 | Jamais Cascio: Finding a Little Comfort Fifteen Minutes into the Future | The Oil Drum | Canada as an energy superpower |  |
DrumBeat: May 22, 2008
Posted by Gail the Actuary on May 22, 2008 - 9:08am
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
Energy Watchdog Warns Of Oil-Production Crunch
The world's premier energy monitor is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast, a shift that reflects deepening pessimism over whether oil companies can keep abreast of booming demand. The Paris-based International Energy Agency is in the middle of its first attempt to comprehensively assess the condition of the world's top 400 oil fields. Its findings won't be released until November, but the bottom line is already clear: Future crude supplies could be far tighter than previously thought.
Oil surpasses $135 on new supply concerns
Oil prices rose above $135 a barrel for the first time Thursday, with supply worries, global demand and an ever weakening U.S. dollar driving crude futures up. The world’s top energy watchdog is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
Petrobras Reports New Oil Accumulation Discovered in the Santos Basin Pre-Salt Layer
Petrobras announces that the consortium formed by Petrobras (66% - block BM-S-8 operator), with the participation of Shell (20%), and Galp Energia (14%) in ultra-deep Santos Basin waters, has proved the presence of oil in pre-salt reservoirs via well 1-BRSA-532A-SPS (1-SPS-52A). Preliminary analyses indicate oil gravity is between 25 and 28 ºAPI, comparable to that of the other pre-salt oils found in the Santos Basin.
Ford cutting North American production, High gasoline prices, weak economy cited
Ford Motor is cutting N. American production for rest of year due to gas prices, weak economy.
Crisis for US airlines as oil prices defy gravity
Fuel costs are the biggest catalyst in the latest flurry of consolidations in the US airlines industry, analysts say, and may bring about more trouble as with the exception of a few, none of the airlines has prepared for today's cost environment.
Qatar's Attiyah says oil fundamentals in balance; no OPEC meeting
Qatari oil minister Abdullah al-Attiyah was quoted Thursday as ruling out
the need for OPEC to hold an extraordinary meeting, saying that oil supply and
demand fundamentals were in balance and demand for crude was expected to fall. Attiyah, in an interview with Saudi-owned newspaper al-Hayat in Doha,
said he was surprised by the sharp rise in oil prices, which Thursday topped
$135/b for US light sweet crude oil futures.
Oil Rises Above $135 on Concern OPEC Is Powerless to Halt Rally
May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to a record above $135 a barrel as OPEC ministers said they could do nothing to stop a rally that may be heading to $200 a barrel.
Oil has risen 19 percent this month as analysts increased their price forecasts because of supply constraints and demand growth. OPEC has ``no magic solution'' to the surge, Qatar's oil minister said. Prices are ``out of the hands'' of the organization, according to Libya's top oil official.
Feds: Much of oil, gas under lands off limits
A new report from the Bush administration says most of the oil and more than 40 percent of the natural gas beneath public lands in the United States are off limits to drilling.
Opening those reserves would give energy companies access to an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil and 95 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, administration officials said Wednesday. That would require Congress to roll back environmental safeguards and lift drilling prohibitions on vast areas -- from Florida to Alaska and across the Rocky Mountain West.
Why Dems and Republicans Are Afraid of Two Words: Peak Oil
Since 1956, the world economy has proceeded under a sort of oil company spell that has woven the illusion all around us that oil depletion is so far into the future that we don't need to worry about it. That belief was essential to support the aim of an endlessly growing economy. There have been a few hitches in that strategy.
Peak oil has very little to do with actual oil reserves. Let's assume that the world has 100 years of oil reserves; hell for argument's sake, let's just bump that figure up to 2,000 year's supply of oil reserves. So with 2,000 years of oil left, how does the peak oil theory stand up? Actually, very well. One needs to understand economics and infrastructure.
Peak oil has nothing to do with reserves, but instead with the rate of extraction, distribution, and refinement.
Airlines cut use of regional jets as fuel costs soar
Parking 50-seat and smaller RJs will mean less service for many of the smaller cities where they are the primary or only vehicles of commercial air transport. Carriers have begun the gradual process of shaving markets back from five to seven flights a day to four or five, or even fewer.
IEA Plans to Lower Oil Supply Forecast in Next Annual Report (Bloomberg)
he IEA will present a ``more realistic supply potential'' estimate following criticism previous forecasts have been ``optimistic,'' IEA head Nobuo Tanaka said in a television interview today. He didn't give specific figures.
Speculation the future supply can't meet demand helped push oil prices to a record $135.09 a barrel in New York today. The IEA will include the oil field study in the next edition of its annual World Energy Outlook, published Nov. 12. Last year, the agency estimated supply in 2030 at 116 million barrels a day.
POLL-Non-OPEC oil output growth slows to a trickle
"Non-OPEC production will continue to struggle to grow in the next few years, and the growth in non-conventional fuels, which account for almost 90 percent of our estimated non-OPEC supply this year, is not going to help," said Giovanni Serio, energy analyst at Goldman Sachs.
Against this backdrop I want to make clear that any oil still deep in the ground has no direct link - none - to today's pump prices. Any oil in the ground won't be in the marketplace for some ten years. Further, the oil companies that want to drill much closer to our shores already have leases on 33 million other acres where they haven't even started drilling yet.
