his presentation.
Figure 4 – HL for Saudi Arabia – all fields

The figure above shows a URR of about 165 Gb.
Figure 5 – Two cycle HL

For this chart, Jud optimistically assumes that Saudi Arabia has an additional 40 Gb of secret oil to produce. This gives the dashed blue line. This is added to the dashed red line (URR 165 Gb) to give the dashed green line as a forecast for Saudi production.
In the last few years, note also in the figure above the production drop in the 6 giant fields while total production is increasing. Are the MRC wells in the giant fields starting to show accelerated decline rates due to increased water cut?
Figure 6 – Where are the missing fields?

This last figure shows that Jud’s optimistic assumption of an additional 40 Gb is most likely false. This means that Saudi’s URR is about 165Gb. Fig 5 shows the dashed red line for the URR 165 Gb which might be the best HL fit for Saudi.
The forecast in Fig 1 assumes that old small fields such as Khursaniyah (AFK), Khurais and Manifa can deliver huge increases in production. Fig 5 shows these forecasts to be overoptimistic (Matt Simmons would probably agree).
It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia will ever produce more than 8.5 million bpd (C[and]C). This means that if any supply disruption or sudden demand increase occurs, do not assume that Saudi Arabia can be “called” upon to supply extra oil. Assume that price shocks are likely to occur starting the middle of this year.

It is really useless to post pictures this way. Make them clickable. No, there is no way around that.

I just posted this on yesterday's thread, but please consider using the


attribute for the images so they size themselves to your browser window instead of getting cut off on the right.

I think it deserves a guest post!

You're right.

Ace, I've just sent you an email.

There is another post by ace, further down in the same older Drumbeat that expands upon this even more. That should be included too.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Re: Major Saudi Bank Predicts Accelerating Decline in Saudi Crude Oil Production

One of the largest Saudi banks is predicting that the year over year decline in average annual Saudi crude oil production will increase from 4.2% in 2006 to 7.5% in 2007.

Note that year over year declines, on a month to month basis, are usually larger than year over year declines in average annual production.


Published: 01/04/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)
Government spending to boost Saudi Arabia GDP

Figure 23, Saudi production for "All Fields" seems to be missing 2006 data. Shouldn't that be noted?

Ron Patterson

If I am reading these graphs correctly for 2007, it is showing that Saudi has increased production by 800 million barrels per year over the past 3 years, while production in the 6 largest fields declined by ~300 million barrels per year. e.g. figure 5.

Is that accurate ? Since Saudi production reportedly was flat-to-declining over the past 2 years, these charts are confusing...

Global peak: 2007 - 2010
Global decline rate, Post peak: 2%
Economic response: Severe global recession, ~5 years, then slow recovery

Is there any way I can view the whole graph? These are all drastically cut off on the right--the area I most want to look at!

Maybe you can put the mouse on the Graph, right click and save picture as. I chose bitmap and change the file name and put it in my OD picture folder. Then open my picture viewer and look at it full screen.

Okay Hummingbird, Click on “Start”, then click on “Control Panel”, then click on “Display” then click on “Settings”, then under “Screen Resolutions” move the arrow to the right toward “More”. 1280 by 960 pixels will do it. Then click on "OK". Then you will see the whole graph.

Ron Patterson

On Bill Gates machines perhaps.

Things don't work everywhere just because they work in one spot.

The only way to solve it is making every picture wider than 500 pixels a clickable hotspot. There is no other solution.

What! Do you mean to tell me that there is something that the almighty Apple cannot do. The Apple cannot change the screen resolution? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

Well there is only one way to correct that problem. If the apple cannot change the screen resolution then switch to someone who can. Or write to Steve Jobs and beg him to correct this problem. If he knew that the PC can do something that the Apple cannot do, then I am sure he would turn heaven and earth until he corrected the problem.

However I am not convince you are correct HeIsSoFly. I was not joking, I am shocked that there is something tha PC can do that the Apple cannot. I must be convinced that this is the case. Do we have an Apple expert on board?

Ron Patterson

Do we have an Apple expert on board?

Yeah, me.

You know, Ron, we Apple people, unlike the rest, find it silly to have to click 10 times on all kinds of features, run twice around the block and sing the national anthem doing two 180 twirls on one leg, just to see a picture.

Okay Mister Apple Expert, are you saying Apple cannot change the screen resolution in order to view a wider document than your current resolution premits. Wow! If that is the case then Apple has a very serious problem. Again, you should impose upon Steve Jobs and the folks at apple to correct this very serious problem Apple has.

Fortunately us PC users do not have that problem. We have flexability! Yeah! We can change the screen resoultion in order to view any document that is transmitted.

You do not have that ability? Pity!

Ron Patterson

Ron, calm down a tad, ok? :o)

Of course screen res on a Mac can be changed. But most of us Mac users would prefer a method that's simpler.

I find that I can ctrl-click on the above images, which gives me a little menu of options, and have the graphics displayed in a new window in my browser. This gets rid of those artificial boundaries that the TOD display forces upon us readers and posters, and I can see the whole graphic. Nice and simple, and no screen res change required.


Wolf, half-baked Mac "expert" and Mac user for 15 years

Greywulffe, I am totally calm. I think this is halarious. I am laughing my ass off. It turns out that a Mac can view the graphs posted above, the whole damn graphs no less. I suspected all along that this was the case.

So there is no need for anyone to do anything except become more computer literate. And that goes for Mac users as well as PC useres.

Thanks again Graywulffe.

Ron Patterson


Feeling right gets you too excited, too much of a little boy with much to prove. You're just overboard, and you know too little, but you'll never admit that. So be it.

I never said it couldn't be done. I merely indicated that there are better, simpler ways. As Leanan too says below, it should be solved at input, not output.

"IF you have this machine, IF you run this sytem, IF you are using this software, do this that and that," there's too many possible variables. 90% of Mac users don't know they can control-click, because they never have to.

Any idea how much all these huge pics piss off people with dial-up connections?
Totally unneccesary.

BTB: I worked as a developer of cross-platform interactive media for 10 years. Worked around a few issues. And you should lose that derogatory tone, it's nothing to be proud of.

HeIsSoFly, let me remind you that it was you who started bitching about non "Bill Gates" users not being able to easily read the full graphs. I was simply trying to tell PC users how they could easily view the total graphs with about ten seconds of effort devoted to change the screen resolution of their displays. I would have had absolutely no further input had not you piped in with your bitching about "Bill Gates" software.

Ten seconds of effort is not too much to ask of anyone if they truly wish to view the graphs. And this goes for Mac usere as well as PC users. And after PC users make that simple change, it lasts forever. The next time that a graph is posted, they will need to do nothing because they made the changes permenant.

I think my advice should be viewed as constructive. I had no idea that it would not be so simple for Mac users, and for that I truly apologize. So please simply see my advice as only applying to PC users and leave it at that. And as far as dial up connections are concerned, once the screen resolution is changed, it will last forever, or until changed. Dial up connectors should never get pissed off again because every time a graph is posted, from this time forward, they should be able to view the entire graph, first time, every time.

And why do you bring up dial up users at all. After all, when you change the screen resolution it does not require a reloading of the page at all. It simply changes the screen resolution of what you have already loaded. Methinks you are just looking for something to bitch about HeIsSoFly.

Ron Patterson

The problem is that posting large images means everyone - whether they want to read the comments or not - has to download far more data than is reasonable. This is true regardless of your screen resolution. Making smaller images that are "clickable" links to large images solves that problem, as well as making it by default easy for just about anyone to see enough detail in the original post.

The way it is now is just annoying, with the right edge chopped off (due to the huge margin on the web page) on every graph if your browser is set to a width that is in a range that most people have available to them - anything under 1200 pixels, it looks like. Personally, I have a screen that is 1920 pixels wide, so I can just resize the window. 2 seconds, one click&drag - on a Mac or PC or pretty much anything using any graphical user interface written in the last 20 years. Your advice is useless to someone who has a screen with a maximum resolution 1024 pixels wide, now, isn't it?

(I'm old enough to remember screens with maximum resolution 320 pixels wide... heck, I'm old enough to have used a printing terminal with acoustic coupler modem at 110 bits per second. Imagine downloading just one of those graphs - 170792 bytes - at about 11 bytes per second!)

Just use FireFox.. Right-click on the image, then click "View Image" The image then opens up, consuming the entire browser window, and auto-scales to be the size of the window. Your cursor then becomes a magnifying glass, and you can zoom in or out. When you're done, just hit the back button, and it takes you back to the page you were on, at the place you were at. (You don't have to scroll back to find where you originally were.)

The solution works for Windows or Mac OS X. (I use both systems. MSIE is simply too dangerous to use, no matter what computer you're on.)

Or open a microsoft word window. Set margins to the minimum on your blank document. Then select, copy and paste the post. If the picture is still too wide, right cliclick, select format picture, size and reduce to 7 inches. Or change layout to landscape.

Thanks Darwinian. I appreciate the specific instructions.

If you use Firefox, there are "view image" and "copy image location" options.

(You can do it with IE, too, but it's not as convenient.)







However, I agree with HISF. The correct thing to do is thumbnail the images. Using the 100% tag isn't really a solution. It still forces people to load the full size image every time the page is loaded. And if the user has a large screen, forcing the image to 100% can produce pretty ugly results, especially with charts/graphs.

Good gourd. Somehow that particularly good post became a platform to start an IE/Firefox, Mac/"PC" war.

The trouble is that the post was set up to look the way it looks and to flow with the graphs easily visible, and considering that it was good, it was worth the bandwith. I am on dial-up and some things are just worth letting load. I look forward to it gaining guest post status so that it can get some credibility for its content and not derision over its format.

P.S. I still don't understand the one-button mouse on Macs. That second button is just so bloody quick and useful.

The trouble is that the post was set up to look the way it looks and to flow with the graphs easily visible

All the more reason to thumbnail them, because as posted, they are NOT easily visible.

Thumbnailing is the obvious answer. It only takes a minute or so. It gives the author control over how the reduced image displays (unlike the 100% tag), and ensures everyone, on every platform, can see the images.

Actually, you can do even better than this in Firefox.

There is an extension called "Image Zoom" which adds a "Zoom Image" option to the Right-click menu. Has lots of preset % zoom values. It's really excellent.

Along with "Linkification" it's one of my 'must-have' set of Firefox extensions.

Another one that really helps with inserting common blocks of text or sets of HTML tags is "Clippings" - check it out.

For those who think the sub prime mess won't spread, it already is. Like I've stated...this is the tip of the iceberg, the real fireworks won't begin for another month or so. Once is permeates throughout the entire economy, there is zero way this doesn't pull us down. Rates are coming down....


March 30 (Bloomberg) -- M&T Bank Corp., the western New York bank partly owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said low bids for the Alt-A mortgages it planned to sell will cut first-quarter profit by $7 million.

Earnings per share will be $1.50 to $1.60, also in part because M&T expects that rising default rates will require it to repurchase some Alt-A loans it previously sold, the company said in a statement. Analysts' estimates for net income currently range from $1.82 a share to $1.90, according to a Bloomberg survey.

Lenders this month have found demand falling for riskier mortgages even apart from so-called subprime ones. A unit of Cleveland-based National City Corp. that makes home equity loans through brokers today undid much of a loosening of guidelines it introduced only Feb. 28, rolling back standards further in some ways, as a result of demand from loan buyers ``evaporating quickly,'' according to an announcement obtained by Bloomberg.

Gee...haven't we seen this before....no one wants to buy, ergo - poor liquidity.


