 | GHAWAR: an estimate of remaining oil reserves and production decline (Part 2 - results) | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: April 29, 2007 |  |
DrumBeat: April 28, 2007
Posted by Leanan on April 28, 2007 - 9:05am
Americans see climate threat, but reluctant to conserve: poll
Despite the huge popularity of gas-guzzling sports, luxury and four-wheel-drive cars in the country, 92 percent said they thought car manufacturers should be required to produce more energy-efficient vehicles.But only 38 percent said they supported a higher tax on gasoline to discourage energy consumption and to fight global warming.
If it proceeds, Gorgon will be the most expensive development ever attempted in Australia.It will produce 10 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas a year -- almost as much as the North West Shelf -- and add more than $2.5 billion a year to Australia's export earnings.
But in an industry where costs are rising there are no guarantees.
Why some experts want higher gas tax
To date, revenue from U.S. gas taxes has been spent primarily on building and maintaining roads. It's a sales tax, but many drivers think of it as a sort of user's fee for the nation's vast network of asphalt.But what if the main purpose of gas taxes was to deter Americans from driving so frequently or to encourage people to trade in that gas-slurping SUV for a next-generation plug-in hybrid capable of getting 100 miles per gallon?
Comparing Alternative Fuels For Cars
Norwegian scientists have drawn up a league table of alternative fuels for cars. Their analysis is based on a well-to-wheel approach that takes into account manufacturing, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and local and regional pollutants.Bottom of the table, unsurprisingly, are petrol vehicles, but coming in a close second last are hybrid vehicles that can run on compressed natural gas or petrol. Top of their league are fuel cell powered vehicles using hydrogen gas obtained from natural gas methane.
Putin signs ordinance on atomic energy industry reform
Russia will become a worthy player on the world atomic energy market through the creation of Atomenergoprom, a source at the Federal Atomic Energy Agency said on Friday.The new holding “will be a vertically integrated entity and unite the entire atomic technological cycle – from the production of uranium and nuclear fuel to the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants,” he said.
Uganda: World Bank Approves Funding for Hydropower
The World Bank (WB) has agreed to extend to Uganda a US$360 million loan to build a controversial 250MW hydropower station on the River Nile, according to a Bank statement issued in Kampala on Friday.The statement said the project, which has been opposed by environmentalists, would help close the country's energy gap, which the Bank said "seriously constrains social and economic development".
"Uganda's workforce is expected to double over the next 15 years, making the creation of jobs through expanded industry, tourism and commercial services critical," Judy O'Connor, the Bank's country director for Uganda, said.
"These sectors are energy intensive and will therefore rely on a consistent, affordable and expanding power supply," she noted.
West African Gas Pipeline inaugurated
The 500 million-dollar West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP), the flagship project of the sub-regional body ECOWAS, is set to come on-stream soon with the inauguration on Friday of the Gas Export Terminal at Ikoti in Ogun State, Nigeria.
Pakistan seeks US $17 billion for construction of dams
Pakistan has sought US $17 billion funding from international lenders for the construction of three dams by 2016 saying that they were needed to avert flood, drought and energy crisis.
Austria courts Iran, angers U.S.
Washington has protested an Austrian oil and gas firm`s investment plans in Iran. However, the Americans won`t have much influence on the deal, observers say.
Fugro awarded contract to perform geosurveys in Mexico
Dutch engineering services company Fugro, in conjunction with Constructora Subacuatica Diavaz, has been awarded a contract to perform geophysical and geotechnical surveys in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico, by Pemex Exploration and Production, valued at USD 21.9 million (EUR 16 million). The length of the contract is one year and work will begin 30 April.
Bed space, workers at a premium on busy North Slope
The uptick in activity has put a premium on the available skilled work force, and equipment as well. Mike O'Connor, president of Peak Oilfield Services, said his company is lucky in being able to retain its core of skilled employees. However, certain specialties, such as crane operators, welders and the highly skilled operators of vehicles that move heavy drill rig units, are greatly in demand.
"Based on the connectivity of agriculture the Grange's history and mission, and the interests of Jason (Bradford) in relocalizing, especially in relocalizing agriculture in Willits, and then you throw in Peak Oil into the mix, I recognized that our food situation is so precariously unstable. And the fact that we are so dependent on fossil fuels."
Low-energy Lighting Project Is Streets Ahead
Technology that first appeared in digital watches and calculators back in the 1970s is being used to develop durable and community-friendly low energy street lighting. Researchers at The University of Manchester have joined forces with Dialight Lumidrives - founded by a successful former student - to develop powerful low-cost LED lighting modules that can be used in buildings and on roads.
But to develop cleaner-burning cars, most of Europe is going beyond ethanol, experimenting with a variety of biofuels, including biodiesel (diesel made from plants, oils, or fats), biomass, and hydrogen—as well as compressed natural gas and engine technologies that reduce harmful carbon-dioxide emissions. That varied approach, analysts say, could hand Europeans a competitive edge in developing greener cars and fuels.
Ethanol expansion remains robust
Once the darling of the heartland, ethanol has acquired a dangerous reputation these days, amid warnings of a "gasohol glut," a "dot-corn bust" and an angry backlash from rural communities once expected to applaud the arrival of jumbo distilleries for turning grain into motor fuel.Yet for all the ill tidings, the ethanol boom remains surprisingly robust and only moderately sobered by the outpouring of worry aimed at it in recent months. In fact, 2007 promises to be a year of historic expansion, with production soaring as scores of new and enlarged ethanol factories come on line.
Nigeria loses 600,000 bpd to Niger Delta crisis
Nigeria is currently losing 600,000 barrels of oil per day in the oil rich Niger Delta as a result of the activities of militants in the region, oil officials said here.
Employers undecided on Belgian refinery strike threat
Employers involved in a dispute with Belgian oil workers haven't reached a decision over a potential strike which could paralyze operations at the country's oil refineries, said a spokesman Friday....Any strike would disrupt Belgium's three major plants in Antwerp, which have a capacity of around 745,000 barrels a day.
Olmert: Missile Raid Would Hit Iran Nuclear Plans
Iran's disputed nuclear programme could be severely hit by firing 1,000 cruise missiles in a 10-day attack, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quoted as saying on Saturday.
The peak oil problem - Interesting, because the source of the article is EnergyBulletin.net.
Climate report to warn time running out in greenhouse gas battle
Time is running out to cut the greenhouse-gas emissions that drive climate change, but much can be done at a modest cost to attack the looming crisis, according to experts gathering for new talks.
No silver bullet to combat climate change: IEA chief
Mandil set a target of an early cut of a billion tonnes of emissions per year and said a full range of measures -- which he said included renewable energy, carbon storage, nuclear power and energy efficiency -- should be harnessed."All that is not to tell you it's impossible. It's to say there's no silver bullet, not one technology alone," Mandil told a UN meeting on energy efficiency here.
Even as its support in the hinterlands rapidly dwindles, the empire of big carbon is still on the offensive in Washington, DC. In a key test of how much pressure the coal and nuclear lobbies can muster, the House of Representatives voted, 264-154, to make the two worst available energy options (coal-to-liquids and nuclear reprocessing) the top priorities for federal research. Seventy-five Democrats joined the Republicans to override their own leadership and cave in to the energy special-interests that have always run energy policy in DC.
Hydrogen's Second Coming: On the Road, Hope for a Zero-Pollution Car
As hydrogen gains favor, hydrocarbons seem to be taking over the role of villain. Peak oil theorists, especially Matthew Simmons, chairman of the Simmons & Company investment bank and the author of “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy” contend that increased demand will outpace the ability to increase production. And the Supreme Court’s April 2 ruling that the E.P.A. has authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, as it does tailpipe emissions, was a powerful vote against fossil fuels.
Ecuador: pay us not to develop oil reserves in the Amazon
Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa says that if the country is compensated with half of the forecasted lost revenues, it will not exploit oil in Yasuni National Park, setting aside the area for wildlife and indigenous people. Correa said the cost would be about $350 million per year.
Saudis Round Up 172, Citing Plot Against Oil Rigs
The announcement of the plot was made Friday, the day of prayer and rest, when all offices are closed. What was most unnerving to some was the government’s description of one of the cells: Officials said it was made up of 61 men, mostly Saudis, who had traveled with their leader to Islam’s holiest site, in Mecca, where they promised “to listen, obey and execute all his orders.”“Al Qaeda is no longer an organized structure,” said Mr. Qassim, the retired judge. “It became an ideology and a system of work. This is Al Qaeda now.”
Saudis Say They Broke Up Suicide Plots
Saudi Arabia said Friday that it had arrested 172 suspected terrorists over the past several months from a network that was planning suicide attacks -- including the use of airplanes -- on the kingdom's oil industry, military installations and other targets.Saudi officials said some of the suspects had trained next door in Iraq and had returned to the kingdom to plot the attacks.
Icebergs threaten vast Russian gas project
Russia's giant Shtokman gas field, one of the world's most challenging offshore projects, will face even greater problems as global warming unleashes vast icebergs into the Arctic, a senior scientist says.Even if icebergs are unlikely to halt the world's largest single energy development, as the global hunger for resources grows, they would make the $30 billion-plus project by Russia's gas monopoly Gazprom yet more expensive.
Peak Oil Passnotes: Refinery Bottleneck Redux
We are getting to the point, when the national average gets high enough when people are going to start complaining. It will be interesting to see the reaction. Will President Bush blame it on his weird mantra, “dependence on foreign oil?” As if American can ever not be dependent on foreign oil, just like it is dependent on foreign workers and currencies. What will the excuses be? After all the price of crude oil, though fairly high around $65 per barrel, has not hit its $78 peak again. What reasons will be given?
All uranium restrictions removed
PRIME Minister John Howard today promised to remove all excessive restrictions on mining, processing and exporting of Australian uranium as a possible step to embarking on domestic nuclear power generation.
Behind the scenes at Shell Oil
Think of it as a mission to the dark side of the moon. A voyage into black, only rather than going up Shell Oil is going down. Six miles down."It can cost upwards of a million dollars a day to drill,” said Shell’s Dan Malouta.
