This is a bad mistake.

Not only do people now know the government will not bail them out if a bank or building society is in trouble; they know that the word of government officials is even more worthless than they thought it was before. They weren't exactly falling over themselves to trust it then.

Net result is any suggestion that a financial institution is in trouble and you need to get you funds out immediately.

I’m gonna open a new account , I’m walking down the street and there is a Northern Rock at my left – and on the other side of the road there is a Bank-X – Q; Where do I go ?

There were two other banks that took a beating around the same time the whole Northern Rock thing got started. I've been using the Google for a bit and I can't find their names and I'm not having much luck tracking down a good blog that covers British banking. This sort of thing won't happen here because we simply don't save but I recall some postings indicating the infection will be most visible in the U.K. and Spain ...

http://ml-implode.com had a link to this tidbit comparing UBS's troubles to Citigroup.

How big of a price? UBS is taking a $690 million loss and firing 1,500 workers due to the $3.4 billion writedown of the value of its MBSs(mortgage backed securities) -- but I think it's curious that it still has $19 billion of MBSs with which it is "comfortable."

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/01/why-ubss-ubs-pain-exceeds-citig...

Economic conditions alone would make a mess of that $19B in "assets", and this is before one factors in AGW and PO ...

On a daily basis water is priority-1b, just next to air to breath which constitute 1-a.

On the sub-continent they should stop plundering the ridiculous ideas of bio-fuel perused by other “infinity-societies” – as of yesterday (my suggestion)

BTW the more info I get hold of on GW the more worried I'm getting. This GW-stuff may actually go really fast it seems – and the grand rivers in India are really without water many places in the end of the dry-season, not to forget the watertable in the Delhi region... oh my G...
This I know, b’cos I have lived there for some years… In resent years

That was the line my brother used yesterday to host his Rosy Future Ahead thoughts, the free market and the bottom line. If there is no profit to be made no new technologies will show up. I guess I have Rose colored glasses too. But mine are in a box in the shed waiting to get sorted and sold at a yard sale in the future to get funds to go in a jar in my yard...

But, they will still make a profit.

Rick

Expect more of the same. Think NetBank's the only one to go?

UBS to Report Big Loss Tied To Credit Woes

Swiss banking giant UBS AG, which recently ousted its chief executive in the wake of losses at an in-house hedge fund and defections of top investment bankers, plans to write down as much as 4 billion Swiss francs, or $3.41 billion, in assets, including securities tied to U.S. subprime mortgages.

After taking a third-quarter write-down of between 3 billion francs and 4 billion francs on its fixed-income assets, UBS expects a loss for the quarter ranging from about 600 million francs to 700 million francs, people familiar with the matter said. For the year-earlier quarter, UBS reported net profit of 2.2 billion Swiss francs

Bloomberg early morning news:

Merrill's Outlook

Merrill Lynch & Co., the third-biggest U.S. securities firm, may record losses of as much as $4 billion on fixed-income assets, resulting in the lowest quarterly earnings in almost six years, Goldman Sachs analyst William Tanona said in a note to investors last week. New York-based Merrill may have to write down the value of mortgages, corporate loans and collateralized debt obligations, Tanona wrote in his report.

UBS is down 15 percent in this year's trading in Zurich, a steeper drop than Credit Suisse Group's 9 percent decline or Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG's 11 percent tumble.

DC also has a huge airport.

Yes, I've noticed. This must be the most successful propaganda strategy for lying and cover-up available.

Note that reasons to invade and occupy Iraq have kept changing.

Note that reasons for invading Iran are now changing, as is the initial military strategy to get our toe in the door of that war. Once we are in, we are in.

But OPEC is using the same smokescreen strategy to talk about its lower production and exports.

Do they employ the same public relations company as the USA is using to sell war?

The plan is -- and always has been -- to engage in a war that will last indefinitely.

This Resource War will last at least twenty or thirty years, unless catastrophe weakens the warring parties to the point of being unable to continue the war.

Any notion that the USA will reduce military presence in the Middle East is daydreaming. No one in politics today can achieve that.

The political Establishment is deeply and irreversibly committed to this Resource War.

As noted above, the reasons for carrying out various attacks will change constantly. The strategies employed may be altered to be made more publicly palatable for many people. This makes them an easier political product to sell.