The ELP Plan: Economize; Localize & Produce
Monday, April 2, 2007

By: Jeffrey J. Brown

In this article I will further expound on my reasoning behind the ELP plan, otherwise known as “Cut thy spending and get thee to the non-discretionary side of the economy.”

I have been advising for anyone who would listen to voluntarily cut back on their consumption, based on the premise that we were probably headed, in a post-Peak Oil environment, for a prolonged period of deflation in the auto/housing/finance sectors and inflation in food and energy prices.

To put our current rate of worldwide crude oil consumption in perspective, during George W. Bush’s first term, the world used about 10% of all crude oil that has been consumed to date, and based on our mathematical models, the world will use about 10% of our remaining conventional crude oil reserves during George W. Bush’s second term.


An excellant essay and very wise advise. I am looking
forward to the next installment.


Yes. Superb ideas, WT -- still.

I have written one article on the environment and the future for a local paper -- to be published on April 9.

I plan to continue to write to offer good analysis and info to people oriented around what we can and must do locally to prepare for what the Carbon Twins will bring us.

The ELP or even HELP plans seem like a sound start.

Taken with the advice offered in "Deep Ecology" and "The Postpetroleum Cookbook" and such, I feel like there are many positive things people can do.

Many people are looking for this conversation: "what do we do?"

Thanks again!

Very wise to distinguish what will inflate and what will deflate! However, a general and possibly Weimar-type inflation is not excluded. The latter is not determind by costs but by what's done with the printing press, or its equivalent.

Of course, there's little chance that could happen given the prudence and responsiblity of our leaders.

Oops -- I mean "what will deflate and what won't deflate".

Good info and great advice--thanks Jeffrey.

It's not likely that anyone ELPing will regret it. Instead, they will likely ask themselves, "What took me so long? I wish I'd checked out of that rat race years ago."

No debts = freedom. Now, if you can get rid of most of your useless possessions (very difficult for most of us), you will likely find a freedom you never knew existed. We're ELPing and still stuggling with the possessions--they own you and suck up your energy, so best to get rid of as many as you can.

We are talking here about energy and not about mortgage problems!

I guess you are still short some of those subprime financial vehicles.

62% gain on LEND....we may be talking about energy, however the larger economic engine that drives the economy does figure into these issues. Since there are those who believe this will be nothing more than a hiccup, here's proof positive that this will begin the recession many have dared prophesize. Think a bit harder...this will affect oil demand, more than most of us care to believe.

No surprises here, but many more to come.

from The Wall Street Journal

April 2, 2007

New Century Financial Corp. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The Irvine, Calif.-based company has become an emblem of the recent turmoil in the subprime market caused by a loss of confidence among investors who buy loans from such lenders. Last month, New Century stopped making loans because too many creditors had cut off funding.

Today's WSJ is filled with ominous stuff:

p.1. "Where are thou, business spending?"

p. c9 "Denouement of subprime story yet to be written".

p. c9 also "Eager investors lift margin debts
to new heights".

p. c15 "Pension funds may feel little subprime". The doctor tells you, you might live. Feel better?

Maybe I'm just a worry wort.

To be pedantic, the correct term is 'worry wart'.

James Gervais

Not pedantic. Thanks.

worry wort - that is when you are making a new kind of home brew and are unsure of it's outcome. ;-)

Yeah, well, some of us have enough energy to discuss both energy and mortgage problems. Turns out, it's a great way to find out what links the two.

Homework for today: Consider this hypothesis:

The unfolding US financial crisis was deliberately initiated as a preparation for Peak Oil, with the aim of creating the biggest demand destruction possible.

Since nothing puts lower income people more in debt than their mortgages, they are the obvious starting point. It only took 10 years to get many millions of them to sign up for debts they will never be able to repay.

Next up is the stock market plunge. That will get rid of the middle class' remaining wealth. Not much additional action needed: the housing market will crush all financial markets. Extra insurance comes from shutting the credit spigot. Worked miracles in '29.

Next week: Jobs in the Desert:
How to channel all the newly created destitution to go and get more oil.

And you forgot...follow it all up with a world war. Jobs for everyone.

Possible for sure...


``Right now the CDO machine has essentially been put on hold,'' Martin of TIAA-CREF said.

You believe in a long term wide ranging conspiracy by the TPTB to impoverish the 'US masses', but disbelieve in a conspiracy by TPTB to provide a cover for an Oceania [1984 combination of Britain and USA] attack on the ME oil nations? Please assure me you were joking.

James Gervais

I might try to assure you if you explain what you're talking about.

Sorry, HISF, I assumed that you would get the reference to 911, but I now see that I was too curt.

James Gervais

There is a new posting on Dr. Bakhtiari's website. (Pdf warning)

Excellent! Only 4 pages very readable. Peak Modeling. Calling the peak now and a consenses around 55 m/bd in 2020. 30 m/bd less in 13 years!?

US uses a quarter of the 85Mbd. So by 2020 when we are down to 55Mbd, will US then be using something like half the world's production of energy? What does that look like? The rest of the planet is reduced to North Korean standards or worse? How many failed states? (If US is still using that much it will have hung together somehow. If not, then how might the distribution look?)

Can the US maintain supremacy with a 10% fall in US oil supplies? If the US is going to stay top dog, it will have to hog all the resources without fail it seems. Not only for itself, but to *deny* others any ability to act. But it takes so little to blow up a pipeline or sink a tanker (or poison a food chain or destroy a grid). Space weapons are not going to protect pipelines.

At the same time, we've still got Iraq hanging around our necks, Ditto NOLA. NOLA2, Son of NOLA and Mother of NOLA to come. I love it when a plan comes together....

Has anyone done any modelling of what an economy might look like at various levels of energy inputs?

cfm in Gray, ME


Can the US maintain supremacy with a 10% fall in US oil supplies? If the US is going to stay top dog, it will have to hog all the resources without fail it seems.

Don't know if anyone has figured out how the U.S. would run on 10% reduced rations let alone maintain 'top dog'. But it looks like it's going to be a lot worse than that. What I found so stark was the matter of fact reference to this 2020 figure as consensus.

As far as your question. The studies we all know...Hirsh, the GAO report, plus disaster plans from EIA, Simmons has ideas in his presentations, ...pretty back-of-the-envelope stuff since it looks like we are going to be in it very soon. I guess the GAO was saying 'no real plan'. To me the more constructive ideas are from people like Alan Drake, Heinberg and WT but they're not running it like it's run today.

This dissertation that came through on the 'bulletin' last week is another well done bottom up analysis and it doesn't seem to be at odds with Bakhtiari.


I asked WT downthread if he thought the number was plausible he said.

55 mbpd in 2020 is reasonable, but the big risk is still net oil export capacity.

IMO, from the point of view of importers, even a gradual decline in world oil production will look more like a crash.

It would be a lot easier if 'crackpots' were saying this stuff but it's the other guys that sound 'off the wall'. Yeah it's pretty mind boggling that we are not preparing now. And no the rest of the world isn't going to let the U.S. have half the world's oil. We're pretty broke.

Great article! I hope this gets some in-depth examination here on TOD.



Bakhtiari's article mentions The Oil Drum and some of the modeling done here. I wonder if he is a regular reader.

So that's Deffeyes, West Texas, T. Boone Pickens, Simmoms and now Bakhtiari.

What other big names should be added to the "Post Peak Camp"? (including from oil drum?)

Well, obviously, they all missed yesterday's TOD:NYC post.

Abiotic oil gusher found in Central Park.

Remember, let's keep our discussion reality-based!

Well, I'd divide the camp into post-peakers, near-peakers, and far-peakers.

Stuart has been in the "probably peak now" camp since 2005 so that would make him a post-peaker, I'd guess. I'd guess Leanan is a post-peaker. I get the impression that Engineer-Poet, Khebab, Nate Hagens, and Robert Rapier are all near-peakers but don't believe it's happened yet. HO's position isn't clear but I think he is a near-peaker too. I get the impression that all of TOD-Europe are near-peakers with no post-peakers in that bunch.

Prof. Goose remains enigmatic, as always, so there's no telling exactly what he believes. ;)

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

I'd guess Leanan is a post-peaker.

Call me Hamlet. I'm undecided.

We could very well be post-peak. Or not.

The peak is only visible in the rear-view mirror. If we are post-peak, we aren't far enough past it yet to see it clearly.

I am definitely in the "Peak Now" camp. The peak month does not make a lot of difference. It may have been May of 2005 or it may be in July of 2007 but unless it quite a bit higher than the average for the past two years, it will make little difference. We have been on the peak plateau for two years not and the next major move will be down.

I am not Hamlet, I am not undecided, the peak is right now!

Ron Patterson

Can I borrow some of your feathers? They seem to be the same colour as mine, and I think I'm going to need some extra for warmth sooner than I thought.

Yes, Peak Is Now, but what gives me the quivering heebie-jeebies is his projection of 55 mbpd by 2020. I did a back-of-the-envelope "fast crash doomer" decline scenario for my presentations, and I only got down to 60. Look ma, I'm a cornucopian!

After Fractional Flow and Stuart's Disertation of the previous week, I am in the "Peak Oil Cliff" soon camp. I no longer believe in the 'long slow decline, forever'. Maximum production in the supergiants up to the edge then, CRASH, CRASH, CRASH, CRASH. If FF or Stuart could tell me I misunderstood the implications, I would greatly appreciate it. I was much happier before the revelation.

A HUGE ditto here!

Don't worry! Be happy!

Even most of the peak oilers insist that if we just turn the right screw, invest in the right honey bucket, and pray to the right god, everything is going to turn out fine!

On the other hand, maybe you've read the Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update and have a sense of what is coming. If you have not, then you really still don't understand where we are. As Professor Bartlett said in his infamous video series, "What time is it?" And the answer is that it is less than 1 minute til midnight.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

And Euan, I think he's on the near-Peaked fence too maybe?

I wonder what our "near peakers" think about
these lines :

"... that henceforth Peak Modeling should be shelved once and for all. Some experts still seem unconvinced as they contiune to compare and weigh results generated by all types of available models - as for example does The Oil Drum..."

My 2 cents...I believe we are post peak, in the first year of post peak to be exact, with a total loss of around 2.5mmbpd by year end. Accelerating in 2008 instead of leveling off due to investment, personnel, equipment, weather, and political considerations.

That's that as they say. I agree with Deffeyes, et al, and believe is may be worse in the short term that it has to be, due to political and economic impacts.

I don't think the coming recession in the US will substantially reduce demand fast enough to reduce impact, maybe ease the price (which is worse), but the decline will continue and 2008 will be a banner year (literally, as PO surpasses GW in the media).

Prepare for a oil price crunch this fall, or WAR or both. Probably both.

Can't say that I am happy that the facts have borne out true, so far,...it's a reality I would choose not to ever face.

I don't think the coming recession in the US will substantially reduce demand fast enough to reduce impact.

Sorry to say I totally agree. Peak office space, peak internal combustion engines, peak food production/preservation/transportation, peak housing square footage, peak electrical devices, peak enterprise...

means there is a ton of 'momentum' out there. Peak energy/population means we have never had more goods and energy in the system ever before or ever again. In the U.S. there is scarcely any activity that hasn't been turned into an energy 'consumer'. The developing world emulates and stands ready to pick up the slack when we stumble.

Many of these enterprises have certain minimum requirements for operation. They will not all be sold, partitioned, crushed, converted, and recycled overnight. There would be significant loss of sunk value, energy costs and social disruption to do so. So folks will try to keep going the way they are going, borrowing ,skimping and squeaking by until they are literally forced to downgrade to other arrangements.