That is when the things are going well.
Statoil to invest billions in oil sands
Statoil ASA and North American Oil Sands Corporation (NAOSC) on Friday announced that they have entered into an acquisition agreement whereby Statoil will make an all-cash offer to acquire all shares of NAOSC at a price of CAD 20 per share.
Wynnewood inferno: Fire scorches refinery - Massive fire started by lightning strike
Wynnewood Refinery officials had to deal with two massive tank fires just hours after believing the first fire was under control.The fire caused a huge explosion at around 8:30 Friday night, causing many residents in the area to flee their homes in fear of the fire spreading after highly flammable liquid spilled out of a tank.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
High Speed or just 110 mph Rail between Calgary and Edmonton ?
There has been some talk (and the province has even bought spaces for stations) of true high speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton. Cost Can$12 billion.
Ed Tennyson (retired transit expert with a nearly epic resume) posted the following:
Since money is the problem, be rational about it, Calgary and Edmonton do not have Japan's population, You can not do what they did or what France did. No one can juatify $12 billion for this, Those opposed can prove it should die.
I am not opposed to good passenger train service between Calgary and Edmonton but it must fit the market.
You will need electric eMU cars with very comfortable appertances but no locomotives,. Cruising speed would be 110 miles per hour, Just double track the present railroad and upgrade the track quality, New Jersey eMU cars have cruised at 104 miles per hour for 30 years, Getting to 110 is no big deal but that is the limit for standard track and power bills Such cars cost only $ 400 per hour to operate and maintain and can average about 88 miles per hour so the cost per passenger-mile will be only 12 cents per-mile using a conservative load factor wth some empty seats on most trips. Albertans will probably pay 25 cents per mile for such service so there will be 13 cents per passenger-mile to amortize the capifal. We can't subsidize everything.
With two million annual passengers there might be $ 37 million a year to support the capital investment. That would support $ 400 million in bonds, It would save a lot of oil that could be sold to tne USA for a good price to help pay rhe rest.
E d T e n n y s o n
Using standard costs, I came up with less than US$500 million to build a second track (with extra sidings), the stations, barn, a fleet 40 EMUs and to electrify the line.
About 2 hours city center to city center, Add a few minutes for a stop in Red Deer. Phase II could be from Edmonton to Fort McMurray.
Just a real world example,
Best Hopes,
Alan
It seems as though the 'continuous improvement' MBA mentality can only come up with 'high speed' rail at exponentially ruinous costs. Personally, I don't want to go much faster than 100 mph. At that speed you can still make some sense of the scenery instead of being reduced to either watching a blur or the onboard DVD.
Why high speed? To compete with air; to 'waste' as little time as possible; to increase passenger/mile/hr and so on. Competing with air over long distances is not economically doable, but shorter hauls can at 100 mph. Longer trains increase capacity just as well as shorter ones going faster. As far as wasting time, I guess all scenic tourism is now a waste of human endeavour?
I found that the high speed trains in France went too fast for my liking and as I recall the Spanish Talgo trains, when in France, went slower in the daytime and fast at night. ?? I was given the excuse of enjoying the scenery, but that could have been cover for a scheduling situation. Regardless, nobody complained.
It is probably more energy efficient to have more trains, built better and enjoyable to be on, than to rattle along in a crowded budget can, hoping the journey is soon over, as we currently do in aircraft. The accountants who currently run the world will probably give us the latter. Who will want to live near a track with a 300 mph ballistic missile passing by - nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong....
Rail will be back. Bravo.
Right on. Ever ride AMTRAK??
I personally would be very happy with 60mph trains that stayed on schedule and went to every fairly large city in the country. There used to be such a thing in this country.
"There used to be such a thing in this country." Well, yes. But once car and jet travel became cheap, no one wanted to pay for train service any more. They wanted somebody else to pay for it. They still do. That's why we have to sit around waiting for governments to take care of it. Which is why we're discussing it here instead of riding on actual trains. And why our grandchildren may still be just discussing it.
And why our grandchildren may still be just discussing it
Perhaps, as they bicycle to work.
Best Hopes,
Alan
PS: You missed the long list of GOVERNMENT subsidies and direct actions that made car (less mention was made of jet) travel cheaper.
Hint: It was government actions and not some mythical "quasi-Free Market" that changed America's Urban form from ~1950 to ~1970.
Well, yes. The whole transportation and "tourism" sector is obscenely oversubsidized. OTOH, car drivers at least pay towards the capital cost of the vehicle, major roadbeds and major construction, many major bridges and tunnels, insurance, fuel, and all repairs. Urban-rail riders pay maybe 1/3 or less of "operating costs", which really means 1/3 or less of insurance (perhaps), fuel, drivers, and repairs. The taxpayers usually pick up the vehicles, roadbed, stations, major refurbishing, driver pensions, and so on, even though only a tiny minority of them actually have any conceivable use for the facilities. At least the vast and overwhelming majority of the taxpayers (over-)use the highways, even though the subsidies guarantee that there are many more highways than would be economically optimal.
Perhaps even more importantly, if there's really such a big 'energy descent' in the works that our grandchildren must "bicycle to work" - i.e. it's not, as now, just a choice - then we need to begin cutting the transportation sector down to size yesterday. That can start with honest billing throughout - especially in aviation-and-conventions-and-tourism, which, though it's not the biggest slice, is such a powerful symbol of superfluous, mind-boggling profligacy; and there could be huge follow-on savings from cutting down the vast infrastructure of energy-guzzling hotels and the like. OTOH, if that much descent is not in the works, cutting transportation down to the optimum is still good economics. Either way, but given honest billing, then if people want trains, or they don't, so be it.
BTW, if that big a descent is in the works, I suppose it would be well for people living in areas supported by little but "tourism" to prepare themselves to make a living at some activity other than the likes of changing bedsheets in hotels. I can't imagine what NOLA could possibly do to earn a living in circumstances that straitened...
Oh, and people who could afford it did everything they could to live in the suburbs long before 1950. One of the perennial exhibits at the local (model) train show concerns advertisements and documents from the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad complaining rather bitterly about the competition from high-wheel bicycles in the 1890s - had the "safety" bicycle not been invented in time, we might not have bicycles as they would have been banned at the behest of the railroads. Away from the crack trains on main routes like Chicago to New York, a lot of service was that slow, slovenly, and unreliable even back then. The railroads were massively subsidized, with every-other-section of land along their routes, and dissipated much of the booty on executive high living. Not so different from now, actually. (There are many reasons why, as you travel west of the Mississippi, and until you reach the Left Coast, you still encounter the lingering remains of a tremendous, visceral hatred of the railroads.) Anyway, the postwar mortgage subsidies and the orgy of Interstate-building merely democratized an already-existing reality.
I think you just said that Out West people hate railroads because once upon a time there were Robber Barons.
Hunh? The very same people love Deadeye Dick and his sidekick Chimpy.
A few facts to disturb your ideology certainities. But not to denate, your mind is clearly set in concrete.
The larger Urban rail systems are, the more efficient they are. DC Metro and BART cover ~80% of operating expenses (NOT 1/3rd) with fares and could, with a fair amount of ease cover 100%.
But it would be sub-optimum for them to operate at breakeven because of *ALL* of the unpaid for negatives of auto transportation. They would have fewer riders at 100% cost recovery, but the negatives associated increased auto use make that a very bad social choice.
The roads & highways take land (often as much as 20%), off of the property tax rolls, and distort the urban form compeltely. Rail never takes even 1%, and inter-city rail pays property taxes. A MAJOR plus for any city; to put more land to useful purpose (even parks are useful) inctead of wasting *SO* much on roads & highways.
Thanks for the snide remark about New Orleans. One can tell the loving spirit and true character of a man when you see a man that kicks someone in the ass after they have slipped and fallen (or rather pushed down and pummeled to a pulp with multiple broken bones by the US Army and US Gov't). It reveals *SO* much about the inner person !
New Orleans is still a major port, operating at about 93% of pre-K levels, still a major rail hub, still has two medical schools (in what is now a city of less than 300,000), a major food manufacturer, a center for the oil & gas industry, etc.
I wish justice rather than mercy for you.
Alan
The highway system is one of the most massively subsidized government works projects in the U.S. The majority of funding comes straight out of our property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. Only 35% of all federal, state and local expenditures for highways are paid for by gas taxes. Local streets are even more heavily subsidized. So the more you drive, the more subsidy you get. No wonder car travel is cheap. Not to mention externalities like pollution, congestion, oil wars, global warming, etc.
The airline industry has rolled up a cumulative loss over its entire history. Since 9/11 the industry has experienced two dozen Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings, five liquidations, and $35 billion in cumulative losses.
There is a real holier than thou undercurrent on this site that believes anyone who wants to get somewhere in a short amount of time is an unenlightened fool. You know, some of us aren't retired and don't have all day to putz around, and if it's the difference between a two hour trip and a six hour trip, it might be the difference between seeing our loved ones frequently and hardly seeing them at all. Some people don't want to be forced to "enjoy" the scenerey, they just want to get where they are going. If you want to see the sights, may I suggest you bike out and really see them, rather than simply glance as you ride on by?
Post-Peak Oil, you will likely see your distant loved ones less, due to economic constraints.
Having a choice better trading off time for $; perhaps on some trips you will make one choice and the other choice on other trips. Is choice a bad thing ?
In the case in point, Edmonton & Calgary, about 175 miles apart, air xervice is marginal and a top speed of 110 mph and an average speed of 88 mph (2 hours city center to city center ) certainly competes quite well with driving AND flying.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Not to presume to speak for others, but I think the point is that slower rail is more likely to get built for reasons of cost. If so, it might become a case of being able to see distant relatives at all... or not.
Hard to imagine there being enough money and resources around to build and maintain 300mph bullet trains to everywhere.
I believe that true high speed rail is down our list of priorities and will not be suitable for many routes for decades to come.
OTOH, "faster than driving" rail is often quite doable at reasonable prices (see Edmonton-Calgary).