More importantly - no matter what anybody says or writes - the U.S. has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves while it uses 25 percent of the global supply.
Price of petrol to stay high for 8 years
Kevin Norrish, a commodities analyst at Barclays Capital, said: "I've never witnessed anything like it before. The only thing that seems instantly comparable is the first Gulf war in 1991 when prices fell sharply after the US invasion; this move is on a par with that, but in the opposite direction.
"Our long-term forecast had been for oil to rise to $137 a barrel but we didn't expect it to get there quite so soon."
Garages use 'stingers' to combat petrol theft
The new Drivestop device has a sensor which detects when a driver is pulling away without paying. The cashier triggers the system which starts with a loudspeaker announcement warning the would-be thief that his tyres will be shredded.
If the warning is ignored a set of metal spikes spring up and punctures the rear wheels, deflating them in ten seconds.
Economic Toll Mounts From High Oil Prices
The Ford Motor Company, the American auto manufacturer, said on Thursday it would cut vehicle production for the rest of this year and fall short of reaching profitability in 2009, a long-held company goal. In a statement, a top Ford executive said rising gasoline prices “are having a tremendous impact on our sales, our manufacturing operations and our profitability.”
Meanwhile, Europe’s biggest airline, Air France-KLM, warned of a profound reshaping of the world airline industry caused by what it called the “explosion” in the price of oil. And American Airlines said on Wednesday that it would slash flights and begin charging passengers to check bags, part of a company effort to cut costs in the face of skyrocketing fuel prices.
Oil Pulls Back After Topping Record $135
Oil prices pulled back from a record $135 a barrel on Thursday as dealers took profits from a dazzling rally as a recovering U.S. dollar dampened all commodities markets.
U.S. crude dipped 95 cents to $132.22 a barrel by 1550 GMT after jumping earlier in the session to a record $135.09. London Brent crude eased 69 cents to $132.01 a barrel after touching a peak of $135.14.
Skyrocketing Oil Prices Stump Experts
Whatever the causes, one of the most dizzying runs in the history of oil prices picked up pace yesterday -- again -- as crude oil prices jumped to settle at more than $133 a barrel, up $4.19 in one day, 18 percent so far this month and more than one-third so far this year. Prices climbed even higher in late electronic trading.
The nationwide average price for a gallon of regular gasoline yesterday also set another record at $3.81 a gallon, up a penny a day for the past month, the auto club AAA reported.
Big companies rue loss of 'easy oil'
Costs more than quadrupled since 2000 as explorers targeted more challenging reservoirs and demand rose for labour and material.
New supply from outside Opec nations will meet about 20 per cent of growth in world demand during the next four years, data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) show. The lack of supply has traders betting oil will remain at about US$120 a barrel for at least eight years, according to futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The wagers are buttressed by delays at fields including Kashagan, a Kazakh deposit where the budget has more than doubled to US$136 billion and the first production is eight years behind schedule.
China keen to join Iran gas project
China on Thursday said it is interested in joining the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project if it is feasible. There are some technical questions about whether it would be feasible to extend the 2100 km pipeline to China, and Beijing wants to be clear on this count before making a commitment.
"China is in urgent need of more energy. Of course we will be interested. But it depends on a lot of things," He Yafei, assistant minister of foreign affairs told journalists here on Thursday.
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.
Twice today Peak Oil is on the front page of the WSJ:
First, in an article entitled "Energy Watchdog Warns of Oil-Production Crunch," a good explanation of the shift at the IEA on the peak oil issue. For those who have access:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121139527250011387.html?mod=hps_us_whats...
Second, in an article about one of the first effects of Peak Oil: "American Cuts Flights, Adds Fees as Airlines Face Crisis."
Please excuse me now, while I go off to redeem all of my frequent flier milers.
I feel this article is the singlemost important article ever to have made it to a major MSM- institution ! It mentions the words "peak-oil"-theory ..... in a "traditional" manner, but one sunny day Peak Oil will become a reality ,IMO , without "" and theory attached
I agree, it's quite a milestone, just three years ago we were sharing the same spot with UFO research and Raëliens.
Of course most of the MSM still believes in UFO's , Unlimited Findable Oil (sources).
...and even though its got me down at times I'm glad to have been with you.
IMO this IEA revision and the Contango event are the most important bits of news I've heard for a while short of a 'Jimmy Carter' style emergency declaration (its coming!)
I've put my 2nd home on the market today and ramping up other PO 'preparedeness' activities. All around are dead men walking: airlines, truckers (Uk logistics friend told me today "1/3 of the Industry to go to the wall by Xmas"), etc etc.
Nicks PO Timeline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8745365@N04/2504887199/sizes/o/
Well it is starting to hurt now.
Read the comments...distress, anger, confusion, rebellion.
And its not even started yet....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021109/Motorists-warned-years-p...
Families face £650 rise in petrol and energy prices as oil breaks through the $135 barrier ... and air fares are going to rise too
By Ryan Kisiel
Last updated at 3:43 PM on 22nd May 2008
• Comments (47)
• Add to My Stories
Families were warned today that the latest dramatic spike in oil prices will cost them an extra £650 a year in petrol and energy bills.