Seems to me we'll hit the wall with the engine humming and the throttle pressed down firmly. Whether that wall is a war or another Saudi 'embargo' or a PO induced collapse of the monetary system is a toss-up.

All I know is there is plenty of tectonic force building between expected demand from the fully accessorized iron triangle on one side and the limited geological capacity of mother earth on the other. I'd wager we are post peak and I expect a fairly near term high magnitude event to help 'reestablish' equilibrium.

OK, let's assume that the peak has passed.

What's next? Very few people are even aware of the discussion, fewer still understand it, and even fewer believe that it could come to pass. There are problems now, but nothing that cannot be ascribed to 1) terror and war, 2) housing bubble and possible recession, 3) excessive taxation, 4) incompetent government, 5) see #1, etc. People waiting for a light bulb to go on (or out!) above people's heads might be waiting awhile. A deep recession could quench demand, and quench some more, and more. It will be the fault of whoever is in office at the time, and every reaction to the situation will be counterproductive because denial will go on.

With the US presidential election season gearing up, who will go out on a limb and predict that peak oil will even be mentioned by a major candidate? If yes, how soon?

Yeah, it's possible or even likely that we'll go through what's to come and most people will never know what the underlying cause is.

People won't be able to see the disease for the symptoms.

Is it possible we are WAY PAST Peak? If Peak is defined as 50% gone as opposed to barrels per day, we could have hit that 1999 / 2000. Use high tech, increased horizontal drilling, maximum reservoir contact, etc, etc to jack up the production rate and mask the the 50% point of theoretical decline. Hubbert never said the curve would be symetrical and the greater use of technology to enhance explotation would lead to catbolic collapse...

Not catabolic, abrupt. Either Stuart or FF said that at 79% water cut the oil locks up and ceases to move through the rocks, at which point they pump nothing but water.

Water saturation not "cut". The "cut" can / does go up past 99 percent in some instances without being uneconomic to produce. Not a lot of good except in terms of managing the back side of the curve but a lot of production continues from reservoirs with very high water cuts. So maybe in this sense catabolic applies.

IIRC Fractional Flow did indicate that the oil cut would basically fall off a cliff in Ghawar at about 79 percent water saturation. He mentioned pore size, and viscosity of the oil as the main determinants. I believe that whether the reservoir rock is water wet or oil wet is also an important factor, but he undoubtedly factored this into his evaluation of Ghawar.

Thank you. Wrong term but right concept. Substituting the term saturation for cut, we are faced with abrupt collapse according to FF, correct?

Correct. Running one of those wells flat out at two percent oil cut you end up with 200 or less bbls per day. From the baseline [today] -- that would in my estimation qualify as a collapse ... and it could come quite abruptly.

BTW if this hypothetical well was onshore in the U.S., even a one percent oil cut could still make the owner a very very nice return, but to a large extent the process would be one of trading electricity for oil.

"trading electricity for oil" i assume you are saying the saudis would convert their wells to electrical submersibles. imo, gas lift is more likely. the saudis have managed these reservoirs to maintain flowing status. gas lift is just an extension of flowing.

I defer to your opinion on this one. My experience with REDAs is limited to situations where the salt water is diposed of in another formation.

A reinjection of salt water on the flanks of Ghawar would make for an long closed loop as the brine would still need to be transported and then reinjected down dip. This is an ongoing process, but the volume of waste water increases over time.

My guess is that this process requires a fair bit of energy, even after accounting for Adam's First Law of Fluidic Motion ["water runs downhill."]

In any event, the end game wil be a lot less fun.

i wouldnt bet the farm on that 79% figure, that may be the case in a laboratory study which by design completely ignores the effects of imbibition. the buckley-leverett theory of water displacement only applies to a homogeneous reservoir. i dont know anyone who considers these sa reservoirs homogeneous. imo sa might be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat another time or two, but i think stuart's wager is safe.

side note - nobody on here seems to give much thought to sa initiating aftificial lift. if they could install infastructure fast enough , including water handling infastructure, they may be able to breifly increase production to record levels. we dont know what the saudis are up to.

I really don't think you heard, or rather read, where either said anything of the sort. Some wells in the US are more than 99% water. In fact I have heare the term "oil stained brine" tossed around quite a bit, even in the Middle East.

I don't think there is a point where the water cut causes the oil to lock up. Let us not start spreading stuff that just is not true.

Ron Patterson

If you read the replies above you would have seen that I had used the wrong term and we corrected it to "saturation". Stuart said this in "Water in the Tank":

In a set of interconnected pores through which oil and water are being forced at pressure, the flow is too turbulent for large areas of the two fluids to separate out from one another. And yet, oil and water do not like to mix, and will tend to bead up in the presence of the other. If there is only a little water and a lot of oil, then the oil will form an interconnected network of fluid throughout the rock pores, whereas the water will tend to make small beads within the oil. Conversely, a little oil in a lot of water will result in a network of water throughout the rock, and small beads of oil within that network. Now, in either situation, the fluid that is interconnected can flow through the rock without making any change in the arrangement of beads and surfaces between oil and water. However, the fluid that is beaded up can only move by the beads physically moving around, and they are going to tend to get trapped by the rock pores.

So for this reason, in a mixture of almost all oil, the water cannot flow at all. Conversely, once there is almost all water, the oil cannot flow at all (which sets an upper limit on the amount of oil that can ever be recovered by a water flood). In between, there is a changeover in which the proportion of oil flowing to water flowing changes much more rapidly than the changeover of the actual mixing ratio. The curve that describes this is called the fractional flow curve.

For example, the tutorial I referenced earlier shows this picture for a typical fractional flow curve:


So the way to read this is that when we are below 20% on the X-axis (less than 20% water in the oil), there is zero on the y-axis (the water will not flow through the rock at all). As we get above 20% water saturation, the flow of water increases rapidly, until above 80% water, there is no flow of oil at all. In the linear region at the center of the curve, the slope is about 3.6. That is, each 1 percentage point increase in water saturation results in a 3.6 percentage point increase in water flow in the rock.

Now, we do not have quantitative fractional flow curves for 'Ain Dar and Shedgum at the moment. However, we know one point on the curve for 'Ain Dar from Alhuthali et al (Paper #93439), which reports on measurements of rock right next to an abandoned water injector well. The pores of that rock had 21% oil, 79% water. Rock next to a water injection well is bound to contain only that oil which is never going to move under any further waterflooding, and so tells us that the fractional flow curve must reach the top of the graph (y-axis of 100%) when the x-axis is at 79% water saturation.

I ran across an academic paper from the University of California at Davis studying the price and income elasticity of gasoline demand for two periods, 1975-1980 and 2001-2006. The study finds that demand is considerably more inelastic in the latter period:

Evidence of a Shift in the Short-Run Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand (PDF file)

There are a number of reasons to believe that current demand elasticities differ from these previous periods, as transportation analysts have hypothesized that behavioral and structural factors over the past several decades have changed the responsiveness of U.S. consumers to changes in gasoline prices. In this paper, we compare the price and income elasticities of gasoline demand in two periods of similarly high prices from 1975 to 1980 and 2001 to 2006. The short-run price elasticities differ considerably: and range from -0.034 to -0.077 during 2001 to 2006, versus -0.21 to -0.34 for 1975 to 1980. The estimated short-run income elasticities range from 0.21 to 0.75 and when estimated with the same models are not significantly different between the two periods. One implication of these findings is that gasoline taxes would need to be significantly larger today in order to achieve an equivalent reduction in gasoline consumption. This, coupled with the political difficulties in adopting gasoline taxes, suggests that policies and technologies designed to improve fuel economy are likely becoming relatively more attractive as a means to reduce fuel consumption.

This is consistent with recent news articles on gasoline prices and demand:

NY Times: Drivers Shrug as Gasoline Prices Soar

WSJ: Gas Prices Rise and Consumers Shrug (paid subscription required)

The absolute volume of oil used daily by this country is staggering and borders on criminal. Clearly the US gov needs to 1) raise CAFE standards, 2) increase the gas tax, and 3) educate the American public about fossil fuel use. Education and taxation did much to change our tobacco use and similar methods would apply here as well.

And BTW, last week's article by Stuart Staniford on Ghawar really got me worked up... it is amongst the best that I've ever read here.

Don't be silly..."American way of life" trumps all that....

There is another problem, namely that the current fleet of oil burning machines (cars, trucks, airplanes, ships, trains, etc etc) isn't going to be left to rust. You could raise CAFE standards by 50% tomorrow and you probably wouldn't even begin to make a significant dent in consumption for a decade. Unless you propose to shred all existing cars. In which case you'd be consuming a lot of energy to build new cars!

There's a reason why cargo airlines are still flying inefficient - by today's standards - aircraft such as the 727. Priced out the cost of a new airplane recently? You can fly a 727 a long way on $100 million worth of fuel.

Shrugging, or just a chronic slouch?

I didn't read the Times article (cheap..), but I keep hearing this 'consumer unresponsiveness' to gas prices interpreted as indifference. By the numbers, sure, the consumers are the greatest culprits in this pattern of overuse.. but in a vicious circle, I don't think 'Joe Sixpack' deserves to be considered the 'vicious architect' here. I'd say it's far more an issue of;

1) Not much alternative.. gotta get to work. Gotta live my life. 'The roads must roll' (Heinlein)

2) Little or No Broad Public Support, given the economists meme about how devastating it is to 'reduce' in any way, shape, form. We're not getting the idea that a massive Carpooling effort would be both constructive and unifying. 'Give the peeps their space, man!' Making sacrificial changes on a broad scale is a tough sell in an advertisers' media system.. Maybe the sweater mfrs (in China now) will come on board with this..?

3) Addict Behavior- Which is not only to repeat that our relationship to fuel can be seen as an addiction of sorts, but also that it takes so many hours of work/commute for a family to get by, that any number of other 'numb-ers' are in place (TV, Alcohol, Nicotiene, Porn, Pot, Meth etc) to keep most people from actually feeling the distress that this situation has us in, that I think a great many people are left functionally incapable of the challenging thinking it would take to dive into the unknown and work differently, consume differently, commute differently, eat differently.. even on their own, these changes take a great deal of personal energy to start and to sustain.. it's the biological end of the energy crisis.

Bob Fiske

I agree with your 'Not much alternative statement'.

I intentionally traded my vehicle for one that got better gas milage. But reducing the number of miles I drive is difficult. I still need to drive to work. Ok, I could probably ride the bus, but that adds an hour a day or more to my schedule - sorry, I'm not at the point of being willing to do that yet, I'm already busy enough. I can walk to church, but if it is within walking distance, I am not really using much gas anyway. I still need to go to the grocery store. I try to stop on th way home from work, but still go sometimes on Saturday. I still want to go out to a movie on the weekend, that means driving to that. Or maybe I go up to the mountains, no real alternative there for getting to the ski slopes or a hiking trail. I live in a part of town I can afford. I can't really move closer to work as that would be expensive. Not to mention there have been many times I settle into an office, only to have the office move locations a year or so later. What am I supposed to do? Sell my place and move closer to the new office? So I don't see how I can dramatically reduce my gas useage.

And to be completely realistic - why shouldn't we drive ? Gasonline is cheaper than water!!!!

And if I am not mistaken, gas is still cheaper than it was in the 1970's when oil prices spiked (inflation adjusted).

When gas is persistently above $3 per gallon, then we will see adjustments in driving habits - or when the energy costs begin percolating through the supply chain.