Best Hopes,
Alan
I'd be happy with "as fast as driving" or "nearly as fast as driving." Why? Well, when I'm driving, I have to pay attention to the road (not as if everybody else does, but oh well) and as a result I cannot read a book on the way to my destination. (Or do something more mind-numbing such as watching a show/movie, playing a game, etc.)
Another benefit is that it's not a potentially deadly scenario if I were to fall asleep in transit. :) (That's something that my body likes to do.)
Now folks, what we need here is a range of choices. For those of you who just want to get there fast and don't care to stare at the scenery, might I suggest a cruise missile? Or, if you are young and can take the G's, an ICBM? The food is lousy and the stewardesses are nowhere, but, ya don't get speed for nothin'.
Excellent article from up top:
Peak Oil Passnotes: Refinery Bottleneck Redux
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=31309
This sums up a lot of the problems we are facing in a free marketplace economy. We go with the thing that will get us the biggest profit in that fiscal year. We need to have viable alternatives planned out well in advance of events. We need to have plans for "best case" scenarios as well as "worst case" scenarios.
What if we run out of cheap, high-quality crude?
How will we transport masses of people around this country if gasoline becomes unaffordable to a large segment of our population?
What if a disease wipes out the main pollinating insect for a good chunk of our agriculture?
What if a disease wipes out the species of corn we grow in the US?
These types of planning cost money and have no direct monetary benefit when things are going well. However, when things don't go as planned, you have a head start on a smooth transition to a new status.
The article about the Belgian refinery strike could be bad news. Last year at this time, gasoline imports from Europe saved our bacon.
Looks like gas imports seem to be the main shortfall at this point, even before a strike occurs. Is this a case where internal consumption is curtailing exports?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/gtimusm.gif
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_gasoline.html
I think another good part of the article is some actual talk about how vertically integrated oligopolies function. But, I'm sure we can get some Econ 101 oil industry explanations on how the invisible hand really controls the refinery business -- "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," the wizard yelled to the little girl and her dog.
From the Huffington Post article:
It's past time for the dinosaurs to go extinct.
(Both Levin and Boucher are Democrats. Boucher actually represents a district in Virginia.)
We supposedly have a market economy, it which people buy what they want (and can afford.) No need for Congress--they can't really help consumers make choices; they only funnel public money to useless enterprises for the benefit of the connected few. Time to dismiss the whole pack of liars.
Levin is irrelevant-- if people really want fuel efficient cars, they will buy them. Already, Toyota has surpassed GM, and it can only get worse for US manufacturers-- and of course, the US workers.
Without jobs, US consumers will not be buying fuel-inefficient cars. They won't be buying anything.
You need the state, Congress included, to make sure that people really pay what things cost. If the iron mining industry just dumps their waste into your house, or upriver from your city, the cars made with that iron will be cheaper, because the price for cleaning up the mess is passed to someone else.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to discern if the current state really accomplishes this mission, and how could it be fixed so it does it better.
If the costs of fuel inefficient cars are passed to them. Otherwise, they will happily dump those costs on others.
It is not a zero sum game. Japanese Toyota workers buy computers with Windows. Market economy, when it is well done, benefits the poor more, but it also benefits the rich. The more the merrier. Economies of scale.
Sorry, but it really is a zero sum game on the level of resources. You can exchange some apples for oranges, of course, and make a better fruit salad. But the exchange itself costs resources. So, when the costs of the transaction start to exceed the benefits you gain by it, it becomes pointless and even harmful.
The successes of the market economy in the past relied mostly on an oppressive social structure (slaves, serfs,..; tithes, rents,..), externalized costs (pollution, war,..) or one-time-only resources (fossil fuels, newly colonized farmland,..).
Capitalism has been very resilient up to this point, with the reasons stated above pushing through boundary after boundary. This has occurred in a expanding resource and labor base, combined with the all time energy bonanza (oil). We are now all bumping against the walls of the petri dish, and the delusion of unlimited growth in a finite system will become shockingly apparent.
US politicians (and not only US politicians) seem to always side with industry in maximizing short-term profits rather than the long-term public interest. The reason they do so is because they are bribed.
In the USA, political bribes usually take the form of campaign contributions. True, occasionally there are direct cash handouts (witness Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now serving an 8-year sentence), but that's more the exception than the rule.
We have the Interstate Highway System because the oil, trucking and automotive industries were able to pay bigger bribes than the railroad industry. It's as simple as that.
In my opinion, the only answer is public financing of political campaigns. You only need to look at the present US presidential administration to see just how corrupt government can become when it is financed by corporations.
No those cash handouts ain't the exception. Cunningham was the tip of one iceberg. Carol Lam lost her job for having the audacity to begin exposing that iceberg.
It is not a zero sum game. Japanese Toyota workers buy computers with Windows.
That would be a negative sum game.
Laurence, as you noted Rick Boucher is a Democrat from Virginia -- not West Virginia. He does, however, represent the coal-producing region of the state and, no doubt, feels considerable pressure not to act on something which might harm the local economy (which -- such as it is -- is pretty much dependent upon coal).
Well, that's a losing battle. From the conclusion of A Predictive Production Rate Life-Cycle Model for Southwestern Virginia Coalfields:
Yeah, that's why I said "the economy, such as it is." Apart from the labor needed to exploit coal and timber resources, there really isn't any reason for people to live in the "coalfields." Undoubtedly, there was once a great natural beauty to the area but that has been greatly diminished by mining activities. Once the coal is gone, the great majority of the people will leave as well. A few will be left up in the "hollers," ekeing out a living by cutting some wood, scratching in the garden and shooting the occasional deer.
We need a coalition that will actively defeat these kinds of representatives in primaries. Obviously, if wasn't good enough to simply form a Democratic majority. Too bad. I used to have a lot of respect for Levin. Pelosi should remove Boucher from head of the subcommittee.
Well, I have no doubt that the PO + GW crises are going to expose the flaws in our political and economic system like no previous crises. And this is why I'm so pessimistic about the future of this country (the US). Levin may be a decent guy -- I don't know. I've met and talked at length with Rick Boucher and I can say that I think he's a decent fellow (and certainly an intelligent fellow). The problem is that no one ever got elected by telling people that they needed to change their ways or that they needed to make some sacrifice. Until and unless people begin to see that drastic changes are needed to preserve things of true value, they will do nothing. Will they become convinced in time? Who can say? My guess is that it is too late.
(apologies if this was posted in previous DBs and I missed it)
I think the first step to mitigate Peak Oil should be to exterminate economists.
Ha! Ha! -- "the planet's way of taking care of the U.S. consumer." That's a good one!
Unfortunately, the price of Vaseline just continues to rise.
I have been scanning the LCD HDTV reviews (taking notes on power consumptions as well as other features). I am thinking of starting a list of models I like (Sony. as always, gets good reviews).
Then, perhaps next summer, when tshtf (small version), I can buy one cheap on eBay. Buy a 6 to 18 month old one for a couple of hundred $ from someone desperate to sell. It seems odd that 32" uses only 10 watts more than a 26" Sony Tv.
I need to check and see what price the long term power savings alone can justify.
Best Hopes for Bargain Hunters >:-)
Alan
(Sony. as always, gets good reviews)
Do consider factoring in the way the maker treats the consumers.
Payments to lawmakers (DMCA), root kits installed on PCs, idle wattage et la should also be a factor.
Best hope to achieve informed voting with their dollars.
Buying used at a steep discount negates these factors. Zero $ to Sony (except any repair parts). People do NOT make their "new buy" decisions for high end TVs with later resale value in mind. So my technical preference for used models has no impact on Sony.
Also, no Balance of Payments issues either.
Buying used also comes with a clean conscience :-)
Some poor desperate sap gets a few extra $ because of my high bid; and the guy I outbid will bid on another used TV in all probability, giving another poor desperate sap a few more $ by being the high bidder, etc.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Good gravy.
We're doomed.
I realised that after the dog walking via SUV (owner driving slowly with a leash on the walking dog) picture you posted.
I think more thought needs to be puit into the psychological impacts of Peak Oil. New Orleans suicides are up 300% with about half the population and overall mortality is up substantially. These #s would be MUCH higher without our traditions of social support and interaction.
In socailly isolated American Suburbia with few values except consumerism and "retail theraphy", I can see x10 and higher increases in suicide rates and "other mortality" rising quickly as well. We are CERTAIN to have an epidemic increase in diabetes and hypertension. A time delayed reaction to recent increases in obesity and decreases in exercise (see dog walking via SUV). And the quality and quantity of medical care for many will decrease as well.
Male life expectancy decreased by about ten years in Russia after the fall of the Societ Union.
Best Hopes for picking up the pieces,
Alan
Hey, either you consume or your economy collapses. Take your pick.
But then again, not so fast perhaps: don't underestimate the American spirit. Economists to the rescue!
In his recent article Inflation, Dow 13K and the Second Great Depression Michael Nystrom refers to a 2004 attempt by the government to embellish some economic numbers: The CBS piece below states that 2.7 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the first 3 years of the Bush White House, so adding a few -million- here and there would indeed come in handy. No idea where this ever went since then; the fact that it was even considered is quite enough.
Nystrom's article I referred to above merits attention. School-age Americans are more or less encouraged not to go to college, because they may never be able to pay back the student debts. That's quite a development, as in a move backwards.
Only 18% of high-school freshmen eventually finish college "in a timely manner"!!
While Nystrom says: "This is especially worrisome as the world continues its march towards a knowledge-based economy.", I would think that with ever fewer educated children, that march is an illusion.
In other words: a knowledge-based economy is nothing but a must-fail theoretical concept, concocted by economists, and doomed by the Law of Receding Horizons. You can only afford to provide your kids with the required knowledge, if you have a productive, not a knowledge-based economy. Once you stop producing physical products, your money-base evaporates.
The US economy, and its education system, is now financed by the Chinese. Because they have a productive economy.
I give you: The USA, 2007. The show is over, and it's cold and dark outside.
Thinking back to what clinched my decision to immediately enter college in '68; if I hadn't, I'd have been immediately sent to vietnam to shoot people and have them return the favor. Perhaps there will be similar pressures in the future?