The oil price soared again on international markets last night to exceed $135 a barrel for the first time. The $5 surge is the biggest since the start of the first Gulf War in 1990.
And don't forget the Daily Express (ignoring Princess Di for once) and their new campaign to cut UK taxes now, rather than when the price REALLY rises.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/45277/Stop-petrol-tax-robbery
Well.
At 17:10 BST , Chris Skrebowski was interviewed on Radio 4 re PO.
Snippets:
CS'we are at peak light sweet. This is the foothills of Peak oil .'
'when will final peak occur?'
CS'probably 2012-2013.'
pause...'2013?'
Listen again for that episode.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/news.shtml?radio4/pm
Not sure if it will work outside the UK, probably will.
Thanks for that
The oil price is now lead story on the BBC News website and number 2 on the BBC News channel. What with the bunch of stories turning up in various places it looks like an editor has finally decided to take it seriously.
Still have the non-explanations of the price though; equivalent to shrugging shoulders.
Its not rocket science people!
I'm fairly certain that Gordon Brown will face a vote of no confidence before the 2010 general election.
Ever since I can remember, the airlines have jumped from one crisis to another. The airline industry service model, which in any case was never very much good to begin with, is now falling apart.
What we'll end up with in a very few years is a system of corporate jet and (as someone mentioned yesterday) turboprop-based air taxis for the highest end business and leisure travelers.
Boeing and Airbus aren't both going to make it. 15 years from now there just isn't going to be room in the civilian market for two of them. Possibly not even for one of them. The combined A380 and Dreamliner fiascos are going to come to symbolize the end of an age.
Let's hope their future isn't in bombers, cruise missiles and surveillance aircraft.
I've seen postings on various threads which follow the pattern "let's nuke (city/country) and grab their oil". Air power can be used to deny oil to someone else - it can't be used to seize oil assets.
In the best of times, it is hard enough to keep flammible liquids and gases under high pressure from blowing up in refineries and pipelines. Start throwing bombs or missiles around, and there is likely to be nothing left to seize.
Of course, the fact that it is stupid, immoral, and counter-productive doesn't mean that someone won't try it(:
Not to mention that things like pipe-lines and refineries are easier to blow up than to build, or maybe even to guard. Case in point: as far as I know Iraq's oil production is still slightly lower than the pre-war levels.
Better yet, I hear this from the same people opposed to the Iraq invasion. I guess someone better clue them in to exactly why we chose Iraq and not Zimbabwe to spread "democracy".
We were very careful when we "liberated" Iraq not to cause uneeded damage to the oil infrastructure.
I wonder what kind of flows we will be looking at if they get a political solution in place and allow foreign companies to drill? Anybody have any idea what they can pump?
Depends whether they really have that 350 billion barrels they now claim. The chances of that are about 5%.
I think years ago they hit a peak of about 4 million barrels a day. If they really have about the same reserves as Kuwait and Iran, that would put them in the same ballpark, up from about 2.3 today.
During the sanction years, Saddam was woefully under investing, so the facilities need tremendous work. Seem unlikely to happen unless the political situation improves a lot more than now seems possible. If peace breaks out, I think they might get another 1.5 to 2 million barrels a day in 5 to 10 years. The neocons who went in there for oil apparently think you could take it up tp 6-8 million. (I have no expertise in the oil industry.)
I heard somewhere that during the period of sanctions, Saddam had all flow meters and gauges removed from pipelines and storage tanks so that inspectors couldn't detect when he was cheating on quotas.
During the eight years that Iraq was at war with Iran, I think that they both produced at as high a rate as they could to pay for weapons. AFIK, when wells are produced at too high a rate you get "channeling" in the reservoir leaving a lot of oil unavailable for future production (stranded oil).
I am very curious as to what the real potential of Iraq is after decades of mismanagement.
Case in point: as far as I know Iraq's oil production is still slightly lower than the pre-war levels.
WHICH 'war'? Iraq had its 'Hey you - go pick on your neighbor Iran' conflict. Then the 'We have no opinion on your claims that your neighbor is slant drilling oil you claim' conflict that has been ongoing for years.
Perhaps new lyrics are pending. Boeing and Airbus will be humming "Flight of the Concorde" instead of "Flight of the Condor".
Airbus and Concorde will be entries among other extinct winged creatures in future textbooks in addition to the Dodo and Passenger Pigeon.
My money's on Airbus.
Finances in Europe are in a healthier state to support it, and the availability of nuclear power should keep costs in check.
But Boeing's finances are "supplemented" by it's extensive defense contracting.
I can't see current defence expenditures in the States, or anything like them, remaining financeable for 15 years, or likely much beyond 2009 or 2012 at the outside.
They may use it in an oil grab, or loose it, but either way they will have gone within that time frame, is my guess.
I would agree. But I would also expect, given the expected geopolitical environment surrounding oil depletion, that the U.S. government will continue to see military expenditures as their single highest priority. Current yearly levels of military spending in the U.S. (especially if supplementals to fund the Iraq occupation are included) are just about the same as the entire rest of the world. And while the current absolute level is unsustainable, I would not be surprised if the relative level is maintained, even increased. That spending by itself should be enough to keep some of the larger contractors afloat, even if at smaller sizes.
Or perhaps we will see a merger of Airbus and Boeing, stranger things are likely to occur.