The overall objective and strategy in the Middle East is to "own" the Middle East oil supply in every way possible.

Kissinger alluded to this -- again -- recently in the WaPo, didn't he?

We are also ramping up an Africa Command to "own" the supplies there as well.

Latin America....?

We -- the USA -- are all about war for oil right now.

WRT Iran, Peter Galbraith has a great article in the NY Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20651

Right now, the US is in the worst possible position. It is identified with the most discredited part of the Iranian opposition and unwanted by the reformers who have the most appeal to Iranians. Many Iranians believe that the US is fomenting violence inside their country, and this becomes a pretext for attacks on US troops in Iraq. And for its pains, the US accomplishes nothing.

It's pretty long, but very informative and well worth a read. I'm also going to order a copy of Trita Parsi's new book
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States.

Saw this the other day. Hersch was always right ahead of the curve with Iraq couple years ago, he and Scot Ritter led the credibility factor.

Lately I'm not so sure. Seems he's been crying wolf on Iran too long. Could be that his insights, etc are being muffed by administration turmoil. Hard too say what the administration will try before they relinquish power.

A teacher like you cannot be found!

Keep up the good work b3NDZ3la.

Hey, b3....

Just wanted to give the old thumbs up as well.

BTW -- a teacher friend of mine borrowed my pedicab today. His class was going on a bike ride around a nearby lake. One of his students has a brittle bone problem and cannot ride.

But she did the ride on the pedicab, and he said that she just loved it!

Keep up the good work! Some students catch on when teachers are honest and passionate -- it seems like this student of yours sure did.

Kudos!!!

Hi b3ndzdLa,

Congratulations! It's a nice article, too.

I just posted (on yesterday's drumbeat http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3034#comment-244518) a couple of references. One is an article in Sunday's LA Times (made page 1) - on how ag schools are hurting for students. This may mean they have more scholarships available, too; I don't know. Also, there are actually a fair number of grants and other opportunities for young persons to check out and/or begin education/work in organic farming. ATTRA is a good site to start with. Sometimes it takes a little hunting, but I was amazed at how much is out there.

Jussi: You misunderstood-the guy is saying that the risk they want to avoid is spending money looking for oil and subsequently not finding the oil they went looking for, thus wasting shareholder's money. No one is worried about finding oil reserves so gigantic they would drop the price of oil-they would love to have such a problem. Re the finite comment, what is interesting is that over the last 2 years, the cornucopians and MSM have moved their position on peak oil a great distance-here is a journalist that is about as ignorant as a human being can be on this subject ("if oil is infinite") and he is sounding the alarm.

Jussi, sorry I should have posted my post on this same article as a reply to yours but I was typing it while you were posting. But several other OPEC nations seems to be at or near their peak production.

Venezuelan production has been dwindling, bit by bit, for several years now. And they are claiming to be producing about half a million barrels per day more than they are actually producing. And as I pointed out below, the UAE is producing at an all time high. I think it is obvious that they are producing flat out.

Algeria, I believe, is producing at peak. At any rate, Algeria like the UAE, is producing at maximum. Iran appears to be in decline. Kuwait may be able to increase production slightly, but not by much. Their largest field has peaked and is in decline.

This third quarter will tell the tale. Clearly some of the OPEC nations will not be able to increase production to their newley alloted quotas. I think this was what Saudi Arabia had in mind when they insisted that the .5 mbd increase be spread out over all 10 nations as a percentage of what they actually produced in August of 07. I think they are breaking the news gently to the world. And that word is: "Don't count on OPEC to keep world oil production increasing for the next few years. OPEC is either at or very near peak. And that news must be let out piece by piece in order not to cause worldwide panic.

Ron Patterson

There are many vying to replace Yergin

"You take out all the fluff and the fear and the speculation, and $35 to $40 is where the price of crude ultimately belongs," he said.
snip
Gheit said no.

"Investors reward the rate of change, not the level of profit," he said. "No one thinks oil prices can triple again in the next five years."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/01/news/companies/oil_stocks/index.htm?sour...

It's no wonder no one wants to discuss peak, when they think this nonsense will fill their tanks.

IF oil is finite... Is this still a hotly debated issue in financial circles?