Although people like to get worked up about how 'stupid' or 'criminal' the West (esp US/Canada) are about energy consumption, from a purely economic point of view they are reasonably intelligent. They'll figure it out pretty soon...


This gasoline is cheaper than water argument is nonsense and distortion at its greatest. In certain containers at certain retailers water may cost $4/gal but I can buy water water from my local utility and filter it at home for under 5 cents/gal. Gasoline has never been 5c/gal and never will be.

The correct correction for affordability of gasoline may be to link it to per capita income (PCI).

The 2006 PCI for the good old US of A is $43,500


It was probably ~$7,907 in 1975 (dollars are not adjusted for inflation).


So affordability of gasoline is 8.5 x higher from the 1975 figure !!!! & could suggest that a lot higher prices of gasoline can be tolerated.

I think the 8.5 times higher estimate is misleading due to the increasingly unequal distribution of income. For Bill Gates, gas prices have gone from inconsequential to infinitesimal in the 1975 to 2006 time period. For the people receiving the lowest 20% of incomes, gas prices may have had a real and burdensome increase in those 31 years.

I must respectfully disagree. You can reduce your gas usage. Whether or not the decrease is dramatic is almost beside the point: as more people make changes in their driving, the savings add up. How to achieve these savings? Through willful planning of one's automobile travel.
Using your examples as a starting point, I'll agree that a car is probably a necessity for you to get to work. I use the bus and my bike, but if I have to run errands after work, I have no qualms about taking my car. As far as church is concerned, you might want to try walking it a few times a month. The gas saved may be negligible, but the benefits of a good walk are substantial. Errands such as trips to the grocery store call for some foresight and planning to achieve any decrease in miles traveled, but it adds up. The trick is to have the will to say "Okay. From now on I'm going to pay attention and not make additional trips." The same thing goes for leisure activities.

I'm not trying to come across as some kind of car-usage Nazi, and really, this isn't meant to antagonize you, Shawnott. That fact that you read this site puts you far ahead of the average person in your awareness of fossil fuel issues. It's just that your post reminds me of the sorts of things I hear from friends and co-workers regarding their inability to make any changes in their habits or consumption. The mom with the full-size SUV who can't give it up because she has two kids, or the folks with the 3500 sq. ft. home because they like to throw a Christmas party every year and need the room to entertain. We can all make changes (I whole-heartedly include myself in this statement) if we simply have the will to do so.

I have always lived close to work, starting in 1975. This was no accident. I made a conscious choice to pay higher house prices in order to be closer. And this was when I had a wife, two children, and a rather measly starting salary. This was the first criterion for every realtor for every place I have ever lived. I even lived in a relatively undesirable area when I first started out because of my low income but still was determined to be close to work.

This isn't all about me; it just shows that there have been good ecological and other reasons to live close to work for over three decades. In my most recent job, those who chose to live far from work did so consciously because they wanted a bigger, cheaper house and they had absolutely zero concern for their impact on the environment because of their choices. These people were all affluent and could have lived close to work in very nice homes.

Yes, there are many people who almost literally cannot afford to live within a reasonable distance of their work. But there are still a lot of affluent people out there who "need" that extra 1,000 square feet, or "need" the big yard or just don't want to be anywhere near those areas that are not all white bread. My boss even told me he lived far from work because he liked to "think" in the morning and the afternoon. In his case, I don't even want to think what he was thinking about.

Putting aside ecological considerations, though, I just have always abhorred the idea of making a long commute. There are so many better uses of my time.

Here is another consideration for those who simply cannot live close to work. Take transit, if possible, drive the most efficient car you can find, or even, park a few miles from work and bike the rest of the way.

I am certainly not trying to preach to anyone on this board because I cannot pretent to know anyone's real situation here. It's just that, from my experience, people live far form work because they have other priorities.

ts, i never saw the wisdom of spending an extra hour or two in the rat race up and down the freeway either. cutting your gas usage by 15 - 20% is relatively easy, walk, bike, carpool or ride the bus 1 day per week.

Even though I own my own house, I may start crashing at my parent's house at the end of the work day as they live only 5 miles from my work as opposed to my house, which is 30 miles away. I should sell my house while it's still possible, and just move back in with my parents. *laughs* I'm doing my darndest to convince them to sell their condo in Colorado while there is still a market to sell it in. (IE, while there is still snow on the mountain tops in the winters for the next 3-4 years.)

On carpooling, some people are willing to do it (My room-mates for instance now take one car instead of 2, and even sold their second car.) Others however, can't comprehend the idea of planning their day by working with others instead of it all being about them.

Personally, I think we can buy ourselves some time through 2 main actions:

4 day workweeks. 4 10-hour days a week, a 3-day weekend, and make one of the days a mandatory "Sabbath" of sorts to discourage people using those days off to go shop.

Telecommuting We have to do more telecommuting. It's the only way for those living in the 'burbs to make it. I can honestly say that over 75% of the people working at the company that I work at could do their job from home, if there wasn't that corporate culture that EXPECTS people to drive in to work. Can someone tell me why a collections agent can't call people from their house? There's no reason at all. Is there any reason I can't program from home? Nope! (In fact, I do it on the side.) The expectation that people must show up at a cube 5 days a week must be eliminated! Hell, have us all drive in once a week for our weekly status meetings, where we tell where we are on XYZ projects if you HAVE to see my face every week.

I believe that we can prevent a big CRASH caused by oil if we can simply adjust our corporate culture. We just need some high-class leaders to lead the sheeple in the right direction.

I don't think telecommuting is the answer. If you can do your job via telecommuting, someone in India or the Philippines can do it for a fraction of your salary.

There's also the whole economics angle. Who will be paying you to do that job in the post-carbon age? Will there still be customers for whatever it is you're producing? If people are losing their homes and can't afford to put gas in the tank, are they going to be buying iPods, insurance, video games, books, computers, cars, etc.?

Leanan, it sounds like you're sceptical that people will have the money or the inclination to spend time furniture shopping for their "virtual houses" once PO takes hold.

Then again, virtual houses will certainly be easier to heat...

"Then again, virtual houses will certainly be easier to heat..."

Yes, I'm going to live in the Sim's Online, where peak oil will never be a problem, and all my bills are paid in Simoleons.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around an economy of telecommuters. Telecommuter work depends on high energy leverage I'd think. If it didn't, it would have existed as a work form long ago. I don't think telecommuting work can be confused with subsistence simply because it can be done out of the home; there is much more hierarchy and organization - all of which takes embedded energy. Do the Indians in Bangalore telecommute to their call-center jobs? I bet they don't.

cfm in Gray, ME


Here's how they do it in India:



I agree with the mandatory day of rest, but retail interests will have many cows.

I agree with the flex work week, and have worked for many firms that allow employees to put in 4 ten hour days.

I think there is some difference between telecommuting from 50 miles away and from 5000 miles away, but I expect the type of computer job that can be done from home will be less common. Also, if I was paying someone who worked at home, I'd pay according to work completed, not by the hour.

Hi Durandal,

Thanks for the post,
re: "...move back in with my parents."

Just my little 2 cents here: I wouldn't rule it out. (In fact, to me, it sounds like a good idea.)

My opinion from living in the midst of it all: There is a massive amount of resistance to driving less. The infrastructure is so spread out and every destination is so isolated from everything else that driving everywhere is a requirement for most of the USA. It's like an earthquake coming: Nothing will change until the forces calling for change have grown to destructive proportions.

What you say is particularly true in small town America. We in Lamoni, IA like to say we are 30 miles from everything. Even the nearest railroad tracks are 30 miles north of us. The nearest Walmart is 30 miles south of us. Unlike many small towns around us we do have a supermarket though the one 30 miles north is much bigger. There are trade offs, particularly housing costs are low so affording all that extra gas is not a budget crisis. Even on my low retirement income $5/gal gas would only cost me about $60/mo more which we could easily handle. That is why I favor rationing as the only proven way to cut consumption.

That is why I favor rationing as the only proven way to cut consumption.

I'm pretty certain rationing would be a terrible solution. With rationing, people would then sell their ration, leading to a much more complicated system with price gauging and even less government control. If the goernment banned (and somehow enforced) the re-resale of gasoline, ambulances would have to be pushed to people's doors while other people who don't own cars just pour their fuel down the drain. Finally, if the government got in the business of deciding who gets how much fuel based on some sort of "need," people wouldn't take other steps to reduce their need for fuel and would invent all sort of "needs" so they could get more fuel.

Rationing can take several forms. The goal is to reduce the nation's use of oil not neccesarily any particular individual's use. I don't see anything wrong with persons selling some of their shares to others. It's a form of cap and trade. If we went back to a plan of gradually reducing oil import quotas then the market decides who gets how much of the shrinking pie. Under a mildly regulated rationing plan certain vital sectors such as food production and distribution and emergency services would be gauranteed adequate fuel. Efforts at efficiency improvements will also need adequate supplies as well as the ramping up of renewables.

A Desert's Lion in Winter - How the Saudi king, disillusioned with Bush, is trying to save the Arabs.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah often has the weary air of a simple man who's lived long enough to see it all, and in many ways he has. When he was born more than 80 years ago, his father had yet to found the nation Abdullah rules. No oil flowed from beneath the sands, and Israel didn't exist. And yet, senior Saudi princes tell NEWSWEEK, Abdullah is surprised and angered by the disastrous turmoil that now afflicts the region. He's grown disillusioned with Saudi Arabia's longtime ally, the United States. He is frustrated with the fecklessness of a divided Arab world.

Have you ever seen an ostensibly happily married couple where actually one has been dishonest hiding things from the other for years... then the first sign of problems is the cheating one starts dissing the other one in public... "the person you see out is not the same"

I lived under that roof. (as one of the kids) I wonder if anyone actually HASN'T experienced that? I had maybe one or two friends in college whose folks were still together.. In fact, in our case, and not to get too detailed.. but the imbalances of their relationship were held together, unspoken and unmentionable 'for the kids' I guess, and it was a great relief to see the honesty finally breaking free, and my parents finally exposed to the light of day (cheap 'Solar' energy plug in the metaphor, no doubt) ..

It actually seems encouraging to think that the Saudi's are looking at the diseases of this contorted relationship, and want to put it right. If it's gonna be joint custody.. then can I still have some oil on the weekends?


My thought exactly, FF. This way they can impose an embargo or whatever on the US (and Europe) if they choose and hide any production declines. Heck, they can even rest their fields extensively this way and maybe be capable of one last big burst of production downstream to crush opposition in the market.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Or they need to distance themselves from the US prior to the invasion of Iran. If they don't they could end up being 'bum rushed' by the other arab states in the region and find themselves on the side of the US in an arab-wide regional war against the US.

If you follow the old fairy tales from mining regions - there are plenty in good old Europe - the plot is different: The inevitable exhaustion of the geological deposit is not the walk of life of mining. This truth was and will never be accepted by the locals living of the mine. According to the tale our local silver mine became flooded because the miners in their exuberance bowled with childrens heads. That happened in the early 1500´s, just after the spanish conquest of South America. Exhaustion is a heavenly punishment for the ungodly acts of wanton profligacy of the miners and their kings.
So for the house of Saud turbulent times are ahead. They might become the ultimate scapegoat.

Good point. There are many in the United States who are convinced that Peak Oil is a conspiracy hatched by the oil companies and the tree huggers (now, there's a match made in heaven) to deny them the fuel for their gas hogs. I'm waiting to see what happens as supplies dwindle and prices climb. No doubt the airwaves will be abuzz with people demanding that the goverment "do something" to bring back affordable fuel.