An associate of mine mentioned how the 'economies of scale' that has helped the airline industry won't be there in the future to help either. A world of hurt for the business model - plus the active efforts to make the experience of flying to be distasteful.
Then your money will likely be lost.
The 787-8 and 787-9 are almost ideal a/c to be selling post-Peak oil. At the small end of twin aisle a/c and 20+% more efficient than what is flying today.
International travel over water and the Eurasian land mass will shrink but not disappear post-Peak Oil, and what is left will be flying in smaller and the most fuel efficient a/c available (for long flights the 787 beats turboprops, the air (aerodynamic resistance) is thin up there).
Despite being backed by the treasuries of France, Germany, the UK and Spain, Airbus costs are largely in euros and pounds, Boeing costs in US $ (yen #2). Boeing sells a better product at a lower cost of production.
As for the 737/A32x replacements, Boeing has a substantial technological lead with the 787 vs. the planned A350. ATM, Boeing is waiting for a better, more fuel efficient engine before launching the 737 replacement. Shrinking the 787 to 737 size with current engines would save about 12%.
Best Hopes for Boeing,
Alan
You might be right, mine was very much a guess based on the state if US finances.
Any idea of how they are off for power supplies in Seattle?
BTW, I posted a question for you on a old DrumBeat, but it is probably lost in the wash now - I wonder if you could inform us at all on the likely implications of trying to switch freight to rail in Europe, as they have done a dire job on that as opposed to passenger transport.
It will have to take priority in any case, but any idea of how it will impact the passenger side of things here?
Thanks.
During WW II, the volume of passengers and freight more than tripled in the USA (from memory) and it was 98-99% rail (truck & bus was de-emphasized and cut back).
Some lessons might be learned from this. Priority was given to freight, then troop trains, then civilian trains.
All railroads operated as a single entity, operating on whatever tracks worked best/had spare capacity.
FedEx has approached SNCF about using TGV lines to carry special package trains, has not happened (yet). I could see most food shipments (fruit & veggies) going by HSR where available.
Switzerland is in the middle of a massive switch from truck to rail, and SBB is the best run railroad in the world (some in Japan rival it). Some lessons to be learned from them.
The EU does not have enough rolling stock to suddenly switch modes (see WW II in USA) but it could be built in 3 or so years (IMHO). Additional tracks to add capacity while building that rolling stock. Finish electrifying (adds +15% capacity).
The biggest issue for EU freight, is how does one impose good management ?
Not a coherent answer, but hopefully some useful bits.
Best Hopes for EU freight rail,
Alan
Very useful information. That sounds very do-able.
Eurocrats in spite of being startlingly obtuse and rigid have some formidable administrative capabilities to draw on once the political will is there.
I can easily see decisions being taken on a rapid schedule out to 2010 after initial shock and paralysis, and then perhaps your 3 years for transfer to rail and water.
To pick up on another comment on the same thread, France is actually installing 50,000 air source heat pumps per year, which are fine for their climate and far less expensive than ground source.
It is informative to compare that with how many they will need to install to really substantially impact the need for gas.
A medium sized European country like France has around 25million homes.
So they would need to expand their effort by perhaps 40 times to maybe 2million a year to convert on some useful schedule, and their plans for residential solar thermal of 5 million in a few years would have to multiply by a factor of 5.
Although this is challenging builders there are getting invaluable experience of installing the units, and the ramp up will be much easier than in the States, where solar heaters are essentially used for swimming pools.
Another technology that I have recently come across is the use of desiccants for a/c- apparently this uses a fraction of the power of traditional a/c:
http://www.nrel.gov/dtet/thermal_air_cond.html
NREL: Distributed Thermal Energy Technologies - Thermally Driven Air Conditioning
Early days for it, and immediately post peak probably not do-able anyway, but perhaps some hope for workers in inclement climates at a power consumption which may be affordable.
Anyway, thanks for the train info!
What about the mix of high/low speed traffic? All frieght or all passenger is easier to schedule than mixed speed traffic. The only solution that I have seen to high density mixed traffic is to have lots of rail sidings.
SBB (see best managed railroad in world) plans to operate up to 300 trains per day through their new dual track 58 km tunnel at varying speeds from 110 kph to 240 kph. Longest train 1.5 km long.
If any other RR made that claim, I would be incredulous.
Best Hopes for GREAT RR management,
Alan
I am interested. Where did you read that?
On the TransAlp website, in German from memory. They also talked about maintenance (vaguely remember shutting down for 48 hours every ten years), the new class 160 kph freight trains, etc.
Some heavy lobbying for the smaller tunnels along the Zurich-Milan route (10 and 18 km long ?).
If I remember, you are Swiss ?
Best Hopes,
Alan
Do you think we will see a new form of transport in the form of a rubbish train. You get free transit in return for sorting the rubbish the train collects on its rounds. Recyclable, compostable and landfill wastes are deposited at the appropriate locations. Took the inspiration from the postal trains, I think trains would be ideal locations for stand up comedy, preaching, sing-a-longs, live music or even a gym. Some of the carriages could have certain debate topics and encourage more human interaction. Food serving and preparation is also an obvious function. I guess the extra costs and less seats would make the economics stink, but would be a bit more interesting IMO.