Sure it's debatable. After all, we have abiotic oil. All we have to do to find it is dig a little deeper.

Peak oil is for wimps. Ditto for global warming, which (as Rush Limbaugh has explained) is a myth concocted by America-hating environwackos and liberal scientists who are just trying to milk the government for more research grants.

Everything will be fine. Have faith in God, President Bush and Fox News. For inspiration, read My Pet Goat. Smile, be happy. Remember the president's advice after 9/11: "Go shopping."

Right or wrong, oil executives hold back on exploration, insisting that the risk of finding and producing more -- even with crude prices of $80 a barrel and more -- is too great. Weeden's Maxwell says the rule of thumb in the industry today is that $45 a barrel is about the breakeven point.

.... sarconol alert....
Why don't oil companies get into a more lucrative trade that has lower risks, like banks have done in laundering drug money.... sarconol off

Several of the quotes from this article are attributed to Charles Maxwell. Mr. Maxwell is a keen observer of the oil scene and does not shoot from the hip. He draws from a wealth of experience. About a year ago he repeated his warning about the changing oil paradigm and the new energy trend that is not a cycle, but a function of geology, geopolitics and miscalculations (e.g. ExxonMobile and other majors eyes wide shut attitude about the growing oil storm). This classic piece complements well what is referenced in this article and supports the illuminating analyses that has been performed here by many exceptionally talented and selfless contributors. Kudos to the The Oil Drum.

Barron's Oil Prices: A Pause, Then Up
by Sandra Ward Dow Jones Newswires Monday, October 16, 2006

Oct 16, 2006 (Dow Jones Newswiresfrom Barron's)
Interview with Charles Maxwell Senior oil analyst, Weeden & Co.

You want an independent and informed appraisal of the outlook for energy? Then Charley Maxwell's your man. For almost 50 years, Maxwell in one way or another has been involved in the oil and gas industry: from when he started working for Mobil in 1957 to when he moved to Wall Street in 1968 and was routinely lauded as the No. 1

oil analyst throughout the 'Seventies and 'Eighties. For more than 20years, he's belonged to an elite group of industry executives and OPEC members that meets at Oxford University twice a year to assess trends. We dialed him up last week at Weeden & Co., the institutional trading company in Greenwich, Conn., that he's called home since 1999. Here are Maxwell's thoughts on the current energy scene.
Barron's: Did somebody say energy crisis?

Maxwell: We often say there are not a lot of advantages to getting old except that we have seen it all before. After a big move upward, there is always some counterreaction. We saw it during the 1973-74 crisis, in the '79 to '86 crisis and then in the two wars with Iraq. These crises were manipulations of the oil market by human beings. War, economic problems, but particularly military considerations, were creating, as they say, facts on the ground that worked into shortages that were real, but they were shortages created by the actions of man not nature. It is terribly important to differentiate between past periods and now.

Q: How is that?

A: There are four huge impediments to expanding production in a world in which we need to do this. Hubbert's Peak, the theory that says oil production will peak on a global basis, is a natural impediment. It is not yet the predominant factor but as these crises continue it is the one growing exponentially and by, say, 2015 or 2020 I expect it will dominate the outlook.

Q: What then is the biggest problem now?

A: About three-quarters of the world's production of oil today is lifted by national oil companies. Companies like Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, the Iran national oil company, the Iraq national oil company, the national companies that operate in Algeria and Libya, produce conservatively 75% of the world supply. Most of them were nationalized in the '70s and early '80s and they have real structural problems today. They bring in a lot of money but most of it goes to support the national Treasuries and the various political constituencies that are in favor in the various countries, whether it's the army or a host of other bureaucratic ministries. In the end, in the political battle for budgetary support the national oil companies tend to be a constituency with little or no political influence. All in all, the national oil companies have been shortchanged and held on a poverty diet for a long time.

Q: What are the other structural challenges they face?

A: What came out of the 1986-1987 collapse in prices was a huge overcapacity of about 20% in the world's oil production system. The international oil companies began to adjust their capital spending quickly to adapt to that and they more or less serviced a 1% increase in demand each year. The capacity surplus began to come down naturally. We have now had 20 years and taken that surplus down to about 2% to 3%. For efficiency in the energy industry, given the weather factors and political factors and so on, we need something in the 7% to 8% range of excess capacity in order to cover the mountains and the plains of demand and weather and political events. But when the surplus got down to those levels between 1997 and 2000, the companies didn't add to capacity at a fast enough rate.