That's exactly what happened here a few years back when petrol suddenly climbed from about 75c/litre to NZ$1/litre. Everyone accused the petrol stations of profiteering and asked the government to do something about it...

BTW we're at NZ$1.50/litre now (about US$4.50/gal) and I don't know many people who have curbed their driving habits because of it...

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

my local news station(no it's not fox) is going to be airing a show on how big evil oil companies are denying customer's ethanol by forcing pump owners not to have it.

i face-palmed when i heard it.

I'm guessing that King Abdullah perceived the US move on Iraq as an attempt to diminish Saudi oil hegemony (as the swing producer). But what we've done has had unintended results as the 'cakewalk' has morphed into a destabilizing force that directly threatens the royal monarchy... not just their swing producer status.

And as suggested by Stuart, FF, and others, SA is no longer the swing producer anyway. Where's the neutron bomb when you need it?

'Stuff happens'.

And another Supreme Court decision...

Duke Energy loses pollution case

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court set aside on Monday a ruling that Duke Energy Corp. did not violate clean air laws by modernizing eight coal-burning power plants in North and South Carolina without obtaining a permit.

A tangent, but you might find it "interesting." According to current pollution laws, a number of old coal fired plants were "grandfathered" in and allowed to pollute at the same levels without upgrading pollution controls. The belief behind this was that these older plants would soon be decommissioned, and spending billions on pollution controls for a plant about to be decommissioned was going to be a terrible waste and burden on the utilities. What happened, was that the definition of maintenance was made to be a little loose. The older plants were allowed to perform routine maintenance, but technically not allowed to basically rebuild the old plants. Well, the definitions of what constituted routine maintenance were a little fuzzy. So heaps of these older coal fired plants were rebuilt, piece by piece, to the point that they might as well be new...and are still not required to meet the more strict modern pollution standards.

As some of you may know the firm of Sanford Bernstein predicted the oil would trade at $40 in March 2007. Below is their discussion of why it didn't and what we can look forward to:

"Subject: Further oil price comments

1. Oil price - The strength in oil prices currently reflects a number of factors; most obviously the issues with Iran, what we believe to be over-estimates of US oil demand and Peak Oil speculation. The oil price is currently $21/bbl above where the Market Tightness model would have predicted oil prices to be based on fundamentals alone. This is not far off the $27/bbl premium to the "fundamental" oil price witnessed last year during the Israel-Hezbollah war. This premium is also consistent with a rapid rise in non-commercial (speculative) net long
positions in the crude market, versus the net short positions in January. As with last year no one knows when the Iran situation will end and the market appears smart enough to realise that what goes up without fundamental support, will probably go down just as fast. Again
high oil prices are a double edged sword - they impact demand for oil through high gasoline prices and secondly, sustained at these levels they point downward pressure on equity markets, therefore it is wise not to over-react to this and our thesis does not change unless we see that
demand is resilient to the high prices, which it is not despite what the NY Times has to say.

2. Oil demand - Currently the Bulls have crawled back out of the wood-work to suggest that not only do we have high prices caused by geo-political events we also have high US oil demand, based on data from the US Department of Energy weekly implied demand numbers. As we have discussed in the past (see our demand call from a few weeks ago) the current demand estimates in the US from the government make no sense. In fact for the oil product demand numbers to be true US GDP would need to be growing around 6% (when even optimistic estimates would put the
number at half this level), US haulage and trucking data would need to be very strong (and it is not), crude inventories would need to be at the bottom of the five year average range (but they are at the top of the range at 328.4Mbbl), and the driving indicators would show at least
a 2-3% increase in miles travelled versus last year. This last point is interesting as California reported a 4% DROP in miles travelled in January, and the US as a whole recorded a 1% DROP in miles travelled in January. This leads us to believe that with so many indicators pointing
to low demand growth, high demand estimates are likely to be wrong. If you are not convinced at this point then this last bit of info might help. Throughout 2005 and 2006 gasoline demand growth slowed when gasoline prices (for all grades across the country) rose above $2.50/gallon and demand came to a stop above $3/gallon. Average prices
for last week were $2.65/gallon, with a gallon of midgrade in San Francisco coming in at $3.35/gallon (although I am hearing it is near $4/gallon in places)

3. Saudi production - By now you should have spotted a trend -Simmons and Boone only get media attention when oil goes up - the latest discussion is around Saudi production again. The Peak Oil Punters (POP's) are now saying that despite all the drilling in Saudi the
production has not increased and that it has actually decreased. They are absolutely correct - when OPEC cuts production Saudi production falls, Saudi's capacity to produce, however, continues to grow, and this
year they will add an additional 500K/d to capacity when the AFK field comes on in the second half of the year. Secondly, the POP's are also saying that some horizons in Saudi's Ghawar field are water saturated,again they are probably 100% correct as this is exactly what happens
when you extract oil from a reservoir, water rushes in to fill the voids. Is it an issue....no. The oil industry has managed water cuts for many years, in fact most of the production in the North Sea and Russia produces 70% water and 30% oil for every barrel of liquid produced. Lets hope oil prices fall so be dont have to get distracted
by the POP's for a while.

Seb Williams-Key
Sanford C. Bernstein Limited
Devonshire House
1 Mayfair Place
London W1J 8SB"

Wow, I never knew the other side called us "POPs".

I always find it interesting when Peak Oil Deniers (POD's), use the North Sea--a region in terminal decline that peaked at 50% of Qt on its HL Plot--to rebut Peak Oil arguments. I guess his argument is that North Sea crude oil production has not yet reached zero, so the Peak Oil model is therefore invalid.

And based on his reasoning, Texas has been increasing its productive capacity for 35 years. While we are producing less than one mbpd currently, we have simply chosen not to produce 3.5 mbpd, our peak rate in 1972, because of a persistent inability to find buyers for all of our oil--"even our light sweet oil."

So, make your plans accordingly:

If you believe in an infinite increase in the rate of consumption of a finite resource base, proceed with your plans to buy five H2 Hummers--one for every member of the family--to drive to and from your 5,000 square foot McMansion (all based on 100% financing).

If, on the other hand, you believe that a finite world has finite limits, I would suggest "ELP."

P.S.--look up Energy Analysts under the "Iron Triangle" portion of my essay on Graphoilogy. Excerpt from said essay:

Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), in 2004 predicted that the long term oil price would be $38 per barrel, because rising crude oil production would force oil prices down in order to equalize supply and demand. In reality, flat to declining crude oil production since May, 2005 has forced prices up in order to equalize supply and demand.

Those who listened to the false promises of energy abundance made by CERA, et al, have had considerable reason to regret it.

As powerful a voice as all of you combined are, I find this statement to be of particular interest.

"The strength in oil prices currently reflects... the issues with Iran....over-estimates of US oil demand and Peak oil speculation".

As if the tail does truly wag the dog.
Boy if he thinks PO gets people speculating wait til the decline of the giants, export land, and net energy receive wider understanding.

Do you agree with Bakhtiari on the 55 m/pd around 2020?

55 mbpd in 2020 is reasonable, but the big risk is still net oil export capacity.

IMO, from the point of view of importers, even a gradual decline in world oil production will look more like a crash.

My personal definition of a crash is a 50% reduction in 10 years or less, i.e., an annual decline rate of 7% or more.

I take it you saw this today:

Russian Oil Exports Fall 2.5 Percent as Domestic Demand Rises

Russia, the world's second-largest oil supplier, exported 2.5 percent less crude in March than in February to meet rising domestic demand for fuel.

Exports slid to 5.46 million barrels a day from 5.6 million barrels a day in February, according to data released today by CDU TEK, the Energy Ministry's dispatch center.

I hadn't seen it, but it makes sense. Russian oil exports were down year over year on an annual basis, from 2005 to 2006.

They put out a press release saying that exports to non-CIS countries were up something like 4% in January and February, but when you looked at the detail, they didn't headline a big drop in exports to CIS countries, resulting in basically flat exports year over year (early 2006 to early 2007), even though production was still rising.

I wish I were wrong, but the net export situation is really scary. We are seeing these positive feedback loops in the exporting countries, where cash flows are and will be increasing, even as production may be falling, because prices will probably go up faster than production and exports fall (at least at first).

IF Russian production starts falling this year or next year, then I think we could see a 50% collapse in net exports in five years by the current top 10 net oil exporters.

What is interesting about the oil markets right now is that Brent seems to be dragging WTI steadily higher. Kind of looks like a bidding war.

If you believe in an infinite increase in the rate of consumption of a finite resource base, proceed with your plans to buy five H2 Hummers--one for every member of the family--to drive to and from your 5,000 square foot McMansion (all based on 100% financing).

You got the concept backwards there. With 100% financing, you just give the truck and house back to the lenders and walk away when the values tank. Also, Arnold probaby burns much more fuel flying back and forth to southern CA weekly than he would if he drove his H1 instead.

Unless you file bankruptcy, which isn't so easy now, in virtually all cases the creditors will come after you for the deficiencies.

And if they don't come after you the deficiency will be treated as income and you will be taxed on it.

Anyone out there who believes that the financial entities of our country didn't see this fiasco coming all the while they were handing out those ridiculous loans? The banking lobbies were behind the new bankruptcy law--and were well aware of just how bad the bust was going to be.

As I said somewhere up the thread earlier today: it's called (well, ever since I named it that 5 minutes ago):

Deliberate Domestic Demand Destruction

(nothing to do with bra's (or bro's, for that matter))

Peak Oil and mortgages. Of course, you may argue that it's all simply a matter of greed gone berserk. But that doesn't add up. What's been created is an economy that will be dysfunctional for a very long time, even in the best of cases. Doing that only makes sense when you know beforehand that recovery is not going to happen no matter what. A basic follow-the-money theme, and the money is gone from the US. And then, there is the added benefit of widespread serfdom that debts provide.

I think the movie PAYBACK with mel gibson is a good analogy. He gets in a car and drives 50 mph down a alley headon into another car. On Purpose. He gets out and robs the two guys in the other car.

He was ready for the crash, He planned it. The other two guys were broken up badly.

If you had access to supercomputers which can run simulations, of different population sizes, energy numbers etc. You might conclude it will crash (fiat money system itself) and plan accordingly. You would be mel gibson. Ready for the crash.

Why do you think the tax cuts were so important back in 2000ish? The base wanted to cash out. The bankruptcy laws, patriot act...

If you were in a good position back in '29 you made a lot of money and more importantly, you were in control of the direction.

Why do you think they aren't that worried about the deficit? They know it will never be repaid. Pensions? Social Security? mirages. A carrot that the mass number will never reach. Who bought up lots of thoses securitized mortage loans? Pension funds. J6P won't have a pension because it bought into the fund that foreclosed on his house. Ironic.

Think about all of it.


Wow- they are reading....

We are "probably" 100% correct- I love it.

Is it an issue-no.... Sebbie- it is the only issue my man.

Financial analysts posing as reservoir engineers . . always interesting. And potentially expensive.

They are reading allright. Well genltemen at Bernstein LTD, we await aegerly the chance to debate with you here at TOD. Do join in....................The silence is deafening!!!!


I would caution anyone who listens to analysts, as they are not only often wrong, they are dangerous to your wallet...

on 1/8/07, Stephen Schork of the Schork report said "commodities are today what dot.coms were in the late 90's" (only 7 days prior to the oil low)
on 1/8/07, Mark Gilman, analyst at Benchmark Co. said the current supply/demand environment should have oil at $35-$40/bbl plus $5 for geopolitics, and the rest is money flows. joking, right?
on 1/17/07, CNBC ran a segment: "How to make money on sinking oil prices". oil has gone straight up since 1/8/07.