I have not looked it up but I think they have just about the best hydro resources up there in Washington and BC of any place in the world. I think they send a lot of it down here to California. But when supplies get tight, can they redirect them locally? I doubt it since US states are not that autonomous. They could also build a lot of nuclear up there because they have great ocean and bay cooling water resources, although they have moderate earthquake hazards. With all the mountains near the coast, they probably have some pretty good wind sites as well. They are probably better set for local power than any other place in the US.
I think the biggest hydro infrastructure in North America is in Quebec. About 40GW installed capacity. 100% renewable power generation from hydro/wind.
Doesn't most of Quebec's Hydro power really come from the upper Churchill in Newfoundland and Labrador (under a really favorable, to Quebec, 75-year contract from the days of Joe Smallwood)?
Churchill is about 5.7GW. The "La Grande" complex on James Bay is a bit over twice that; the Manicouagan complex is maybe about the same as Churchill.
The power from Churchill would be counted as part of Hydro-Quebec's capacity, although it is not properly in Quebec (and the lease will expire in another 40? years). I should have included that info in the original post.
Here's a link to the Hydro-Quebec generating network (in English).
Hydro-Quebec
I said the best hydro resources, not installed generation. According to Wikipedia, the Grand Coulee Dam (6809 MW) is bigger than any in Quebec. But I was also thinking about what seems to me a lot of untapped potential from all that rain in those mountains up the Washington and BC coast. I will give you that Quebec currently probably has more installed generation.
Robert Bourassa (formerly LaGrande 2) is 5,616 MW and La Grande 2A is 2,106 MW for a total of 7,722 MW. The two are side by side, drawing from the same reservoir and discharging into the same river.
2A was an add-on in a multi-stage development. I could see where it might be easier to split water flows.
http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/hydroelectric/la_grande/index.html
Alan
Won't get nuke power in BC and Washington - both made it illegal. But that's o.k., they'll keep the lights on by sitting around the camp fire, holding hands and wishing real hard.
Working on the hydro developments up here in BC. Yes, there is huge potential in run of river systems. There is only one dam site under consideration of 900 MW and it is naturally running into all sorts of opposition because they need to flood family farms.
Run of river is pretty cool, but small and distributed, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The other drawback for RoR is the generation is lowest during the winter months just when you need it most.
Activists, (which is considered a bonafide occupation here - go figure), have drank the a little too much of the global warming kool-aid though. The problem is there is no rational discussion on anything and people reiterate these mantras without having an inkling of knowing what they are talking about. There is no dearth of eco-nazis around here, followed in a close second by the NIMBYites. As I've said before, we're going to object our way into the dark ages.
The other positive aspect of Wash-BC (Cascadia for the non-locals and Conch Republic members) is the moderate climates, abundant farm land and ocean access. This is a secret, so I expect discretion.
As for power in Seatle, you can look up the Resource Acquisition Plan on PSE's website. Look real hard at the forecasted new natural gas generation expected to come on line in 2010-2012, and ask yourself the pertinent questions "Where from?", and "How much?" The western U.S. could find itself in a real pinch in 5-10 years if BC doesn't get busy and build hydro generation and start becoming an net exporter again.
The State of Washington has 1,195 MW of wind on-line with 94 MW more coming. The State of Oregon has 888 MW on-line with 201 MW more under construction.
The State of Washington also has the WHOOPS 2 nuke (renamed Columbia I think).
I suppose that wind winter peaks in Cascadia ?
Alan
"Won't get nuke power in BC and Washington - both made it illegal. But that's o.k., they'll keep the lights on by sitting around the camp fire, holding hands and wishing real hard."
There already is nuclear power in Washington State: Hanford.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Generating_Station
I agree there's not a chance in hell of ever building one in BC though. I grew up in BC ... and nuclear power is *scaaaaaaaary* out there.
Yup, sorry. I should have said Washington has put a moratorium on nukes. Definitely not non carbon sequestered coal though.
Darren--
Remember WPPSS aka Whoops in WA?--
The biggest corp whore nuclear giveaway of all time.
Even the Bewildered Herd will not fall for that one more time.
The problem with hydro is that you destroy major habitat (that is why we have a fraction of the salmon historically), and is a finite resource (dams fill with sediment).
I', not totally against hydo if done right, it's just the people that hydo attracts are usually brain dead.
BC_EE, great post!
There are all kinds of obstacles to nuclear that I think will be swept away once people realize how dire the crisis is and how vital nuclear will become. In California, we have a moratorium until a waste depository is in operation. How quaint now that the direction is to reprocess the partially spent fuel and we really will not need a repository for quite a while because of the very small volume of the remaining unrecycled short half life true waste.
I take it "run of river" means harnessing runoff without a reservoir. I guess the valleys to those fiords are too steep to create long reservoirs. But the volume of water into those awesome mountains must release incredible amounts of energy. What an enormous untapped resource. You people must be appalled by a Californian like me lusting over it.
Trying to build more gas generation up there is crazy. I still think that your hydro will be scaled up 10 fold or so by 2050. I am not kidding about all the nuclear sites. All those Puget Sound channels could support hundreds of sites.
They will indulge all those wild eyed activists until there is a crunch. With the embarrassment of riches, it will take a while but that area has a very bright energy future.