Q: Bring this back to your point about the national oil companies.

A: The national oil companies didn't react at all. At least the big international oil companies were producing the 1% to 2% each year that was required, but the national oil companies just tooled along on the backs of the surplus while it got smaller and smaller. The big international oil companies saw all this and didn't prepare for possible future tightening. One reason the NOCs, as the national oil companies are called, didn't respond was lack of money. Also, the NOCs, because of political patronage, have a shortage of skilled workers and experienced managers. Only Saudi Aramco is quite efficient and they are doubling and redoubling their efforts to find oil in the peninsula. They've gone from 10 rigs to 100 rigs and are headed to 125 rigs. They are modern and up to date. They've got a core of around 3,000 expatriates that are well paid and doing a helluva job. But this is unusual.

Q: Where does this lead?

A: I don't know how we get around the problem of the NOCs. They control so much of the world's production and they are bloody helpless. They don't have enough money and they don't have prestige and they don't have professionalism. These are big factors, any one of which would have been a strike against them and with all three it is a difficult situation.

The multinationals have the money but they haven't been that willing to spend it.

That's another big issue: the problem for the oil companies is coming to grips with the size of the production problem.

Q: Can you elaborate on that.

A: The oil companies, as a group, seem to believe the future production potential of the world is very large, very wide open and yet their production numbers don't indicate this is so. ExxonMobil (ticker: XOM) took out an advertisement earlier this year saying oil is not peaking, nor is there any peak visible that's going to impinge on production in the next 20 to 30 years and claims there is no practical limit to the oil it can find and there are new supplies that are developable. They are not alone in this thinking, though Dave O'Reilly [Chairman and CEO] of Chevron (CVX) has come around. But John Browne [CEO] of BP [INTV-ANS](BP)[INTV-ANS] is in the Exxon camp as is industry consultant Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

Q: The technology-will-save-the-day camp.

A: I'm not downplaying technology at all. But technology will save General Motors, too, if you believe that. Technology can't do everything. I'll give you an example of the vision of the oil companies.

Q: Go for it.

A: As we understand it, Exxon is not taking on any leases for deep-water drilling after 2008. They haven't leased anything. If you think deep-water leases are going to be very important, and the recent big discovery in the Gulf of Mexico suggests they will be, you would have contracted for the future use of rigs. But if you think the deep-water leases aren't going to be important because the oil found will be more expensive than the common garden-variety Texas oil from 6,000 foot down, and that you will have lots of oil coming from sources like that then you don't need these high-cost leases down the road. On the other hand, many major oil companies have taken these rigs to 2010 and 2012 and 2014 and are pre-empting Exxon's ability to get these rigs. Exxon is putting itself at a huge disadvantage if there should be a need for this type of deep oil. I find that remarkable.

Q: What's the gamble there?

A: The gamble is they won't need the deep-water leases because there will be big and lush supplies of oil spilling around at $30 a barrel and people will relinquish the rig contracts they've signed. Then Exxon would have the choice of picking up some of these contracts at 50 cents on the dollar, or maybe they won't need to pick them up at all. I think they are dead wrong.

Exxon has gone out of its way to take out advertising and make speeches saying there'll be plenty of future supplies. It verges on the irresponsible because it says to the government there is no problem. It says to the media there is no problem. It says to the public there is no problem. So we are now likely to march with fife and drum, banners flying, into the maw of destruction without so much as a sideways glance because Exxon tells us that the problem is resolved.

Q: It has been suggested they benefit from talking down the price of oil.

A: There is all kind of speculation on that. Another obvious thought would be if they wanted to buy, say, Yukos, which they had hopes of two years ago, they certainly wouldn't want to indicate they thought that the price of oil was going to go much higher down the road because of shortages. Some people think Exxon is cynical. I don't. I really think they believe what they say. It's a lack of vision. Last year, they spent more money on share repurchases and dividends than they did on exploring and developing oil reserves. Most big oil companies tend to be backward looking. They were slow, for instance, in seeing that sulfur standards for gasoline and diesel would be required in this country and getting their refineries set up to meet them. That's why we've had these advances in gasoline prices in the summers of 2005 and 2006 -- fear that the refining system in America and in Europe would be unable to handle these new standards. Oil companies will find it difficult to solve a tightening oil production problem if they don't recognize that it is tightening around their necks.