Free energy. I know the matter has been brought up before and has been the subject of much ridicule, but there is a growing groundswell of over 400 people who formally worked for the government or contractors, some with access to black ops programs, who want to testify before congress about ET activity and contacts, as well as compartmentalized black op programs within the US governemnt dealing with advanced energy and propulsion systems. Some have direct knowledge of working free energy systems that have been kept under wraps. The video below is exclusively of interview testimony. The majority deals with ET documentation but it's all one big ball of wax when you get to free energy. It has a good intro, about 9 minutes long.

Disclosure Project (part 1)

Disclosure Project (part 2)

Free energy. I know the matter has been brought up before and has been the subject of much ridicule...

Au contraire, Zoe. I'm all for free lunches. It's just that I've never seen one.

It isn't a free lunch. You have to agree to being abducted, and have them do uckky things to your various orifices.(Put, that way it kind of sounds like a bad date, doesn't it?)

Sounds a lot like being a citizen of the United States under the "leadership" of you know who.

Zoe, your use of 'free energy' has much baggage associated with it. So does zero point energy.
I don't know what is a better choice. I suspect there is no better choice. I'm writing this first before reading your links.

I have been in this subject off and on since the '70's - from a back door. It was about that time I learned about Tesla. Got involved in Radionics in the '80's where I learned of Russia's effort in psychotronics and the USA effort in CIA-based remote viewing.

The more educated one is the more energy it takes to look with 'new eyes'. Some can do it. Most can't. My sig is an expression of the obvious that is being ignored by most. I consider that a good thing.

BTW the very latest
development in this particular area is
Thanks in advance for the links, time to end this post and dig in !

Where IS that 'Theory of Everything' ?

So if I went to Steorn's office, I'd see everything there -- the lights, the fax machine, the computer network, and the coffee maker -- all running on "Orbo?"

Update edit:

Zoe a quick glance at the links reminded me of the UFO issue. I believe that is a different issue. I have had my own UFO experience and many years later discussed Project Bluebook with my late father. Due to his position as a system analyst in Strategic Air Command he was required to review some cases. The Discolsure Project is a continuation of that body of information.

The Tesla/free energy/zpe line of inquiry is quite apart from the UFO inquiry. The former is a result of the consequential education model as used by electrical engineers among others which is based on Maxwells 4 laws which is a truncation of the original Maxwell quarternion format of 20 equations with 20 variables. Even the most well-steeped EE will consider a Tesla circuit broke as a result.

Where IS that 'Theory of Everything' ?

In this talk by Dr. Greer he discusses the implications and cover up of ET & advanced energy systems further. Not technical, but a good background.


Even if someone had a "free energy machine" it will still take time to manufacture it and the manufacturers will not give them away free. Aren't wind turbines, hydro dams, and PV "free energy machines" in as much as the fuel is free.

Those Steorn guys provoked a brief flurry of interest last year in Ireland where they are based. When asked how their perpetual motion machine works, they wouldn't divulge any info, said they'd get a panel of "experts" to investigate.

It had something to do with magnets and used bicycle wheels as far as I can remember...

It is so hard to address conspiracy theories rationally, but here goes:

Leaving aside any discussion of the merits of this issue, here is a framework for assessing any new theory you come across. Rank the issue on this scale:

+ More than 10 Peer reviewed papers, over a decade or more; or a profitable company with a healthy balance sheet that already makes the product:
== 50+% chance of commercial exploitation within 10 years

+ No peer reviewed papers, but working prototype that has been independently verified;
== ~10-20% chance of commercial exploitation within 10 years

+ Press release from a small company that has no significant revenue:
== <1% chance of commercial exploitation within 10 years

+ A small number of 'experts' or witnesses, but no demonstrable technology
== <<0.1% chance of commercial exploitation within 10 years

+ A conspiracy to repress an invention that will overturn known laws of physics, and save the world, no working prototype:
== -95% to 0% chance of commercial expoitation within 10 years.

In the last bucket, the vast majority of these cases are promoted by confused individuals, and are utterly without merit. If there are any that are valid, the conspiracy to suppress them has been utterly successful (so far), and there is no reason to believe that it will ever be overcome. In either case, these types of proposals are entertaining at best, and misleading and harmful at worst.


This is the kind of thing where I say show me a working model.

In fact even there I have to make a calculation. What is my time worth? What is the likelihood that laws of physics need revision against the likelihood that this is yet another fusion in a teacup kind of thing?

Davebygolly says:
"show me a working model"

Ok I will.In fact one that you can recreate yourself without too much expense.

Let me make a few caveats first.
Its zany,its looney, it appears to work,but its not likely unity output as yet though they claim it does produce more than the input.

There is plasma generated and claimed that hydrinos exist in the plasma. That is controversial.

Note that it does drive a Stirling engine. It produces heat. It can produce electricity.

All the caveats aside it does appear to function doing something that is akin to fusion perhaps.

I think its something that might hold promise in the future.

The URL:

But again I am not standing and stating that this is a panacea. What I am saying is something is going on in the beaker and it might be easily explained. I just read it last nite and so have not researched it any further.

I picked the URL up off the BLP yahoo group(yeah I know..looney tunes stuff)..and BTW Dr. Bob Parks who was fighting all the cold water fusion stuff appears to now be admitting publicly that there is something to it after all.
He is not being too outspoken for sure but at least seems to now have an open mind(commented upon again on the BLP/Hydrino yahoo group).

I am not waiting for any of this. I am guessing that NOTHING is in the works that will save our azzes except we go back to a sustainable lifestyle.

Airdale-you asked for a working model,does it display neutrons or tritium? I don't think so. Does Mills devices do so? I don't think so. Is any of this going to help us? I don't think so.

What about "water cars," a subject I'm currently disputing with a friend.

Sorry I was late to the party, but if anyone would like to read my April Fool's Joke:

James Howard Kunstler: "Peak Oil is a Clusterfuck"


I thought it was pretty funny.

Speaking of Kunstler and going back to the Drumbeat post about him: Since when is he an urban planner? Kunstler is a journalist by training. He's described as an "urban planning advocate" but that's different from being an actual professional planner.

Call that humiliation?

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour?

For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python

Ok..forget the BLP and tabletop fusion.

Here is something that really needs attention and living out here in farmland I see it as a huge problem.

On the other side of PO and when the crash does occur, perhaps its a softie,perhaps not but we still have to eat and the food for everyone will not magically pop out of your first new garden even if it comes in the springtime and you have time to plow(somehow),disk(somehow),plant,sow,cultivate,harvest and store....still there will be millions who have to eat something.

Well without ALL the inputs to todays farmers,including massive amounts of fertilizer,pesticides,herbicides,pre and post emergence herbicides,combining,harvesting and then storing the farm prodcuts and this can include the infrastructure that creates the seed stock,the parts and repair of the equipment,the producers of fuel and all the complex REST OF IT then...we will NOT be farming anymore on anywhere near the same scale as now.

So then where will the food come from? AHhhh..you see we have a big big problem here. ALL the grain and seeds we saved are mostly HYBRID..and on top of that GMO.

Fact is that hybrid does NOT reproduce TRUE TO FORM.

Here is a website that gives all the technical details on that issue:


The next website will be a little less technical and more grassroots in nature:

I think much of what they say there is reasonable.

The last website is from FromTheBackwoods and a article from a woman gardener who speaks bluntly to the issue:


And the last website poses a solution,a solution I don't think we will ever see introduced due to various attitudes within the business community who constantly could care less about our plight but are just concerned with the bottom line.


For my part I have been planting open pollen corn. I have quite a bit of wheat stored since its not been hybridized as yet. Soybeans in some varieties are usually GMO but sometimes not hybrid.

Corn for all the bad press it gets on TOD is a very very good foodstuff. Very healthy. Stores well for long periods of time. Easy to grow in the open pollen (heirloom) varieties. This is what I grow. Both in white and yellow. The yellow is supposed to be far healthier but I tend to like the white better so I grow both.

In my garden the those open pollen varieties seem to outproduce the hybrids I grow. The are far taller,not so upset by insects and various diseases and produce very proflific ears with very large kernels.

Now the point is that with good viable open pollen seed corn we are making a very big mistake in that we will simply have NO seed corn in the future after the infrastructure takes its hits. I somehow doubt all the very intensive ag practices of today will be able to be continued after a crash. The complexities are just far to high. The people required and skills I don't see as being available.

Sure we might cripple along and keep some of it going but the transport and marketing and all the rest just won't be viable as before. No good distributing methods for one.

So we all who wish to survive and live a sustainable life style need to make sure that we have no hybrid products in our seed stock. Once we are over that hurdle then we can swap seed,save more and find out way back to something more viable. The first year without food is going to be the breaker.

We can't live with a huge population any more. Who is going to have the food to sustain them? Those with a stock of viable seeds. If they are hybrid you might be in a lot of trouble.

Sorry I wrote this in haste for I am really busy in my gardening and time is getting away. I just had time to pen this and not make sure all it correct logically and syntactically , nor even check the spelling.


"On the other side of PO and when the crash does occur, perhaps its a softie,perhaps not but we still have to eat and the food for everyone will not magically pop out of your first new garden even if it comes in the springtime and you have time to plow(somehow),disk(somehow),plant,sow,cultivate,harvest and store....still there will be millions who have to eat something."

Oil production is in deline, supergiants about to crash like a row dominoes; Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang. According to Fractional Flow and Stuart last week, horizontal drilling and water flooding of oil fields leads to maximum production followed by collapse; not the 'long, slow decline, forever' of Collin Campbell. Fish stocks in the ocean are nearly depleted. Supporting 7 billion people is destroying the planet and will soon make it unihabitable. Without available oil, the planet at tops can support 1 billion sustainably(a better figure is probably about 250 million).As the supply/demand gap increases and oil fields begin to crash, we will experience financial collapse worldwide. We will see disruptions in the transportation of food and other essentials. Not enough food will be able to be grown. People will begin to starve. Social unrest is inevitable threatening whatever infrastructure remains. Scavengers will dismantle the power grid to obtain "scrap" to sell to feed themselves and their family. The total irrevocable erosion of everything will commence. Then we will experience FAMINE on a scale larger than ever seen in the history of mankind. Millions will wander the countryside eating EVERYTHING they find, like a plague of giant locusts. Pandemics will ensue as starving people have weakened immune systems. Wars, large and small, will continue over remaining resources. Without intervention, Coal will be burned in it's entirety just to stave off the inevitable a little longer. Planetary thresholds are passed and we enter runaway global warming. Temperatures exceed survivable limits. GAME OVER. OR... Informed Heads of State with the power to act, reduce the population in the near term to sustainable levels and avoid the end of mankind and the destruction of the planet. Take the action before the action takes itself with the dire consequences detailed above.

Pleased to meet you. Won't you guess my name.(Woo Woo)

Cid Yama,

Did you say something in there about hybird seed stock?

Your name? OilCeo after moving to India and sitting in lotus ever since being banned? Hothgar after being adopted by the Amish?

Airdale...I am who I say I am and you don't know me.
The gamesmanship is vexing. Can we skip it next time?

I said nothing about hybrid see stocks. That was you. You are refering to my signature line which is a lyric from a Rolling Stones song. I am none of those Peak Oil debunker trolls you listed. Don't try to make me out to be a troll, troll. I engage in serious discussion on this website and believe everything I say. You don't like the message, tough. I call it as I see it, don't mince words or play 'political correctness' games. The world is on the 'Highway to Hell', thus, the signature line.(If you were old enough you should have recognized it.)