A couple of comments:
1. Very arguable that Airbus has the better product. Boeing has neglected civil aviation market. Airbus has not.
2. Politically more feasible that Airbus better chance to sell into ME & China markets.
3. Eurasian travel will shrink - not sure that this computes at all.
4. The last routes to drop will be those NOT able to be serviced by train so it is the large haul airframes that will survive (ie A380). Boeing has conceded this to Airbus.
4. The last routes to drop will be those NOT able to be serviced by train so it is the large haul airframes that will survive (ie A380). Boeing has conceded this to Airbus
HUH !?
The 787-8 will have = fuel/seat-km, and the 787-9 slightly better fuel/seat-km to the A380-800 (assuming that Boeing does not do it's typical "exceed promises on fuel economy").
One can schedule one, two, three or four 787-8s or -9s (mix and match -8s and -9s if an airline has a mixed fleet) on a city-pair, depending upon seasonal demand. Or one (or zero) A380-800s.
The 787 will be more comfortable than the A380 and a choice of flight times is always better.
The A380-800 ONLY works on Hub to Hub traffic today. Hard to see where it would work post-Peak Oil (Frankfurt-Beijing ? Paris-Dubai ? London-NYC ?) but a 787-8 could fit in quite a few city-pairs (Los Angeles-Sydney, Chicago-Paris, Houston-Dubai, Rio-NYC, etc.) even with much reduced volumes.
Direct flights to destinations (or rail hubs, both Charles de Gaulle-Paris & Frankfort are high speed rail hubs) are more energy efficient than transfers at hubs. One take-off and landing is better than two to get from A to B.
Best Hopes for the 787 and 797,
Alan
The dreamliner is not even flying commercially so lets see what real efficiency numbers are. Also not sure what you mean "more comfortable" as set configurations are determined by airlines. I have seen some rather comfortable configurations for the A380 that the Dreamline cannot hope to match.
Not sure how you can be so sure about the A350 - its scheduled to launch in 2011 by which time I am sure that Airbus can exceed all of the 787 specifications just as completely as they have done in the past.
The 787 will have significantly higher cabin pressures and humidity than any a/c flying (no Al corrosion to worry about). Much of jet lag is prolonged hypoxia and dehydration and the 787 is the cure. Also larger windows (small +)
Airbus could not match Boeing tech, so the A350 is bolt on composite panels to an aluminum frame (last time I looked). No real reason to expect it to match the 787, so it was sized to compete more with the 777-200 than the 787 (the smaller A350 kind of straddles between the two).
Best Hopes for Boeing,
Alan
Boeing has supposedly been working on creating an 800-passenger flying wing aircraft
It's claimed that the "flying wing" is very fuel efficient.
It would be the first passenger flying wing ever built, but they have been around quite awhile for military use. The B-2 stealth bomber is the best-known and most recent example, but the YB-49 (from WW II days) demonstrated the technology.
Of course, the airlines (and perhaps Boeing too) might be bankrupt by the time this thing is ready to fly. Maybe we'd better go back to turboprops, or blimps.
If everyone Peak Oil aware here say, "Peak Oil Bugger OFF", perhaps this airplane will turn into matter... and fly the sky one day ...
Or what about an oil-exorcist, who will expel more oil out of the ground in a timely pace which please us.And when I'm at it, another who can put a needed amount of CO2 back in there .. we should try everything!
IIRC, one of the reasons that it (and a less extreme Airbus "twin fuselage" type design were dropped was because no-one could figure out a way to design in enough exits to get CAA / FAA certification, specifically the "number of people that can be evacuated in 90 seconds through only half the exits" part.
Some aircraft ended up being certified to carry fewer passengers than there was space for, because of this.
AKH
One thing to consider is that while the 787 may be a competitive design, its production process may not hold up to changing conditions. It is the ultimate globally sourced high tech product. Boeing has to transport big sections of it to their assembly facility by custom air freight. There's a good chance the 787 business model will collapse under hopeless efforts to contain parts acquisition and shipping cost increases.
There is a lot of air transport lifts and so on in Aerobus too, and for the fundamental reason that production has to be split between different stakeholder nations, and so is highly resistant to centralisation.
The wings, for instance, are made in Britain and air-lifted to Toulouse.
Maybe Brazil or China will eat both their lunches - I doubt it however, as the two giants have a big technological lead.
Another point not mentioned in this discussion (perhaps lower in thread) yet is the financial condition of the airlines and their bankers--Will either be solvent enough to buy either jet? Or as I advocate will they spend what capital they can raise on very fuel efficient turboprops and thus remain in business? Imagine yourself a banker approached by a consistent money-losing (as most are now) airline CEO in search of another loan for new aircraft. You clearly hold the reigns; so, what are you going to tell the airline CEO about the type of aircraft you'll allow him to purchase with your bank's money?
I would urge those following this discussion to look at AVIATION AND PEAK OIL Why the Conventional Wisdom is Wrong (PDF} slide presentation from last years ASPO-USA conference.
As an aside, I discovered these links to airline fuel costs, http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/price_analysis.htm
Current global average jet fuel price is $3.90/gal.
It's interesting to see how much the situation has changed for the airline industry since the date on that ASPO presentation (10/07). Jet fuel prices have inxcreased dramatically, demand for airline travel is falling and the supply is contracting. The canary isn't looking so healthy now.