Q: That's the third impediment of four. What's left?

A: We as Americans think that because we want more oil these other countries should produce more oil. But there are increasing issues, brought on not just by President Bush and his policies, but also by a feeling that the developed world is imperialistic by nature and is intent on leaving the undeveloped world without resources. All these claims are greatly overdone, but nevertheless, it is a fact that if you live in Iraq you believe the oil companies, or the Americans, are there to get the oil. My point is the people in the Middle East are sophisticated enough to understand this could be Bedouin-to-Bedouin in Saudi Arabia in five generations.

Q: What do you mean by that?

A: Well two generations ago, many of these people were Bedouins. The majority of people working in the petroleum industry in Saudi Arabia today -- the supervisors and the drillers and so on -- had grandparents who were herding sheep or camels. They fear their great grandchildren could end up doing the same.

Q: Because?

A: Because the oil will be all gone. The image we have in this country of tumbleweeds running down the streets of abandoned Western mining towns is now beginning to stalk the public consciousness in the Middle East. About three months ago, they realized the second largest oil field in the world, Burgan in Kuwait, had peaked. They didn't expect it and they couldn't believe it. The No. 1 field in the world, the Ghawar, is pretty close to peaking if it hasn't already. These are people who have long believed that Allah was bestowing these oil gifts on them in perpetuity and there would be infinite production. The concept of Hubbert's Peak has only penetrated the Middle East in the last five years in the same way that it has only penetrated Europe in the last five years.

The non-OPEC world, 175 countries, of which only 30 produce meaningful amounts of oil, will peak around 2010. Then we become dependent on OPEC for all future growth in barrel needs and that should put us in a pretty difficult situation and the price of oil will begin to rise a little faster.

Q: Are the non-OPEC countries that close to peaking?

A: Eleven of the non-OPEC countries have peaked already, representing 34.3% of non-OPEC production. There are three on the cusp of peaking, and one of them is Mexico which may have already peaked and represents 7.9% of production. China will probably peak this year, or next, or in 2008. But they are at flat production levels now so it doesn't matter and they contribute 8.5%. More than 50% of the non-OPEC production will therefore have peaked. There are all kinds of issues as to when the whole world peaks. I use a range from 2015 to 2020, which depends on when the rest of the world wakes up to the need to conserve, which could delay the peak.

Q: What about a peak in gas production?

A: That's much, much further out. There is a lot of what they call stranded natural gas, big discoveries that are not tied to any local needs, or any local distribution system, and they will be tapped and brought in, in liquefied form to our country and to Europe and to Asia. The peak of natural gas now roughly looks like it will be in 2035 to 2040. There is a finite supply that is being drawn down, but it hasn't been exploited nearly as much as oil. The run-up in natural gas prices in the past year or so was because production in this country has peaked, and natural gas is more expensive and difficult to move from one continent to another, and we don't really have the means to do that yet. We are getting there and the big liquefied natural gas expansion is starting, and soon we are going to have interchangeability between continents. When one continent is short we can move gas there, which will keep prices down.

Q: Where are oil prices headed?

A: We are now getting a reaction to the higher oil prices. It is translating into slower economic growth and, of course, it is allied with a rise in interest rates. Don't think that it is just that rising oil prices equal lower economic growth. It is a question of rising oil prices and less liquidity and higher rates that's a triple threat. The bottom could be in the high 40s, though that wouldn't be sustainable. On a yearly average, we will stay in the 60s, but we'll spend a lot of time in the 50s. Then they'll start up again in 2008-2009 and go up for some time. When we get to 130 or 150 there will be another pullback.

Q: How do you get to those numbers?

A: In 1930 we found 10 billion new barrels of oil in the world and we used 1.5 billion. We reached a peak in 1964 when we found 48 billion barrels and used approximately 12 billion. In 1988, we found 23 billion barrels and used 23 billion barrels. That was the crossover when we started finding less than we were using. In 2005, we found about 5 billion to 6 billion and we used 30 billion. These numbers are just overwhelming.