You're out of line, Yama, pay attention. AIrdale is an ag man, and your "response" to his post had desperately little to do with what he wrote. That's all he's saying.

YOU don't understand. Airdale has posted after me before trying to say I was either OilCEO or Hothgar.(Totally off base as my position is opposite of theirs.) I let it slide before. My post was in response to "....still there will be millions who have to eat something." which I indicated at the top of my post.

At last, someone who understands what oil CEO's position is/was. You're about a year late. We all wondered all that time. I want you to be gentle with Airdale. He merits it.

Ok, I'm sorry I got mad. I really do 'hate' horror movies, and I really am afraid we will shortly be living in one. I would love to believe in the utopian agrarian society vision, but I know too much and there are way too many of us for it to ever happen. Anyone who is able to grow food for themselves will be swarmed by the millions of starving human locusts or co-opted by local authorities or armed gangs. Nothing will remain unless their farm is inside a military fortification with .50 Cal machine guns on all the walls. Even that might not be enough.

Look Cid,

I posted a thoughtful comment,to my mind, on a crisis subject and you came off as 'schooling' me on the oil crisis. You chose to take the subject somewhere else and bring out all the issues that I have lived with since Kuntler came on the scene.

Now I know you have an ID with 42 weeks age but I see you only started posting , to any degree just at the beginning of this year. I had never noticed that ID(yours) before.

My response to you was humor edged with a bit of sarcasm just to let you know that I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.


Now do you post "Can you guess my name?" "Woooo Hooooo" as though in mirth and then become irate when I chose some of the older ones that we all knew so dear and true. Especially OILCEO who was always playing these mind games and kept coming back with differing IDs.

What I think is that you never understood where I was/am coming from. I figured you did a quick scan of my text and then launched your expose on the subject of PO. The whole reason for the existance of TOD. Like I was NEWBIE who needed sharpening up.

I really meant nothing outre but I assumed you were playing a mind game on me. WOOOOO HOOOOO??

The other day Delusional and I had a slight misunderstanding overa similar inability to read the mindset of each other via comments.

If your going for the funny bone then you shouldn't come off serious when the spear gets chucked back at you.

Now sometimes I will admit that the overburden becomes so great that many apparently tend to treat it with comic relief rather than implode.

Anyway apologies if I read you wrong but in reading your past posts I sense some degree of Tongue In Cheek and really thats a bit difficult to ferret out sometimes.

The problem is this. Sometimes one posts a comment that they feel is very important and then to check back and it garnered not a single reponse. Well thats just the way it goes sometimes.

I feel that hybridization is a time bomb waiting to explode on our doorstep. I made the data available but I am somewhat of the opinion that many here are 'talking the talk' but that very few are walking it. Thats their choice. I have made mine. The few experiences I garner in the world of agriculture I try to pass on as personal observations and expect little in return except that maybe some do read them and are forewarned or take a closer look at their plans.

Someday this website IMO will cease to be of value based on what its current mission is. We will realize that all the attempt to ferret out the truth are over because it will be evident that what we were talking of is then actually happening. What then of TOD?

I think TOD needs to be 'forked' , to use a programming term. Split into forecasting and related subject, and then some other areas for solutions and plans for how to survive it and perhaps one for the cornucopians who think that technology will save us.

A three pronged approach if you will. Sort of an 'what are you doing' area. Sort of a 'won't this work' area. Along with what it continues to be , or at least until TSHTF.


"I feel that hybridization is a time bomb waiting to explode on our doorstep."

Your point is excellent and well taken. If hybrid plants Do not reproduce "true"(and perhaps have a much lower germination rate?) then we have surely hurt ourselves again and reduced our own chances for survival as a species. Forgive me, I misunderstood your intention and am a bit sensitive as I truely believe in a future that is so horrible that it is hard to live with, but if true, others need to know, especially if our chance of ultimate survival is so slim. I am expanding their view of what a worst-case senario could be. It is hard to prepare for something you cannot imagine. I have imagined it for them.

Cid Yama posted this:

"Anyone who is able to grow food for themselves will be swarmed by the millions of starving human locusts or co-opted by local authorities or armed gangs. Nothing will remain unless their farm is inside a military fortification with .50 Cal machine guns on all the walls. Even that might not be enough."

I am not sure I agree fully with your view on this. I am not sure you have a full appreciation for what the real rural area is like.

In my case I am 40 miles from even a midlevel city. There are only very small towns in the area I live in. Traveling in the past thru much of the great plains there are huge areas of little habitation. You can see miles and miles of corn fields and not too many farms. Around major metropolitian areas the rural areas are just not quite the same as where many of us live and farm.

I also don't think you understand fully 'woodcraft'. How someone can be totally hidden in the woods. With the debris and leaves on the ground NO ONE , not even Rambo , can sneak up on you without you being fully aware of them coming.

There are many scenarios that can be played out but unless you have been a well seasoned hunter, and many farmers and others are, you can't appreciate the way city folks and others traipse thru the outback and woods.

A military fortification? .50 cal machine guns on the walls?

No but what about a Ruger Mini30, Springfield Armory M1A,a 10/22 that can take out a squirrels eye at 100 yds?

Like I said in another post a few days ago. Most farmers realize they are sitting on top of the food chain. Grain in their bins and cattle on the hoof. Do you think they are going to just roll over?

Millions of human locusts? Most will be dead before they reach the city limits IMO. Most will die in place. They will be easy pickings for the armed banditos. Those banditos will meet entirely different folk when the venture into the outback. Oh sure some townies out here will be hanging on and easy prey but the rest of us will have plenty of warning.

One other issue. Most all farmers have a huge network of shared communications via business band radios. I know because I service many of them. They are in constant communcications with each other, at least around here they are. These will be the ears and eyes for everyone out here who farms. Some have towers at their shop or home that can reach many miles.

Let the cellphones die,as long as a car or truck or tractor battery is alive ,they will have communications. Its simple. They can't farm without these tools. Many have PTO driven generators, especially dairymen and chicken people for the reason that a power outage can threaten them.

Local authorities? When the landlines are dead then no one can call 911 or the sheriff. With the grid down you are own your own. No one will be coming to help you. You needn't send a runner to town for the sheriff and he likely has quit anyway.

Myself..when someone comes up my land or the dogs say someone is in the woods. Then to the woods I will go. You would be dumb to sit in a house which is a deathtrap.

Like I said. Many ways this can play out.If you can think you can plan. If you prepare you can survive.

I am a fast crash doomer and I think, plan and prepare.
I have always hunted and I spend a lot of time in the woods. I live close enough to it that I can spit on it off my deck.


That's what I want to here. Some will survive. I have no children. I have lived a full and good life. I will make it to the end of my days. I would, however, like to believe that some will survive. Yes, now that you mention it, I remember driving across Nebraska a couple times. You would see a barn, and an hour later you would finally reach it(or so it would seem). That would be a place with a good chance of survival. Thank you Airdale, I believe we have made our peace. I live an hour north of a major metropolitan area where they all talk about 'heading north'. Although this is a rural ranching area, we will be dealing with gangs of armed inner city punks rustling our cattle I am sure. A post last week talked about all the wildlife he had to defend his garden from. They will have to add humans to that list and have the ability to pull that trigger.

I think you're right on, Airdale. We can all do without plastic chinese toys from the big box stores, but food?...

That's why I use open-pollinated varieties in all my vegetable growing, and I'm learning how to save seed.

One more reason why the whole GMO, hybrid, pesticide/herbicide model is a danger to us all. Especially in the developing countries, where globalization has royally screwed up their indigenous ways of growing...

I figure a nice 12'x14' greenhouse with hydroponics should be able to help me out 5 to 10 years from now when food gets hard to come by. (If I were the praying type, I would pray that it doesn't come sooner than that, because I don't think I'll be moved and have my greenhouse constructed until around 1 year from now. Give me another 2-3 years after that to be good enough to grow anything worth a flip.)

I might end up needing a bigger greenhouse than that, but my goal is to grow at least 75% of my food. (It's likely that 5 years from now I'll be unemployed due to the coming economic collapse, so growing my own food will be necessary.) I'm not sure how realistic that is, but that's why I intend on finding out ASAP. Meat is too expensive in a post-collapse scenario, so I've already switched to a veggie diet to learn how to obtain proper nutrition with a no-meat diet.

But hey, even if there isn't a collapse, I'll have fresh produce ALMOST all year. The problem with all of it is keeping a greenhouse warm in the winter months in a post-peak scenario where heating is expensive. (Large arrays of mirrors? Haha)

Durandal, check out Eliot Coleman's cold frame + hoop house setup. Without artificial light and heat, I think you'll have a hard time growing very much in the winter -- particularly in the north. Coleman's methods are more about getting cold-hardy stuff in the ground early enough to get some growth, then giving it sufficient protection to keep it edible throughout the winter.

Thanks for the link. I emailed it to my home addy.

If you have a concrete foundation with one large slab facing due south then you could build it 3 sided and with the sun and concrete mass you might get by with just a little additional heat.

Thats the way I built my house and on that side many things continue to thrive thru most of winter(no greenhouse as yet). Depending on how severe. The north side won't do at all. My basement never gets below about 55 degrees no matter what and I have no outlets in it nor any type of heating there.


That is exactly the way most Icelanders build their home greenhouses. Waste heat from the house goes into the greenhouse and not outside as well.

OTOH, there is a valley outside Reykjavik where there are hundreds of commercial greenhouses (Iceland is the only European nation to grow bananas commerically; some local market cannot support shipments by ship; and greenhouses can compete with air). Valley has good source of geothermal hot water and CO2 outgas and electricity is fairly cheap in Iceland. LOTS of artifical light in the winter. I LOVE tomatoes but their tomatoes S*CK !

Best Hopes,


seed savers exchange and fedco seeds are two of my favorite seed companies. both specialize in heirloom varieties. also, please, rethink hydroponics. I'm all for fertigation but not hydroponics. best to figure out your soil and keep it healthy

95% of my vegetable growing is from Fedco seed, or what I've saved after growing out Fedco seed :-) It's good to get seed that is somewhat local - they're in Maine, I'm in New Hampshire. I've had really gratifying results with their stuff.

BTW, if you like green beans, their "Provider" bush bean is simply unbelievably awesome!


Your gardening/farming/country living posts are much appreciated. That there are some who think it won't matter. Well, perhaps so; but until that day of the locusts arrives, there are others here who are or are planning on making other arrangements ASAP. Any shared information along these lines is worthwhile AFAIC and is in line with the purpose of this energy informational clearinghouse.

The thought that TOD should perhaps be 'forked' is intriguing. While the speciality of the house here is honest analysis of our energy predicament, of which the diagnosis is dire, there is a needed place for solutions/experiences that are practicable on the individual level. And despite the doomer sentiments about the futility of these ideas there is decent hope that such knowledge will have a stake in our outcome.

For my own part I am primarily the mule power in my family when it comes to gardening -- besides ms. godraz has a better green thumb. What else I provide is the first hand experience with our almost ten year old solar/wind power array and other means of interim powerdown arrangements. Among them include safely composting our 'humanure.' The lack of such knowledge will ruin many folks lives sooner than any marauding locusts if the water flush toilets stop flushing for any duration due to black-outs. Talk about being up shit's creek without a paddle!

Anyway, until such a day where TOD has evolved with sub-forums for such discussions as you've proposed, the best one can do is to keep posting your thoughts, even if it seems like pissing in the wind, and try to avoid the pissing contests that occasionally erupt. I for one am all mule ears. ;-)

Thanks for the comments.