Against the context of going to war for no logical reason, the rationale for incurring college loan debt was compelling.
Ironically, these days, joining the army for many is the only way they can afford to get a college education.
The benefits are squat and the Army reneges on them anyway.
But in those days, going into debt for college wasn't anywhere near the problem it is now. I entered San Francisco State College in the Fall of 1970, and the full-time student fees were $72 a semester. Last I heard, the fees for a full-time semester (at SF State) are something like $1,300. Like health care, the costs of going to college have skyrocketed far beyond the general rate of inflation.
Antoinetta III
I also went to San Francisco State in the early 80's when tuition was $112 per semester. There was no real need to get into debt for undergraduate school in those days. It was more common to take out student loans to go to private schools or graduate and professional schools. Of course, grants seemed easier to come by in those days too. I worked about 25 - 30 hours a week in sales in a large Department Store in San Francisco at union wages and with health insurance. I recall making about $9 or $10 an hour. That's more than Walmart wages today.
The problem with college is the same problem with real estate. If there is a fixed amount of real estate but 10 times as much money in the form of cheap loans to pay for it the price will go up 10 times. Inflation is far more under control for things that can only be paid for with cash, such as books and rent.
Books? The bill for books at a community college these days for a semester can hit half a grand. They've got their business model covered - release a new edition every year that costs $10 more and move chapter A into chapter C's position so lesson plans have to be remade. Then, refuse to sell any previous editions. Thus, no re-use can happen, and no real re-writing has to take place. Congratulations, you've created a 500 page annual magazine subscription to sell to colleges, a a tenth the cost of a normal magazine and ten times the price.
Visa is the new cash, and is subject to inflation as well.
I would think that the students racking up $20k/year debt in school would think about what they are going to do when they graduate. My late-80's undergraduate time was spent sourrounded by the Silicon Valley, so while I was racking up lots of school debt, I also managed to get a degree in computer science.I wonder how the psychology, art history, communications, and English majors are doing? (I'm sure some are doing just fine, but probably would be just fine without any college education at all.)
I don't know if this is legal but I put the idea to my daughter that in her senior year to take advantage of all those credit card offers, use the cards to quickly pay off her student loans, and if she doesn't get a good paying job declare bankruptcy. Banks are way too eager to hand out these cards to young students and if enough of them followed my plan they wouldn't be so eager.
I hope you're poor because I don't see hpw you can decide it's fine to make everyone else pay for your da's education. Banks don't pay, they just get more oney from the rest of us honest-types to pay for irresponsible schemes like that. I would never suggest my son exploit others in that unethical manner.
I hope you have true socialist leanings otherwise you likely support a system or game that is designed to exploit others in an unethical manner. Unfortunately honest-types promote their own misfortune by playing that game.
Lenny Bruce, and this guy was honest to a fault, said that he supported the system because it cooked for him...for a while anyway.
Like an investor's flight to safety in gold, the last depression's social flight to safety for the poor was to socialism.
BTW. What I really find a class act hoot is that Thomas says: I don't know if this is legal when he knows what he should be saying is can I get away with it.
I'm no angel and my sympathy is not with the banks - they have done this to themselves. It's just that the banks skim from the rest of us - just like the casinos. They keep portions of everyones money and person a's goes to person b. Just like a shoplifter, it makes the rest of us pay more.
The key point you missed is that after college she doesn't find a job where she can afford to pay back the debt. As a chemistry major her chances of a good paying job are better than that of an art history major. She has considered working in law enforcement (CSI stuff) because the federal loans could be canceled.
Publically funded education has been key to America's past ability to being an industrial power. Those millions of veterans who took advantage of the GI Bill to get their degrees after WWII and Korea radically changed the American economy in the 50s and 60s and laid the foundation of the digital revolution. It certain areas of the economy socialism is much better than capitalism and education is one of those sectors. Health care is the other and not having socialized medicine is costing American business dearly.
That was the point of Bush's attack on bankruptcy. Those debts don't disappear anymore, they follow you around, charge recovery and overdraft fees, and call your relatives trying to find you.
My girlfriend's sister is living off the radar due to $10k in debts incurred when she was 16 and ran away with a credit card. She can't get married to her boyfriend for fear of screwing up his finances, and does everything under his name. She didn't declare back when she could have, and it's no longer possible. It probably wouldn't be possible to live like that in another cycle of Republican rule. Presumably in five more years under Bush we would have her family in debt bondage, after the final fascist merging of the credit agencies and homeland security databases tracks her down. But so far, it's a living, working two 8-hour minimum wage shifts at 7-11 and caring for her six year old daughter.
It is quite possible to get a bachelor's degree without taking on crushing student loan debt:
1) The student should take advantage of whatever Advanced Placement opportunities that may be available to him/her while still in high school. Rack up the college credits while they are cheap and easy and the student is living at home.
2) Attend the nearest community college for the first two years, and earn an Associate of Arts degree. Community colleges are very inexpensive. The classes are small, are NOT taught by graduate students with marginal English proficiency; in many cases, the instructors combine teaching with real-world work, and do a better job of applying the subject matter to practical workplace realities. Most community colleges now have articulation agreements in place that will allow most or all of their credits to transfer to other area universities. Best of all, classes are scheduled for both days and evenings, allowing the student to hold down a better-paying job than waiting tables or washing dishes.
3) There are numerous colleges that offer correspondence and online courses for credit. Again, most of these will transfer. These could enable a student to continue their education at home for an additional year after completing their AA at the local community college. (Many 4-year colleges still require at least a couple of semesters of "residency" to earn a degree, and tranfering credits becomes tricky for upper-level courses required for majors, so research this carefully.)
4) Find a nearby 4-year college that offers a "degree completion" program, especially one that offers credit for "life experiences". Try to continue to live at home if possible (maybe not fun, but we are talking about economic survival here). If the student must go out of town to complete the final year or two, the parents might consider buying an inexpensive rental house close to the campus. The student not only lives in the house, but MANAGES it for the parents (and gets paid a tax deductible management fee to offset the rent the student pays to the parents). Rooms are rented to other students. The parent's trips to inspect their rental property and confer with their property manager become tax deductible buisiness trips. All the tax angles one can work with rental property come into play here. When the student has completed their degree, the parents can turn around and sell the house, hopefully for a small profit.
What I am decribing is getting a credential - the BA degree. This is a minimal credential; it will not open the doors that a degree from an elite institution will. People who have the brain power and money and connections to get their students into elite institutions do not need to concern themselves with the above in any case; this is for the 95%+ of the rest of the population.
None of this is about getting an EDUCATION, which is something totally different from getting a credential. Even attending an elite college or university does not guarantee an education; most students get educated there because they are so highly motivated that they would educate themselves no matter where they attended. That is the key for everyone -- learning how to learn on one's own, and having the motivation to do so.
None of the above applies to students with the ability and ambition to pursue a career in the top levels of science and technology fields. Those really do need an excellent 4-year program, plus graduate school. They had better pick a field that will likely be in strong demand throughout their lives. Other than that I have no useful advice to offer.
The bulk of manufacturing in New Orleans is food manufacturing.
Some, such as coffee roasting, sugar refining, hot sauce, mayonaisse on an industrial scale, is clearly manufacturing.
But what of the praline shops ? They make the candy behind the counter in full view (smells can help sales !). Some is sold for local consumption, most is sold over the counter & packed for gifts back home, some is mailed out by the company.
IMO, the counter help is retail, the cooks (better paid) are manufacturing.
There is a nice lady around the corner from me who runs a two employee store front operation if anyone is interested :-)
She can watch her new flat panel in the SUV she is living in in Wal Mart's parking lot. Could her penchant for consumption despite everything be related just a tiny bit to her inability to pay her mortage?
If you have ur flat panel and ur jean jacket, who needs a planet or a house, for that matter?
Would this be before or after we exterminate the lawyers??
Blend them.
From article: Wynnewood inferno: Fire scorches refinery
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/refineries.htm
Ranks 98th largest in USA by production; processing 54,000 barrels a day. Shouldn't cause much of a problem.
Accounts for only 11% of Oklahomas refining capacity.
Except that distribution is uneven. There are already shortages in Colorado. They get their gasoline from Oklahoma (and Texas).
I filled up today at 90.1p UK per litre which is $6.82 per gallon. plenty of slack in the price yet!!!
But only 38 percent said they supported a higher tax on gasoline to discourage energy consumption and to fight global warming
Pay now, or pay later.
Apparently gasoline demand is up robustly over 2006 in the US. As inventory shrinks, supply will = demand. Price (and soon, IMHO, economic activity) demand destruction will occur. Restrained supply will - demand.
If taxes had done this, we would have less strain on our financial system, a stronger dollar (by at least a penny or two) and, quite frankly, more respect internationally (this has indirect payoffs later). There would be no "need" for a recession to restrain demand.
But since the free market is doing this for us, our economy, our balance of payments/value of the US $, and even our financial system will suffer, probably greatly. And the lack of international respect (who likes a glutton who cannot restrain themselves even in extremis, and as poor African children are starving ?) will "limit our options" in dealing with the effects of ever higher oil prices.
Best Hopes for Foresight and Planning in the USA,
Alan
I have the idea that previous generations understood the need for prudence, for planning for the future, for putting aside something for a rainy day -- but I see little of that in present-day society. True, old-fashioned conservatism is now equated with foolishness.
I'm not sure how this all shakes out but I do know that someone's going to get hurt.
Saving money requires earning more money than you need to get by. The combination of historically low wages, very expensive health care, absolutely no job long term job security, very high rents in most major cities, high student loans that even dropouts are stuck with means there is nothing left to save. The longer life spans of many Americans now means people who inherit wealth from their parents are already at retirement age. Earlier generations had people inheriting wealth while still in their 40s instead of their 60s. That wealth could pay for their kids' college or be used to start a new business. Now it goes to doctors and hospitals and big drug companies.
Some truth to what you say for many, but most young people I know who are struggling have lived with a sense of entitlement to going out, eating at restaurants (even cheap ones cost far more than careful eating at home), getting "cool" cell phones and other techs. People used to eat cheap, make many of their own clothes, throw nothing away. If they want to know the true difference between "want" and "need" they should live for awhile with a farmworker, who works for nothing but still saves and sends money back to even poorer relatives back home. I don't want that life for our children, but it's miles from what you are describing.