Q: How are you advising people when it comes to the oil stocks?

A: You want to buy companies that have long- life reserves and are developing them, it's as simple as that. The average oil company, because they are all in the non-OPEC world, will by definition peak around 2010 or thereabouts. I estimate Exxon will peak in 2011. BP will peak in 2012. Total (TOT) in 2012. ConocoPhillips (COP) in 2013. Marathon Oil (MRO) in 2009. Royal Dutch (RDS-B) in 2009 and Hess (HES) in 2010. But a company like Suncor Energy (SU), which operates in the Canadian tar sands, will peak around 2045. It is a completely different world. EnCana (ECA), the big Canadian gas and tar sands producer, will peak around 2020. Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ) is another. I also like Nexen (NXY), another Canadian tar sands producer, and Lukoil (LUKOY) of Russia. The only one I'm recommending at the moment is EnCana because it has a large component of natural gas. The gas market is at a bottom now, whereas I see the oil market bottoming in the spring or summer of 2007, or even early 2008 if we have a recession.

Q: Why Lukoil?

A: Lukoil isn't owned by the Russian government. They've adopted Western accounting standards because they want to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange and raise capital and become a regular oil company. Lukoil has about 20 billion barrels of reserves and Exxon is No. 1 in the world with 21 billion. But the capitalization of Lukoil is one-sixth that of Exxon. So you are getting a huge advantage in oil barrels per share for a lot less money.

Thanks, Charley.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/27/14471/5832
Hubbert Linearization Analysis of the Top Three Net Oil Exporters
Posted by Prof. Goose on January 27, 2006
(ED: This is a guest post by westexas.)

Following is one of my comments in the early 2006 discussion thread:

The following is based on Khebab's excellent work (as noted above, Khebab has some doubts about my conclusions).

The Hubbert Linearization (HL) method--using only data through 1985--predicted that Russia would produce 61 Gb in the 19 years after 1985.  In reality, Russia produced 57 Gb.   Actual production was 93% of predicted.  As I noted above, I think that it is significant that actual production is 4 Gb below the HL prediction, given that everyone is so mesmerized by the recent increase in production.  

Can anyone think of any other method that would have been this accurate?  Remember, the data cutoff, used to generate the plot, was 1985.   Currently, it appears that production is about 5 mbpd above where it should be based on the HL plot, but 5 mbpd is 1.8 Gb per year, so we could actually see a year or two of rising production before production reverts to the curve (assuming that it will).   For what's worth, my bet is that Russia will start a steep decline no later than next year.  If Russia is going to revert to the curve, if it started right now it would probably require a decline rate of about 11% per year.  

Note that if Russia had followed the curve, and if current production was about 4.5 mbpd, total cumulative production would have been 4 Gb higher than current cumulative production.  I suggest that you read that again.

I guess my basic question is if the HL method was 93% accurate in predicting the incremental cumulative production from 1985 to 2004, why are we so distrustful of the predicted production in the next couple of decades?   The model predicts that production in 20 years will be down to about one mbpd.

IMO, this plot reinforces my concern that we are facing an immediate crisis in net export capacity.   What if the Saudi plot is 93% correct?

Without increases from these three nations world crude production would be down over three million barrels per day since May of 05.

Exactly. Good point. This extraordinary growth in a couple of countries cannot continue for ever. The underlying decline rate in crude oil production - at country level - is somewhere between -3% and -4%. Once the growing countries go flat, that'll be the slope.

I do blame Chevron-Texaco, I do blame Exxon-Mobil, I do blame the Big Three auto makers. I blame the CONgreffs, I blame the past five or six presidents, I blame OPEC, I blame the bankers. I blame the makers of jet skis and leaf blowers and I blame Miss Budweiser too. This will be a fun show.

I just viewed the anthem untapped at Chevron.

Great image at the very end of the video.

Did you catch it?

Recipient of AA, Alberta Advantage

I give Chevron a lot of credit.

At least they are coming forward and trying to start a sensible dialog rather than burying their head in the sand like Exxon has been doing. Chevron has the most visible efforts of any US oil company.

I think that Exxon is slowly coming around though . . .