It appears you are into the serious areas of survival and have been for some time. Congratulations on your work.

I believe that as things slowly worsen, and we will be aware of it on TOD, that it will become apparent that the NET will become more unstable,as geeks and techies disappear into the their own holes or the job disappears.

Maintaining server farms does take people at the helm.

So I believe also that it would become apparent that what is left must become very valuable. Perhaps the first of the last gasps of our society and its supports starting to cave in.

At that point there will be a frenzy to compare notes, seek answers on dire questions and other needs. There will be many who finally 'get it' and will be digging in earnest for clues or plans or whatever to stave off the inevitable.

The net may go dark and then all that information is basically lost. A pity for it was the best we had. You need to prepare depending on your own views of the future. The information will surely not survive.


The Phil Flynn report over at 321energy.com speculates:

We're long May crude from apprx 5950 - raise stop to 6350!!! We are targeting $76.00!!


normally this guy is conservative on his speculation for oil and gas, this is a surprise.

Hello TODers,

Out of curiousity, has anyone ever gotten a reply to any Peakoil Outreach emails that they have sent to notable others?

I have sent so many that I forget some of the names and Orgs, but I have never gotten a reply: National PTA, Bono of U2, Zimbabwe Govt, Pres. Bush and my Congressional Reps. Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, Google, Microsoft, my local newspaper, Oprah, Az Governor, Mexican Govt., auto mfgs, on & on.

Has anyone been able to punch through to the other side of TPTB?

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

A few years ago I tried to get info/responses from congresscritters and senators. Never did get a real response -- most of them went into "our great economy will provide" yada yada yada, but none would actually address the question of PO or admit whether they believed in PO or not. When I finally lashed out in anger and said the Iraq war was an oil grab, I was told "if you believe the govt is corrupt, you need to stay very involved." Unfortunately, that was the closest I got to a real answer. I quit trying when we made multiple moves in 6 months time--couldn't keep up.


Didn't you send an email to Paris Hilton as well and invite her to the ASPO-USA conference? :-)

Hi Bob,

I'm glad you're interested in doing outreach. To answer your specific question - I did get a certain amount of response and have not had time to follow up. (I should say - my priorities changed.)The "certain amount" was to my local congressperson, specifically, to the assistant who deals with energy. I got so far as getting the assistant's email and assurance she would read what I sent. I haven't done this - yet. I mention it because you may want to give it a try.

I had zero luck with mayors and city council members of the three major towns in my county. However, that was last summer (or maybe it was the summer before, I really can't remember now.) Perhaps time to try again.

There are a lot of opportunities - they just take time. The idea of hosting forums, such as the one Roscoe Bartlett did, should (note hypothetical "should")- be fairly easy to organize.

Some ideas:

1) I believe it was Asebius who talked the other day about wishing Simmons and Pickens would sponsor an ad in the NYTimes, signed by all oil industry people and others, w, a statement.

My variation on this idea is that someone here write it up, and start soliciting support - i.e., we could start it. No need to wait for them to do so. (Is there?) We could then ask for their editing and signatures. A strong statement by professionals (those in the business and/or academics of oil) may mean something.

My second idea tagging on to this is - for the same amount of money as a full page NYT ad, we might be able to reach part - perhaps all - of the independent arts weeklies in the country. This might have even greater impact.

2) Richard Heinberg was on Bob Brinker's "Money Talk" program. The part I heard was quite excellent. I was very impressed. Richard has such a measured and calm style - very nice. He also keeps up with the news and developments.
It might be possible to bring him to your town (if that's what you'd like). Or, to write in and have him interviewed.

3) Anyhow, my suggestion is to figure out who on your list you most want to reach and why. When you reach them, what do you want him/her/them to do? In specific detail. Example, join in with the "Drive easy" ie., Drive 55 - campaign?

I can only underline the importance of this above question.

I think it's possible. It may take some organized work with others to reach the particular person you'd like to reach.

Reading the article on the UK's dependence on the Baltic gas pipeline it sees to me the world is getting more vulnerable to supply disruptions, not less. My take on the story; henceforth UK has to suck up to Germany who has to suck up to Russia. Longer term it might be in the UK's interests to side with Russia not the USA. Another friend lost.

Hardly anyone here wants to talk about the elephant in the room--population. A projected increase of nearly 50% by 2,050 will cancel out a 33% per capita reduction in oil consumption. How long will it be before it dawns on US politicians that open borders and birth citizenship are not viable policies? How long before we start thinking unthinkable things such as who will be allowed to reproduce? In what parts of the world will war, famine and disease simply be allowed to run their course?

I think you'll find that most everyone here would acknowledge the population disaster.

What do you want us to say about it?

Sure, if there were a MUCH smaller population, things would have taken longer to get where they are now. But eventually there would be a peak energy crisis of some sort. I personally subscribe to the stupid people/selfish gene theory of human kind. Read up on Richard Dawkins. Then come back.

100% of the population will die. Now whether it is a painful, early death, especially for my family and myself (see what I mean about selfish?) that is what gives me nightmares.

TPTB will never do anything about population, especially in democratic societies (if you know of any, let me know). Admitting there are serious problems of any sort will not get you elected nor keep your party in power.

All the best.

In what parts of the world will war, famine and disease simply be allowed to run their course?


A family acquaintance is owner of a small chain of convenience stores here in eastern North Carolina. He says that he is having difficulties getting fuel supplies and is even noticing some rationing among the suppliers.

Anybody else noticed or heard similar gas supply woes?

i havent heard of any such here in the midwest of a. maybe i will go down the the fuel terminal on vandalia road and listen to the transport drivers talk on the cb.

only partly joking

I seem to recall someone hypothesizing about a bidding war for oil exports...well, this came out late in the day, after Leanan's roundup:

"We continue to believe that in order to incentivize the necessary imports, WTI will have to strengthen substantially against Brent," said Goldman Sachs in a research note.

We don't need imports, will just continue drawing down ample stocks... wti can therefore continue falling vs. brent or anything else. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

Can anyone advise me on a biomass furnace?

My father owns some land in upstate NY. His house is currently heated via propane.

We have been talking of PO preparedness and one point has been switching from/adding to the propane furnace with a biomass furnace. (He's already installing a PV system).

I googled this and have found mostly websites from vendors trying to sell furnaces.

Can anyone point me to some more general resources reguarding these (or other) heating systems?


I don't know about biomass furnaces, but something you might also consider is a Masonry Stove/Fireplace. Best one that I know of is Temp-Cast

Depending on the size of the home your talking about, availability of wood, etc., this masonry stove might be worth looking into. One can outfit it with an oven option, as well as a water coil for making hot water -- although this is not offered as an option it is doable.

I don't have any first-hand experience with Tulikivi, , but they're often praised on the wood-burning stove sites I've perused. My (admittedly limited) understanding is that with radiant stoves like these, the heat is primarily "line of sight" (i.e., the sensation of warmth drops markedly once you leave the room where the stove resides).

Another thing I'd never considered before starting my research was the tremendous amount of air that a hot fire draws in the process of combustion. In the case of an open fireplace, it creates a partial vacuum in the house which is replenished with, yep, cold air from every crack and crevice in the house. Some stoves have piping for pulling cold air directly from outdoors and into the firebox, thus preventing that from happening.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what you eventually decide on.

Thanks for the comments.

Actually after posting this here I thought that maybe this was the wrong forum for the question.

I moseyed on over to peakoil.com and sure enough they had covered this topic in amazing detail.

Haven't decided on anything yet, but I'll let you know.

Re KSA King refuses prez dinner;PO data today at TOD;
Here is related email sent yesterday and follow-up sent today:

Hi [],
Imagine that! Turning down dinner with a Strawman. And doing it noisily, too. Surely an attention-getter. I do not know what it means, but there are “givens” that cannot be ignored.
“…the petrogame of “I hold you by your heat/light/power arteries” is getting interestinger and interestinger. And wilder.”
And especially as more leaders spot the petro-game and also consider ramifications of Peak Oil and Peak-like Gas and Peak-like Coal. And Peak-like Weapons like rpg’s that penetrate 5 feet of reactive-armor-protected reinforced concrete; 600 mph torpedos; 2000-mile remote-controlled drones accurate to 10 feet; and oh-by-the -way would you define nuclear weapons as including dispersal of deadly-for-generations depleted U-2L8 dust?
The Saud clan’s roots are devoted to survival against surrounding enemies. Whether local or global, the perceived threats are studied carefully and responses are diligently honed as part of a plan for survival and expansion of their status as rulers; an outrageous artificial construct that auto-creates oppositions.
The USDollar hegemony of crude-oil sales is already visibly cracked and weakening to where is it becomes conceivable that it is unenforceable. Whither USDollar deposits? Whither our USDollar?
The doubling and tripling of crude prices has undermined a prime method that restricted who was entitled to play the petrogame. Now, many more outsiders have the ability to produce oil/gas from formerly cost-prohibitive sources. Nearly all the low cost low-hung fruit is gone.
The equisitely balanced leverage that governed the intentions of the oilfield owners and the crude oil developer/distributors is changing.
[We keep you on the throne and control distribution of your crude; you deposit $USD revenues in our banks.]

Aggressive actions are the offspring as the balanced leverage is perceived to favor one side. The survival of the Saud clan status was based on joint partnership of oil exploitation. It still is, but the nature and magnitude of the oppositions threaten. What if their partner turns out to be a Paper Tiger?

Oops! Do you see where this silly, imaginitive blathering is going? How can anyone’s mad dream of World Domination go to conclusion… if, if, if …THEY… are still around? You know. THEY. The unmentionable who has been the takeover target for 200 years and consistently given indigestion to every colonial bite. Every time.

And THEY know full well THEY remain the final barrier to global control of the planet by a clique. What stupid, paranoid mong… er… ah…morons THEY must be. But first, the clique has to neutralize Iran. Hahaha. Only kidding?

Hi[]-noted an item today perhaps of interest. Riyadh Bank [5th largest] in KSA predicted further decline of Saudi oil liquids production in 2007 v. 2006. That remarkable, if casual statement is foreboding, as it seems a likely slap at critics [western Big Oil and gov't PR] of Peak Oil, which in turn will attract serious attention to a coming shortage of supply for which there has already been strong, but unconfirmed, evidence for a year. This may be interpreted as demonstration of KSA power tit-for-tat of their partner"s demo of perceived advantage to the oh-so-delicately-balanced leveraged power that worked for past 65 years to keep the arrangement going.

The partner[s] have moved very aggressively into KSA spheres of influence [apparently] without agreement of KSA on movements and multiple risks of fatal consequence to the KSA regime.


["Saudi oil production is expected to fall from an average 9.12 million barrels per day in 2006 to 8.44 million bpd in 2007. "For 2007 ... we forecast oil prices to rise/fall by $3 per barrel," it said."

So now, my view sees a contest that mere cancellation of a dinner did not show me, heretofore. The King is showing real fear that residence on the throne is no longer guaranteed. And as an outsider I seem to understand why he [they] sense vulverability to violence that is already out of control and any further spread guarantees true chaos of long duration. How could they possibly feel confident in face of demonstrated, consistent reckless driving.

What should be widely covered in the MSM has come out in the Independent about the fundamental motive behind the Iranian capture of the 15 British soldiers. The Independent reports that the failed US attempt to kidnap 2 high level Iranian security officials on an official state visit to Kurdistan (where 5 junior Iranian officials were in fact taken), directly led to the Iranian action against the British.

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf.


Perhaps the wide MSM reporting of this connection would result in a greater increase in oil prices than what actually occurred.