I'm not too big on the taxes idea, not because I don't personally think it's a good idea, but because the government becomes the focus instead of the real energy crisis, ie "prices are high because of excess, liberal taxes." Becomes a political football, commentators make hay, and the real issue becomes overlooked.
Foresight and planning? For one thing, in all matters like these, there's no sacrifice too big for somebody else to make.
But more importantly, I think most people are expecting it to be taken care of "at an industrial, not a consumer level", as stated a while ago at The Guardian - our science editor condemns television's latest foray into the debate on global warming:
And as these pages show, he's certainly right about hijacking a cause to gain control of people's lives. Now and then one finds paeans to everything from Kunstler's nostalgia for the dead past, to the degenerate hellhole that is Fidel Castro's Cuba. Throughout the ages, there just never seems to be a way to drive a wooden stake through the heart of the whole useless angst-and-guilt-ridden hair-shirt thing.
In the real world, most of the virtual ardor that shows up with such crystalline false clarity in polls and other expressions of cheap sentiment disappears into thin air the instant it becomes clear that there's more to the implied actions than simple populist dumping on bogeymen, such as 'corporations' and the like. That's true for any issue, such as the way education has been reduced to ego-stroking in this country, and not just for energy. So yes, some of the remedies will come by way of economics, 'cos in the end, economics is far more motivating than cheap sentiment.
...he's certainly right about hijacking a cause to gain control of people's lives.
He is CERTAINLY wrong !
The "VERY quasi-free market" reactive response will result in a maximum of human suffering and social disruption IMO.
Nice purple prose though.
Best Hopes for Planning and not just Reacting,
Alan
...and the author seems to have concluded, incorrectly, that the ozone layer problem has been licked.
Against your degenerate hellhole of Cuba I put the compost of the American brain on neocon ideology.
Speaking of Cuba, I wish the Chinese would go back to their Maoist ways and the India's government would re-discover economic isolationism. They were using so much less oil back then. Socialism is f'ing awesome if you're the leading non-socialist country. You get all the brainy political refugees, you get all the resources, and you get to pretend you're morally superior. The whole world except for the U.S turning into North Korea style low/no energy dictatorships would be the best thing that could ever happen to the U.S at this point.
Abe: Great idea. Try running it by the persons that own the USA. Good luck.
I wish the Chinese would go back to their Maoist ways and the India's government would re-discover economic isolationism.
using so much less oilIn tin-foil hat 410 we learned that Mao was backed and put in charge by the CIA!
I'm guessing in the Master program on Conspiring 4 Oppression, we'll learn that British agents supported India isolation as punishment (cuz trade is good) for giving the Brits the boot.
Whether the CIA was responsible or not doesn't matter. The practical effect was the same. If they did it to themselves on purpose the irony is even more fascinating.
I went to Vietnam in 1998. The overall feeling I got was that they fought the U.S and all they got was 25 years of poverty. The fatal flaw of communism though is it has a very hard time accepting irony. After all in communism all dialectics are resolved and there are no longer contradictions among the people.
Alan - let me challenge you on some things...
As you likely know, taking polls is influenced by both the pollster and the wording of the question. E.g., if the question would have been framed as:
"Do you support a higher tax on gasoline to discourage energy consumption and move the United States away from depending upon unstable or unfriendly nations?" I suspect you would have seen greater than 38% agreement in the responses. The emotional baggage that "global warming" is carrying in that question is deleterious to receiving a (somewhat) higher affirmative, though high taxes will always be unpopular.
And for international respect... given the number of the people on the planet which live in countries with explicit subsidies of petroleum products, I doubt if whether the federal tax on US gasoline is 25, 50, or 75 cents makes any difference in the big picture - sure some socialist-utopia minded planner in the EU might smile at higher gasoline taxes, but the resulting change in American spending habits likely would make others unhappy. For many nations, especially in the East, the key relationship with the US is to export to the US as many items as possible.
And for the value of the $ on international market.... there is a strong correlation between exchange rates and interest rates. If you want Americans to significantly consume less, the resulting recession would stimulate the Fed to lower interest rates, making the dollar even less valuable.
A few days ago someone was defending "It is my intellectual property, I can do what I want"
I look forward to the same spirited defense of this:
http://www.kevinbondelli.com/article/50/nbc-believes-they-own-political-...
"MSNBC has established draconian rules regarding the use of the Presidential Primary Debates on the internet. Some examples: '5. No excerpts may be aired after 8:30 pm on Saturday, May 26th. Excerpts may not be archived. Any further use of excerpts is by express permission of MSNBC only. 6. All debate excerpts must be taped directly from MSNBC's cablecast or obtained directly from MSNBC and may not be obtained from other sources, such as satellite or other forms of transmission. No portions of the live event not aired by MSNBC may be used.' Kevin Bondelli talks about why this is 'shameful and wrong'. Voters are missing out on the ability to actually have an engaged conversation about the candidates and their debate performances because of NBC's greed."
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/04/we_the_net_peo...
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/04/26/for-shame-nbc-news-stealing-the-de...
Oh, and arn't IP arguments/this is secret company info used to keep the oil production/oil in the ground numbers from publication?
eric, I don't think you can equate a Hollywood film and a debate between candidates for public office. While both are likely to feature people making asses of themselves, one could reasonably argue that the content of the debate is "public property" and, therefore, should be freely available.
eric, I don't think you can equate a Hollywood film and a debate between candidates for public office.
Both use the same sets of laws. Both "owners" of the "IP" would claim that they have a right to do what they are doing. Under the force of law are they not equal?
should be freely available.
The arguments as to WHY the application of the law is wrong can be different and perhaps more compelling.
Is your name really Eric Blair? Do you realise that was George Orwell's real name as "George Orwell" was his pen name?
Marco.
I'd like to see the candidates take a stand, and refuse to participate unless MSNBC lightens up.
I agree.
Another version of the event made by a 3rd party might be a saving face option for all the major parties.
Peak Complacency/Ignorance will arrive too late to make a difference.
Even IF/after The Herd of Saps wakes up it will take years for them to come to grips with Reality.
And even then they would resist any changes other than symbolic nonsense like changing to CFLs ("The house is on fire!! Someone quick blow out the candles ...")
We are frickin' doomed -LMAO.
I came across this article this morning. It's a follow-up to an article from last week, about a guy who has invented a new way to make hydrogen. It's about the publicity the first article generated.
I'm pretty sure "Peak Oil's Web site" is PeakOil.com. A couple of our news editors are Europeans, and are up and posting when the average American is sound asleep.
But they think it's an oil company Web site. o_O
"But they think it's an oil company Web site. o_O"
Hmmmm. Anyone given any thought to sponsoring a NASCAR team? "Team Peak Oil Chevrolet!"
Even though oil stocks are supposed to be plentiful, the fact that gasoline is below average for this time of year has led a some here to conjecture that light sweet crude is in short supply? Are there public numbers available to support or refute this query?
Sam, here are some tables showing what refineries are inputting in terms of how sour and how heavy. What they do show is what they are running but not exactly the availability of the better product. Price being a factor with a price spread from top to bottom. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_dfp3_k_m.htm
Simmons quoted something like a $25. spread between Maya and Tapis. in an interview on Puplava.
http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2007/Simmons.html
I guess 18 to 36 API is considered intermediate. From articles I read, of course heavy (hydroreacting) takes more steps and if problems occur they often knock out this phase.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2495#comment-183561
Anyway inputs by type;
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_crq_dcu_nus_m.htm
And by type/area;
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_crq_a_EPC0_YCG_d_m.htm
The picture I am getting is that although it is profitable for refineries to run as heavy as they are able, it does cause problems especially when demand is real strong. If they drop a step needed for low API crude then they may need light sweet and quickly. If there is a tank of heavy sitting there it does not matter whether that is being counted as supply or not it's not really available.
Now they are going shopping and how readily that product is...yeah that's the question. Can someone who has been in refining help us out? :)
We have heard that some speculators are actually taking possession of the oil, so that they can take advantage of the higher prices on later months' oil contracts. Is the amount of this significant? Would it have any impact on the oil inventory numbers that we see?
Hi Gail,
I think that is possible. But currently out months are priced about as much as Spot+Cost of carry. Long term Bulls may find it easier to Buy 2011+ contracts which are about the same price as present. Storing oil is a big headache, so are transportation costs. Considering the amount of money involved in hedge funds it becomes very cumbersome to do it in large amounts.
I have kept up with this business for years and I have never heard of such a thing. Remember, when you take possession of the oil, you must pay full price and therefore lose your leverage. Each contract costs you about $65,000 and you must pay the full amount, not just the margin money. Then you must pay transportation and storage costs.
By the time you pay all that, plus the fact that you must pay the full price for the contract, it is not very likely you would make enough to overcome the small difference between the current price and the futures contract.
All that is referred to as "carrying cost". And the carrying costs includes, not just storage and transportation costs, but the cost of all that extra money you have tied up for the duration you are holding the oil.
Ron Patterson
PO song list addition
"stop whispering, START SHOUTING" - Radiohead
On National Public Radio they are doing a 'end of the world' special.
#1 on their list? Peak Oil.
#2 Nuke war!
http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/
http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/04/28/apocalypse_whe...
Hey...Leanan. What was that wierd site you posted a week or two ago where they said something would happen on 4/30/07? I was wanting to revisit it to see if they've done any updates on the site.
As I recall it was a fictitious rendering about 8 people stuck in the Denver airport and they decided to start a PO support site for people to tell their stories and such.
Here it is and they have updated some things including a countdown ticker at the bottom until 4/30/07:
http://www.worldwithoutoil.org/index.htm
A blog/journal:
http://community.livejournal.com/worldwithoutoil
A study guide for teachers:
http://www.worldwithoutoil.org/teach/
Interesting....more to come, I'm sure.