For many months now, Chevron has been running a sponsorship announcement on NPR News Hour. It is about Peak Oil, but they don't use the words Peal Oil. The words, as best I can remember are, "Some say that by 2020 we will have used half the world's oil. Others say we already have used half the oil. ..." The visuals are an hilarious take on determining whether half the oil is gone. Highly recommended for a good laugh.

Read again ASPO Newsletter #46 from October 2004:
http://www.energybulletin.net/2390.html

OPEC's reserves are overstated by 80%.

And here is an interesting interview the Australian ABC TV had with Abdul B. Atwan.

Different Middle East by 2020

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2013661.htm

I've been expecting him to replace Alexei Miller as the CEO of Gazprom. Surely that's one of the most powerful positions in Russia, and perhaps Europe.

After all, there has never been, nor will there ever be, another company like Gazprom...

This is a link to Part 3 -What's Ahead? that Charles E. Owens refers to. In it, I talk about the current credit bubble collapsing, and one scenario of possible consequences.

Try here.

New OPEC Quotas

Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran

So let me see if I’ve got this right: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, is demanding that George W. Bush take a more belligerent posture toward Iran.

In her view – and that of 75 other members of the U.S. Senate – President Bush hasn’t been aggressive or hasty enough in designating a large part of the Iranian military, the Revolutionary Guards, as an international terrorist organization.

The Senate resolution, approved on Sept. 26, recounts allegations that elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have supplied Iraqi Shiite militias with “explosively formed penetrator” bombs that have shattered U.S. armored vehicles and killed American troops.

In response, the Senate resolution calls on President Bush to list the Revolutionary Guards as “specially designated global terrorists.” In opposing the resolution, Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia, warned that the move could be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Wow! 120 million barrels - the find of the century, worth being mentioned even on the Schlumberger web site.

This time they're gonna be prudent and sell it as grease, not burn it in motors :-)

Ah, but its also a seven billion euro asset that is likely to double in value over the near term.

(note my new commitment to stating oil value in euros ... 'cause the dollar is dead)

Green utopians are even more excited about getting steam from granite beneath that same sedimentary basin http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.html
Don't expect to see either oil or steampower for at least a decade. By then we could be grateful for anything.

Getting energy out of stuff we'd normally trash is a fine thing, but how do they calculate an EROI of 1.8? I would think it would be far too hard to tease that information out when the feedstock comes from a complex thing like a waste stream.

Targeting the industrial/agricultural waste stream may be an important part of any future energy strategy. However this article is wildly optimistic, given the need to replace 40 million barrels a day within 20 years or so.

Another possibility is bio-butanol, which can be made from sugar beets and similar crops, and blended with gasoline or diesel more easily than ethanol.

As the pattern becomes more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough.

Leanan, is it mere coincidence, or are you foreshadowing a brain-eating amoeba in our modern waterparks?

From the waterpark musing:

That's why it helps to have a nearby attraction like an amusement park, a ski resort, a natural wonder -- or even a casino.

Natural wonder or a casino? 6 of one, half dozen of another! Arggh

Cheap money, cheap energy and cheap chlorine

Nasty. I do remember from 30 years ago that my brother-in-law talked about being able to culture amoebas from most sink drains that would cause amoebic meningoencephalitis. (spelling a guess)

The future beckons with upraised digit.

Excuse me Flavius Aetius

.....study on the likely damage to Iran when the US attacks it.

There will be no attack on Iran – its all empty threats and hot air (period)

One thing is to feel/believe someone deserves a serious round of spanking – another thing is to spank yourself by the factor of 10 in actually doing so …

And finally Iran did nothing wrong apart from stupid rhetoric’s (agree) from a narrow-minded leader , but lets take one step back …. Concerning stupid rhetoric’s …. Ehhh …what’s his name again.. …war monger ..No… ehh Bush something..

Something like this?

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=422

As a US citizen, in view of the following facts, what would you expect of your President and administration:

Petroleum is the life blood of the US economy,
The US is near the top in per capita petroleum consumption,
The US imports over 60% of the petroleum it uses,
The US has 5% of the World's population,
The US uses 30% of the World's exported petroleum.

Would you consider it his duty to try and secure access to petroleum supplies for the country and, if need be, by use of force if it looked like access would be compromised?

That was weird.