So much air travel is completely unnecessary. And this includes a lot of business travel.
The whole reason the airline industry moved away from Turboprops and towards jets was because maintenance of jet engines is cheaper, easier, and needs to be done a lot less often resulting in huge cost savings.
I'm skeptical there would be any savings going back to turboprops.
Garth
Fuel is now the #1 expense for airlines, and rapidly taking-off, making labor a grounded #2.
As I suggest above, the problem must be looked at through a banker's, of CFO's, eyes.
For someone or group, I think there's a very potential business opportunity here to organize a highly competitive, because fuel efficient, airline. Feasibility could be tested through gaming. The greatest variable, as pointed out in the ASPO presentation, is customer base.
Sorry, but I have to point out that turbo props ARE jet engines - the added complexity of the gearbox & variable pitch prop are insignificant compared to the efficiency gain and the short-field performance.
The most advanced of the turbine engines (2005) now matches the fuel efficiency of the last piston radial engines (1965). Turboprops caught on for passengers as they were so much smoother than radials.
Reliability is a whole different story - there are many stories of large piston aircraft ditching on the Hawaii run, and I can only recall one jet having to ditch (while being hijacked!). But you'll still find people making money with radials 'cause they're cheap to feed!
http://www.buffaloairways.com/fleet.htm (I briefly worked here)
The future for the airline-industry will follow the Cuban model.
Counterfeit parts made in sheds just-like-that .... The Cubans now how to approach the challenge, they did it with their 1950s automobiles, you know. They are still coughing along !
Joke aside - actually there exists a counterfeit-market for modern airliners today.Mostly nuts and bolts, but with dire concequenses ....
Warren Buffet - He owns Netjets and Railroads. No more need be said.
Did you ever play "Monopoly" as a kid?
If you could manage to get all 4 railroads, you would always win the game. Also the cheapest properties (Mediterranean and Baltic) always turned out to be better investments in the long run than the most expensive (Park Place and the other purple one.) The worst of all, in my long experience, were the upscale mcmansions -- the green strip.
Ed Tennyson's first job out of college was to help electrify 10 miles of the Reading Railroad :-)
Best Hopes for More,
Alan
Man, I would love to play you in Monopoly. The RR's were nice, but the killer corner was the Oranges and Reds--once you controlled the middle class, and caught everyone coming out of jail rolling double threes, fours, and sixes-- you had the game. Plus, you had the two chances of forcing people either to advance to Illinois, or go back three spaces to New York. The rate of return from exploiting the middle class was truly breathtaking, once you got to three houses. The downscale side, with the dark purples and light blues, was never a killer, because people would land on these relatively cheap places just after pay day. Mediterrean and Baltic were LOUSY investments; the board was never configured to encourage many landings there. These are the properties most likely to be left unpurchased once the deed deck gets down to five or so.
The Dark Blues, Boardwalk and Park Place, are advantageous because they are easy to acquire (only two, as opposed to three, properties), and cheap to get to hotels, because they only took ten houses to get to hotel status. In other words, once you are in the true upper stratus of the wealthy, the game is yours-- all you need is one opponent to pull advance to Boardwalk after you have a hotel there, and the game is finished.
All you need to do, at least in a game with 7 people...land on Park Place your first trip around the board, then land on Commubnity Chest and draw "Advance to Boardwalk". Game effectively over.
I only did that once, but then, I only played with 7 people once.
Re: turboprops
I moved my office to Ferry St. in Newark almost a year ago. I am DIRECTLY under the north-south approach to EWR. Planes come in not 3000' overhead for the smaller ones and mebbe 2K for the Heavies. I notice a great increase in the number of large(slightly smaller than the smallest commercial jets, at a guess) twin engine turboprops coming in over the last eleven months or so. I would say maybe 5-6% of all approaches now, whereas you rarely saw them even a year ago.
Cheers
RC
P.S.--We are nowhere close to peak Whaleoil yet!!!
I also live near an airport, once the busiest in the nation and which is now solely a General Aviation operation, of late there has been a lot more activity made up of turbo props and small jets coming into the field, the airport is busier and it may not be able to handle the new traffic, there have been two crashes in the suburban locality in the last month or so.
RE: Turbo-props
That is interesting that you noticed that. I have been predicting for a while that the airline models will not fail (not right away) but will alter signifigantly. Turbo-props are far more efficient and require less maintenanace than jet acft. This will create a vacuum for both Boeing and Airbus (both of which are out of the turbo-prop business). The airlines will retire most of the older fleet and there will be enough late model jets for sale at wholesale bargains...why buy new?
Therefore airlines will take a several steps backward in order to survive. Overseas flights will remain viable on large haul jets even with high prices. There will just be a lot fewer of them and the cost will make first class a thing of the past. The airlines will charge first class passage for coach. Also forget about comfort and legroom. Grin and bear it! Of course the rich won't travel with us anymore. They will travel on a new type of hybrid like: Conspicuous Consumption Airlines. Slogan: "Travel with the stars and avoid the threat of SARS"
The thing going forward (that is truly frightening) is how will the U.S. Govt maintain a transportation department as large and wieldy as the FAA when they finally admit insolvency? Also remember that airports depend on maintenance from landing fees based on passenger load. With far fewer people traveling going forward the fees will be woefully inadequate.