This link http://www.worldwithoutoil.org/teach/
If you scroll down to the bottom has list of questions. It looks familiar. Someone here posted this list or very similar and asked for comments a few weeks back.
Anyone else recall this. Just curious.
The blog has a weird thing going too. About a guy on the run and money he wants for posting a photo that exposed him and got him fired.
found this later.
Ah HAa. This is posted at the very bottom in little green type
WORLD WITHOUT OIL is a collaborative alternate reality. It begins April 30, 2007.
Play it – before you live it
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
Oh ya...we've known it's ficticious all along. It's just interesting and now I'm curious what's going to happen on 4/30/07.
It really sounds like the education stuff Aniya or Gail the Actuary was quizzing us about not too long ago.
I'm very curious who is working on this site. I imagine it almost HAS to be someone who frequents TOD.
C'mon...fess up...who's doing it?
Well, they got the order right.
Interestingly, the interviewer refers to scenario #3, a meteor hitting the earth, as the one with the most "hard evidence" to support it and the one that can be averted with proper planning.
the one that can be averted with proper planning.
One would LIKE to think nuke war could be avoided.
We know that 'peak oil' (ie a production peak and the end of way-to-cheap energy will happen. We are all here arguing how many angels named Adam Smith can dance on the head of a pin.
Last night, I went out on a date with a nice Filipino woman. :o)
We talked about many things, and conversation eventually circled to energy issues world-wide. She has many friends in the Philippines, many of them well-to-do in careers such as law and medicine. Many live in Manila. All of these people are feeling the energy crunch. Periodic blackouts. Rapid price inflation. The price of food there is incredible. Apparently if they can, many of these professionals are leaving the country--representing a serious brain-drain.
Anyway, it's word-of-mouth anecdote. But interesting.
Here's a recent oil-related article from the Manila Times:
Oil importers belie charges of cheating.
-best,
Wolf
Interesting. Where are all of these folks going if they are leaving the Philippines?
The U.S.
Apparently there are quite a few that sign up for things like these: http://filipinavisa.com/ and attempt to leave the country for something better. From what I understand, there are a much greater number of women there than men. Thusly, in Econ 101 fashion, they become cheap and disposable. Even those who are well educated are treated this way. Another reason for the rapid price inflation might also be that these folks when they leave the country like to send money back to their family. $100 can represent a months wages for some of them.
Tidalforce, restart of production announcement
http://www.matra-ms.com/en/light-electric-vehicles/tidalforce.html
I test rode a TidalForce S-750 over a year ago, and it was a pretty good ride. The bike seemed a bit heavy for pedaling without the electric assist - not as bad as pedaling my old Puch moped, though. It listed for about $2500, though, which was way more than I wanted to spend.
The wooden car was on the other day. I found this site that has a link to a video.
A car made of "hemp" by Henry Ford. Henry was big on hemp also as a fuel source. One google link talked about Henry standing in the fields of hemp for the fuel. Moonshine was also a fuel back in the day.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/08/29/fords-1930s-hemp-car-on-youtube/
Its also said that Hemp is the superior source, well over corn etc. for making fuel. Hemps a weed lol
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
yes henry ford. ardent nazi supporter(of course all the big heads of us company's at that time were), designed his cars to run on ethanol. yet it was not as good as gasoline and never took off. funny thing is that situation has not changed and won't change even if gasoline is in short supply.
yet it was not as good as gasoline and never took off.
One can choose to believe that, sure.
Or one can choose to think that Prohibition (making the fuel illegal) might have MORE to do with things than "not as good"
http://cimacollina.com/WordPress/?cat=11
http://www.petroleumworld.com/sati07022401.htm
http://www.permaculture.com/drupal/book_menu/174/175
Feel free to cite, during prohibition, how people could 'vote with their dollars' and choose to buy ethyl alcohol VS gasoline.
ardent nazi supporter
Egg or chicken, chicken or egg...I've never seen if Ford published 'Jews suck' screeds before the prohibition, but years after the whole prohibition thing he sure did. And it didn't hurt that the Nazi government was willing to take tax dollars and transfer them to businessmen without all the pesky marketing/building quality stuff.
If anyone has some links to scholarly works that show Ford developed a public 'dislike' for Jewish people after prohibition, please post.
I recently got an UrbanMover electric bike (Sprite, their street bike) from Real Goods; list price is less than half the TidalForce.
(U.M. also makes a mountain bike style, which I would have preferred due to the state of the roads up here, but Real Goods doesn't sell it)
An electric bike is definitely the way to go, in a hilly area. It's going to cut down my driving a lot.
The only real problem with it is that riding my old non-electric bike is now torture.
Thank you president Correa for putting the conflict between rich world NGOs and your country in terms that we can understand. Maybe you can not develop it, let your people suffer in poverty and sell $350 million dollars worth of carbon credits through Al Gore's firm.
Able-
They (the people) would not get any of the benefits, other than a higher cancer rate and a polluted environment. A small elite, mostly outside the country, would overwhelmingly benefit.
I have spent time in South America, and not traveling from one corporate hotel to another (which you cannot tell where you are until you ask the Desk)---
The politics and economics emerging from South America are one of the bright spots on the planet that give me hope.
They could run it through a nationalized oil company and keep the money from getting stolen. Why didn't you stay and live in the rain forest with the indigenous people if it was so pleasant? Oh forgot, nice place to visit as long as you don't go out of the air conditioning and don't have to put up with the bugs for too long.
Yes, me too.
Russia will become a worthy player on the world atomic energy market through the creation of Atomenergoprom, a source at the Federal Atomic Energy Agency said on Friday.
The new holding “will be a vertically integrated entity and unite the entire atomic technological cycle – from the production of uranium and nuclear fuel to the construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants,” he said.
So, when Putin 'leaves' office next year, will he be CEO of Gazprom, Atomenergoprom, or, maybe both at once?
Communism with private shareholders. Capitalist-Leninsm?
From a mailing list, reposting here because I've asked the rhetorical question - how efficient are animals to do work VS a PV/electrical system. Here is an answer:
Hi Jim,
Plants do convert solar energy to chemical energy in plants (via
photosynthesis). However, the density of the energy produced per square
meter is very low in comparison to even fair PV cells. The efficiency of
photosynthesis in plants on land is ~1-3%, so at a nominal solar energy flux
of 1000W/sq. m, that is maybe ~20W of chemical energy stored in all of the
plant material on that square meter. PV cells @10-15% efficiency would
produce ~120W/sq m of electricity.
For usable comparison, the chemical energy in the plants remains to be
converted into electricity. If you could harvest half of the biomass
(leaving roots) and convert half of the energy of that biomass into low/med
BTU biogas (methane via anaerobic digestion, synthesis gas or producer gas
via pyrolysis, etc), then run a 25% end-end efficiency internal combustion
powered generator, you would be able to produce 0.50 x 0.50 x 0.25 x 20W or
1.25W per square meter. The initial capital outlay for the equipment to
process that biomass to gas and then generate electricity would be much less
per sq meter than PV, but the yield of usable electricity per square meter
is at least 100 times greater and at light speed vs process time (and labor)
through the gasifier.
Just some thoughts.
SKB
Sean K. Barry
Principal Engineer/Owner
Troposphere Energy, LLC
11170 142nd St. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
(651) 351-0711 (Home/Fax)
(651) 285-0904 (Cell)
sean.barry@juno.com
yeah but...
animals can self-replicate drawing all materials from the environment around them. heck of a trick, and not one PV's are likely to learn.
and animals will, in general, learn to do stuff like not jump off cliffs; motorcycles are happy to.
then there's the quality of energy; you can train a monkey to pick coconuts and throw them down, while building and maintaining a coconut-picking robot powered by PV would be problematic.
and the highest-quality animal labor of all is good old human peons. Then can generate electricity if hooked to bike pedals and an old alternator, give you a back rub, etc
project things forward 1000 years, and it seems likely that there will be a lot more animal power than PV power. Hard to imagine how an alloying infrastructure will even be around in 200.
That's an argument against using ANY artifact of human manufacture, even the yokes for oxen.
Motorcycle riders are usually smarter than that, but if they aren't... Darwin Award!
No they aren't. You're lucky if they can average 100 watts (a horse can average 1000 and eats cheaper food), and the humans are a lot more dangerous if you slight them.
Your nick and style of prose suggests that you have a non-technical education; humanities major?
Non-technical education leaves you with enormous areas of ignorance in the exact areas where you'd need knowledge to feed that imagination. For instance, we cannot run out of some metals like magnesium; they are derived from seawater, and all we have to do to "recycle" them is let them corrode and run downriver. Neither can we run out of anything that can be made from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (CHON). One of the things the late Richard Smalley was working on was carbon nanotube "wires" with a greater conductivity than copper. They would be both far lighter and far stronger than copper also. If the raw material for electrical cable can be pulled out of the atmosphere, how are we going to run out to the point of collapse in 200 years?
The only collapse scenarios I can see involve a diversion of research and development efforts (perhaps due to legal blockades at the behest of rent-seekers) or outright destruction via war or terrorism. The technological advances already in the pipeline would support another century of growth using abundant raw materials.
In what language? It isn't an argument against manufacturing anything, it just that self-replication, independent of an external complex infrastructure, is a useful thing.
Quality, not quantity. Can a horse do whatever it is you're paid to do? Watts aren't a qualitative measure.
Geophysics, thanks for asking; I hadn't had my morning ad hominem face-slap yet today.
I appreciate your concern for my naivete. Please, then, quantitatively elucidate how one maintains a self-sustaining alloying civilization with CHON and metals precipitated from seawater.
I think nanotubes are the bees' knees. What does that have to do with current reality? Nanotube electrical cables do not exist. The fact that it is not impossible for them to exist is cool, but what does it have to do with anything?
Technical education divorced from real-world considerations can lead one to pie in the sky speculations reminiscent of old "popular science" covers. If industrial civilization is heading toward a relatively imminent catabolic collapse, as appears reasonably likely to me, then just maybe there won't be an orderly transition from the status quo to thriving nanotube and magnesium factories.
Mind you, I'm a fan of your posts in general. If my posts here are a tad fluffy, it's by intent.
Well there's your problem, mister. Best of luck for the coming century.
And I think algae will be darned useful over the next 50 years for exactly that reason, despite their relative inefficiency compared to PV. But a competition between an ox (takes 3 years to mature, requires careful training all the while) and a tractor gives the advantage to the tractor. This was true even when the tractors had wood-fired boilers.
I write software that makes airliners work (and the documentation that makes the FAA certify that they're safe to fly). I can get a lot more done directing the power of a tractor than a horse. Arguably, my keystrokes determine whether a 70,000 lb thrust engine runs or not (at a considerable remove).
I can see breeding an airliner-weight of geese. It would be a simple, low-tech affair to grow that many and have them fly. It would also be far less useful than making an airliner, unless I had a hankering for roast goose.
Lots of technically advanced things did not exist 50 years ago, but we're positively lousy with them today. We're now up to 18 mm nanotubes (h/t: Slashdot). This is closer now than microprocessors were in 1957. The only way we will NOT have carbon nanotube cables is if we come across something even more useful.
I'd have to agree about the algae; probably by far the best hope for biodiesel, and perhaps for many other reasons, because self-replication is, perforce, a very useful thing.
Your comparison between oxen and tractors presupposes an enormous ongoing industrial infrastructure. I'm not making that supposition, that's where the difference seems to arise.
Which underscores my point about quality of energy perfectly, thanks. Like a trained coconut-picking monkey in principle, but moreso. Meaning no offense to you or the monkey. Measuring your output in watts would thus be nonsensical, as was your earlier attempted refutation of my point.
There was a much larger class of things which didn't exist 50 years ago which STILL don't exist today. Personal hovercars, colonies on mars, an ultimate antibiotic, useful fusion power reactors, etc. Of the things which are physically possible, only a small subset will be realized. Heading into a civilization-wide energy crash, that subset shrinks still further.
Your "the only way" statement pretty well ends any useful discussion. Some form of manifest destiny? There are millions of ways in which human civilization could fail to realize nanotube cables, and they don't all have happy endings.
I PROFOUNDLY disagree with this statement !
First, there may be a as yet unknown physical limitation to fabrication.
Seceond, we do not "have" them until they are commerically available. A few 1.2 mm long strands developed with great effort by a team of grad students are not success.
Most new technologies fail to become commercial. One simply cannot count of the "technology fairy" (see your biomass article on TOD where infant technologies supplied the bulk of our current FF needs). You point to a single prototype (algae to biodiesel) just starting test runs and say (I am tryinf to be fair in my characterizations) "We can run the USA off of this". Just xxxx km2 of 6.5 mil polyethylene plastic and away we go.
I expect algae to biodiesel and carbon nanotubes to fail and NEVER reach commerical success. There is a real chance that I am wrong, but that chance is <<50%. Likewise all other immature technologies.
Even more uncertain than the ultimate fate of new technologies is the length of time for them to become commerical. One cannnot count on them to appear on schedule !
Thus my emphasis on mature technologies that can be improved but work just fine "as is". We have quite realistic estinates of costs, life spans of equipment and infrastructure, *ALL* operational problems have been resolved at one place and time or another. There is good data and experience to support optimization.
One example, US railroads slowly "inched" into ever heavier axle loads, past the point of cold deformation of steel ! (In a new design, I would have stayed well clear of that limit). Yet, they have found that even with increased wear and associated costs, the heavier loads pay for themselves.
Tunnel Boring Machines are still maturing (after 40 ? years of use) with an annual cost improvement (adjusted for inflation) of -3%.
I am a skeptic of new technology. Some few break through into exponential gowth, some make a brief flash of commerical success and then fade (vacuum controls work quite well on my old Mercedes, simpler to fix than electronics; bubble memory was once used on primitive laptops, monorails, gas cooled nuclear reactors, mag lev...) but most never live up to their billing and never leave the lab or prototype stage !
I completely discount algae to bio-diesel in my plans UNTIL some firm, hard full cost production #s appear, including the critical life expectancy of those 6.5 mil sheets of plastic. If those #s are close, then it needs to be examined more critically and replicated elsewhere.
Algae to biodiesel will NEVER be commerical until the optimum lifecycle thickness of that plastic is determined. A minor detail with MAJOR cost implications.
So, I just completely discount the technology fairy until she can deliver a finished product and I can look critically at the costs. Wind turbines HAVE done that, in less than 40 years (I am impressed !).
Best Hopes for Reality Based Planning,
Alan
That's 18mm (almost 3/4 inch), and that's more than long enough to weave into fabrics. They would be a fantastic reinforcement for compatible metals. If the inter-fiber resistance is low enough, that may already be sufficient to use for electrical cabling. Production of a 4-inch diameter carpet of 12 mm (1/2") nanotubes was demonstrated, and it appears to be nowhere near the limits of the process. That's already good enough for limited industrial use.
I don't know about biodiesel, but algae in general appears to be a guaranteed success. If nothing else, algae can clean wastewater of phosphorus and nitrogen; fuel is a byproduct of the process. Production of biodiesel from wild algae has been demonstrated, though I wouldn't be surprised if biodiesel is not the most cost-effective product.
We already have good numbers for those. They're in wide use as greenhouses. Perhaps tougher films (e.g. the ETFE used in the Eden Project) would have a better payoff, but I couldn't even find out who makes the stuff, let alone how much it costs.
Hogwash. All kinds of technologies (heck, every one I can think of!) went commercial long before anyone knew how to optimize them. All that mattered was that they were good enough.
The collapse of oil prices in the 1980's killed the research in the Aquatic Species Program. Peak oil means a permanent end to the ability of oil producers to flood an expanding market. The bar of payback for $70 oil is a lot lower than for $10 oil; the fire is rekindled. If we can actually achieve payback in real terms (e.g. making enough ethanol from an acre of algae greenhouse to replace the ethylene used to make the plastic) that will do the job.
Let's see. A hemi-cylinder has a circumference of (1+π/2)D. An acre of such tubes made of 12 mil poly sheet would take about 112,000 ft2 of sheet. Call it 12,500 square yards. That's about 3200 liters of plastic, or ~850 gallons.
Solix claims potential of 5000 gallons/ac/year of biodiesel and 8000 gallons/ac/year of ethanol. It takes more than a liter of ethanol (dehydrated to ethylene) to make a liter of polyethylene, but it looks like the EROI of such a system would be positive even if you had to replace the poly sheet every year and derived no product from it. The return on the ethanol alone would be at least 5:1 (probably closer to 15). Again, if this works at all, the only way we're not going to use it is if we come across something better.
yeah but...
Yea but what? Considering taxation rates of land and (at least in my state) a lack of tax on PV VS being taxed on animals, why would you want a method that uses more land VS a method that can maximize the output from your land? The use of all the oil and hybrid seeds is all about cutting labor rates and trying to max output.
; you can train a monkey to pick coconuts and throw them down,
I'm not sure where you are in the US of A, but there arn't alot of coconut growing places, not to mention PETA problems and the animal licenses for keeping a monkey.
And I bet if there were robo-pickers, they would not throw fecal matter at you.
and the highest-quality animal labor of all is good old human peons. Then can generate electricity if hooked to bike pedals and an old alternator,
For $700 I can get enough PV to equal the output of a pedaling human. And that will output for 20+ years.
Far better deal than 'some peon'. I don't have to feed a PV panel or worry about the PV panels health, or provide a retirement plan.
And PV panels don't talk back.
project things forward 1000 years, and it seems likely that there will be a lot more animal power than PV power. Hard to imagine how an alloying infrastructure will even be around in 200.
Simple. Alloying and PV will be considered useful, therefore efforts to keep them will be made. Keeping space shots active just to put up weather satellites will make sure the farm lobby would make sacrifices to keep that going.
Do you really thing there will be no taxation in 200 years trying to extract wealth from the land? How do using only animals help the taxed make their yearly nut VS using PV and electro-machines to make the nut?
The critical problem with PV panels is not their efficiency as compared to plants, but the difficulty of storing their output which is critical to PV panel utility. Plants automatically store the energy making it easily usable and portable. The other problem with PV panels is that the scaling up required is environmentally degrading. Do we really want the earth covered with PV panels? IMO plants busily converting solar energy into usable stored energy are much more environmentally sound. Also plants self replicate, with a little help in the case of the domesticated ones, making them very cheap and easy to scale up. Of course, there are limited situations where PV panels are superior such as on roof tops where plants can't grow.
Ethanol - is that what they mean by meals on wheels?
I would like to see the peak oil clock posted here some where. Note, it makes a nice screen saver!
http://www.peakoilclock.com/images/poc2.swf
Secondly, I'd like to see http://www.crudeawakening.org/ added to the energy list on the left, since they provide newsfeeds from The Oil Drum as well as promote The Oil Drum first in related links.
Hello TODers,
GPS artillery shell:
http://www.satnews.com/stories2007/4333/
-----------------------------------------
The Raytheon Company has won a $32.5 million U.S. Army contract to continue work on improving long-range GPS-guided artillery rounds that can hit to within six meters of their target.
U.S. Army officials expect the first Excalibur rounds to be deployed in Iraq this May.
Using GPS precision guidance technology, Excalibur can provide accurate, first round fire-for-effect capability in an urban setting. The U.S. Army says Excalibur has very accurate terminal guidance resulting is low collateral damage and the capability to be employed in very close proximity to friendly troops. An unguided 155 mm round can miss its target by as much as 900 feet.
----------------------------------------
Artillery barrage in Iraq:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top11apr29,0,5757156...
----------------------------------------
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- U.S.-led forces fired an artillery barrage in Baghdad Sunday morning, rocking the capital with loud explosions.
The blasts began after 9 a.m. and lasted for at least 15 minutes.
In a brief statement to The Associated Press, the U.S. military said it fired the artillery from a forward operating base near Iraq's Rasheed military base southeast of Baghdad, but provided no other details.
Iraqis in the southern region of the city said American and Iraqi forces had stepped up their operations in the Dora area of southern Baghdad starting Saturday night.
----------------------------------------------------
Whether you miss your intended target by six meters or 900 hundred feet-- artillery shells pack a tremendous punch to make a hell of a mess.
I don't think using this new 'Excalibur' will help transform Iraq into a modern 'Camelot', even if it arrived ahead of schedule.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I have a problem with this news:
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=162464
Simmons claims that "...nuclear power plants must run for 15 years before they can produce enough energy to replace the energy used to build the plant itself."
Other sources speak of 1.5 months:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power
How come that there is such a difference?
Because some people just cant do math and are prone to alarmist garbage.
Specifically, he was probably referencing a paper done by storm/smith several years ago that was concocted to discredit nuclear power on behalf of the green parties in europe; A well orchastrated attempt to lie with statistics.
Its obviously false, because otherwise france would have the most expensive elecricity prices in Europe instead of its current lower prices.
I had a look into the paper of Storm/Smith, but could not figure out their number. Thank you, at least I know from where he was taking his 15 years.
Nuclear apaologists will continue to spin the numbers in their own favour, no matter what the facts. The nuclear industry, like all big industry, spends vast amounts on PR to influence media, politicians and you. You can guarantee what the say will paint a picture that is as rosey as possible.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/584/...
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
I'm not a member of the nuclear industry, and neither are the guys at the university of melborne who did the study. I only to promote an industry that I think is genuinely benificial and ignored because of political backlash and ignorance.
Painting things as a vast conspiracy of lies is paranoid bullshit. And when nuclear plants are made to fail, cui bono? Coal.
And there are other studies that disagree with them. I think they should be promoted too. If you look at something like the UK's Select Committee that examined many different sources and points of view (see the link), they tended to disagree with the nuclear industry. It is not a conspiracy of lies, it is PR. Every major industry does it. They spend millions promoting their best side and downplaying their negative aspects, or else they embrace a negative aspect and then play the good guy saying how they will fix it (whether or not it eventuates or is realistically possible). It is a common tactic.
Cui bono? No - not coal. I don't advocate an increase in the current system of consumerism that would require an increase in coal full stop. But perhaps we disagree there too.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
Sure, but it doesnt matter what you advocate. Where nuclear gets shut down it takes the path of least resistance to keep the lights on, and thats nearly allways coal.
Case in point, Germany with 26 new coal plants in the works.
Agreed that as things stand the path of least resistance is usually taken. A pity. But I am willing to change my lifestyle to help see that neither path has to be taken here, and I will push for that in my own political arena...
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
The reports of a 178-man strong cell planning to attack Saudi infrastructure (Abqaiq, presumably) is terrifying - I'm surprised nobody else is discussing it.
Although Abqaiq is somewhat internally redundant and very well guarded, taking it offline would reduce Saudi output from 6mbpd to only 1mbpd, making any discussions of natural declines rather academic ... it would trigger an overnight oil shock.
The thing that worries me about this report is the number of people arrested. Presumably they aren't all guilty but 178 is a huge number. The complexity of the planned attack is also very worrying.
In the west we only hear about the Saudis smashing successes. I would assume there are other counter-terrorist operations that don't go as well, but we don't hear about them. If so then there's basically a war going on inside the KSA right now - there are far, far too many reports of foiled attacks in the past year or two for me to sleep well at night.
Very good assessment... isn't the mean income for an average Saudi only ~7K/month? Down from ~$20K in the 80's. Imagine if the average American income fell at this rate, would we not attack the government/king for hording the wealth of the nation?
JAS
"Ban the transport of Bulk/Bottled water"
In Iraq this was necessary in order to reduce the loss of fuel, money, and people.
What if America were to ban transporting bulk/bottled water and rely on tap water? How much saving in fuel would that give us?
JAS
Evian CriminalsThe new snob appeal of tap water.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Thursday, April 26, 2007, at 7:23 PM ET
Last month, the San Francisco Chronicle spotted a hot new food trend in the Bay Area. Instead of offering diners a choice of still or sparkling bottled water with their (inevitably) locally grown delectables, trendoid restaurants such as Incanto, Poggio, and Nopa now offer glorified tap water. Sustainable-dining pioneer Chez Panisse has also joined the crowd, tossing Santa Lucia overboard for filtered municipal water, carbonated on-site. The reason: It takes a lot of energy to create a bottle of water and ship it from Europe to California. And so of-the-moment bistros can boost their enviro cred by giving away tap water instead of selling promiscuously marked-up bottled water. "Our whole goal of sustainability means using as little energy as we have to," Mike Kossa-Rienzi, general manager of Chez Panisse, told the Chronicle. "Shipping bottles of water from Italy doesn't make sense."
Chez Panisse's decision to swap Perrier for public water highlights how quickly the culture surrounding food, drink, and the environment has shifted. Not long ago, bottled water represented the height of urban sophistication. Today, bottled water is just another cog in the carbon-spewing, globe-warming industrial machine. There is a growing conflict between those who want to drink clean, pure water and those who want to breathe clean, pure air.
Until relatively recently, bottled water was a snobbish luxury good—Perrier, Evian, and San Pellegrino, fey-sounding foreign brands, seemed absurd. Thanks to our superior infrastructure—New York City's delicious tap water is actually believed to be a competitive advantage for the city's bagel and pizza makers—it is perfectly safe to drink the water in the United States. Given the price—for long periods of time, a gallon of bottled water cost more than a gallon of gas—it seemed silly to pay up for this plentiful commodity. And it seemed pretentious to believe that our overburdened palates should be forced to develop a preference for what is generally presumed to be a tasteless substance. The presence of water sommeliers at the Ritz-Carlton in New York and at Alain Ducasse's New York restaurant (now closed, soon to reopen) was more novelty than a necessity.
But like other high-end comestibles—sushi, good coffee—bottled water has become democratized. According to data from the International Bottled Water Association, bottled water in 2003 became the second-largest American beverage category. As soda sales stagnated, bottled water sales took off. Total U.S. consumption rose nearly 60 percent between 2001 and 2006. Last year, industry revenues were an estimated $11 billion. Per-capita consumption has risen almost 50 percent from 2001, to 27.6 gallons in 2006. Globally, the United States is the largest consumer of bottled water, although on a per-capita basis, we were only 10th in 2005. (That year, Italians consumed almost twice as much bottled water per capita as Americans.)
The rapidly growing sector has attracted the interest of huge beverage companies. Coca-Cola owns Dasani and is reportedly interested in buying Glaceau, which makes flavored waters. Pepsi owns Aquafina. Poland Spring is also a major player. But these companies, whose products are available in convenience stores, vending machines, and office refrigerators, aren't delivering expensive European spring water to elites; they're producing cheap, glorified tap water for the masses. And they package the product in plastic, not in glass.
Bottled water is an industry, not a craft. (And even the schmancy European operations are industrial.) Whether it's Santa Lucia in Italy or Poland Spring in Maine, bottlers process the stuff. They regulate the mineral content, sometimes they carbonate it, and they bottle, package, and ship it to distant markets on trucks, trains, and ships—burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide in the process.
And so there is a sort of reverse snob appeal in shunning bottled water. Restaurants like Chez Panisse are telling their customers that they prize the Earth—and their customers' values—more than their own profits. (Companies like Whole Foods and Wal-Mart that conspicuously pay above-market prices for electricity generated from renewable sources are doing the same thing.)
I, for one, would welcome the abolition of bottled water at restaurants. Whether you're on a date or at a business meal, expressing a preference for tap water generally makes you look cheap. But I don't know if the food snobs want to go too far. If sustainability comes to outweigh consumer preference or variety at restaurants, America's food culture will suffer. If you're based in Northern California, which has an embarrassment of agricultural riches, insisting on using only local products isn't much of a sacrifice. In Ohio, or Maine, or New York, it would mean self-denial on a massive scale. Part of the appeal of a great food city like New York is the sheer variety of choices. I'm all for the Union Square Greenmarket, where delectable fruits and veggies are trucked in from farms within a day's drive. But I also love the Chinatown stalls stocked with strange, far-flung vegetables, Japanese steakhouses selling Kobe beef, and the readily available French truffles. Where do you draw the line? Apparently, Chez Panisse draws it at wine. Its wine list has plenty of California vintages but is also stocked with bottles that have been shipped, in the same carbon-intensive process through which water bottles are shipped, from France, Italy, and South Africa.
Bottled water's swift transformation from glass-encased luxury good to déclassé, plastic-wrapped menace was entirely predictable. Over the past century, we've seen numerous examples of products that, so long as they were available only to a select few, were viewed by those elites as brilliant, life-improving developments: the automobile, coal-generated electricity, air conditioning. But once companies figured out how to make them available to the masses, the elites suddenly condemned them as dangerous and socially destructive.
So long as only a few people were drinking Evian, Perrier, and San Pellegrino, bottled water wasn't perceived as a societal ill. Now that everybody is toting bottles of Poland Spring, Aquafina, and Dasani, it's a big problem.
Hey,
maybe they can have their own CO2 compressors on site, and make their own carbonated beverage and stop the manufactor of the little CO2 canisters for their trendy machines to make sparkling water.. Solve peak oil and save the planet.
You must always count on the trendy to save you. Especially a very good chef. See its simple. Now solve the 1000 mile salad and all will be well.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
Bottled water is nice, almost essential on a hot day, when wandering around JazzFest. They sell it on the grounds ($2/half liter I think) but you can bring 1 liter of water in with you. I bought two half liter bottles from a sidewalk vendor out side the gates for $1 (ice cold). Supplemented it with beer once inside :-)
Like wise construction crews often buy large quantities of bottled water. So there is a valid, and limited need for bottled water. The vast majority of bottled water in New Orleans comes either locally or bottled from Abita Springs, 50 miles away.
OTOH, NO restaurant pushes bottled water in New Orleans. There was a large negative pushback when that trend came to town. The locals would just not tolerate such an obvious push for profits ! Available upon request, IF YOU want it. One major reason for the fine dining in New Orleans is a discriminating and demanding clientile and we did NOT want bottled water "pushed". But we tip well (according to a survey, local New Orleanians were the best tippers in the US, with an average tip of 18.9%).
Best Hopes,
Alan