Does anyone have any idea how we'll pay for airport maintenenace?
You are talking about the U.S. so the answer is easy - privatization!
Joking aside, I would not be surprised to see this happen as traffic declines. Air travel will become the preserve of the wealthy who will pay for the "security"* that privatization will provide.
*security = security from the not wealthy.
European airlines use turbo-prop commuters extensively for short haul domestic and international flights.
I've flown extensively on this:
on routes like Zurich/Vienna. Seats 50 or so people.
Looks like a Bombardier Dash 8-Q402. AFIK, Bombardier is one of the few surviving companies still making regional turboprops. Everyone else thought that jets were the wave of the future.
I think the one I've flown in most often is the shorter Q300.
I've got lots of hours in multiengine turboprops. They are more efficient than turbojet or turbofan engines. We regularly flew up to 35,000 feet. However, we were limited to a maximum air speed of about 480 mph, which is about the design maximum for turboprop engines.
A newer prop-based engine design, called a propfan, overcomes the speed limitation. It also can operate at higher altitudes and is 30% or so more fuel efficient than turbofans. A friend worked on one design and helped with flight tests of the engine on a DC-9 or MD-80 airframe (IIRC). The tests were successful but the project was killed for lack of interest.
For larger airlines, fuel savings were not enough to offset increased noise and vibration. Tests showed that both could be dampened to levels comparable to those in turbofan aircraft, but jet fuel prices at the time meant fuels cost savings compared unfavorably with the costs to achieve the dampening. Also, surveys showed the public perceived turbroprops (and probably propfans) as not being "modern."
While regional air travel could eventually migrate to turboprops and propfans, it would not do so quickly. Production of turboprops would take time to ramp up and their is no existing certified design for a propfan aircraft.
A 787 tech (all composite, all electric) a/c could be interesting with following specs.
5 abreast seating
75 or 80, 100 and 120 or 125 seat versions
Tail mounted propfan engines (DC-9 configuration) *cheap seats in the rear
Cruise speed 400 mph, ceiling 41,000', range 2,800 miles, ETOPS capable
Use where 737s and A320s are used today.
Just speculation,
Alan
Think it would be interesting to work up the operations and maintenance numbers for that design. With that cruise speed and ceiling, could hit 35% fuel saving over comparable turbofan model.
Big problem for now is no one is even close to ready to produce propfans. Suspect there are improvements that could be made over the last commercial size model test model that was produced in late 80's. But, design to testing to certification to production is 7 years or more. Might get 5 if the program was pushed.
Which speaks more to the increasing complexity that causes all sorts of unintended consequences that could not have been seen. We believe we we can see them all.
In my corporate financial policies class we did a case study on Boeing. Basically in a nutshell, they have to bet the farm everytime a totally new plane is produced. We were focused on when they came out with the jumo jet in the nineties. Capital INTENSE industry. Funny how the main competitor to them is quasi public owned. I think Brazil's Embraer will outperform both of them.
Re; The WSJ article on the IEA
Really the first time? This implies to me that up to now the IEA has essentially taken the word of oil exporters which we know/suspect for the most part - ahem - massage - their numbers.
What do you suspect "assess the condition" will/should include?
Pete
Gee, I wonder what might have triggered that...*cough*...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects
Live and learn.
It seems that they just discovered that oil is in fact extracted so that you get what you can and no what you want.
No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you find
You get what you need
"You Can't Always Get What You Want"
-The Rolling Stones (1969) from Let It Bleed
(perhaps a little trite, but on point nonetheless...)
Prof
I think you should have quoted the second version of the chorus
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need
Neven in NZ
Well right now I am feeling a more like this (though summer just started), which is basically the same . . err . . direction (lacking a better word):
Autumn Day
(Rainer Maria Rilke)
Lord: it is time. The summer was great.
Lay your shadows onto the sundials
and let loose the winds upon the fields.
Command the last fruits to be full,
give them yet two more southern days,
urge them to perfection, and chase
the last sweetness into the heavy wine.
Who now has no house, builds no more.
Who is now alone, will long remain so,
will stay awake, read, write long letters
and will wander restlessly here and there
in the avenues, when the leaves drift.
(trans. J. Mullen)
OT: Damn, I love those horns and the choir in the extended version so much . . .
Sad to say but this 'schoolboy error' is going to be the death of us...
It looks like it might be starting to dawn to some people that just because oil might be theoretically in the ground and people want it, that does not necessarilly mean that it is going to end up having been pumped and added to inventories. The investments simply have not been and are not being made.
"The investments simply have not been and are not being made."
I wonder about investments. It is my impression that there is plenty of liquidity in the oil business, and plenty of smart oil people. Maybe the problem is that there are no good investment opportunities, that is to say places where the gross geology data are favorable and the costs of development allow for a favorable payback. Maybe the people who are "in the know", realize that happy days are coming to an end.
I really don't know the oil industry. This is speculation that I hope will provoke comment from people who do know the industry.
Oil industry requires some forward visiblity on prices. Oil prices in the 70's were high and led to lots of new investment. Than in the 80's, prices crashed bankrupting the Soviet Union, oil shale projects in Utah, and lots of small companies in Alberta.
To make huge investments based on high-priced oil, people need to feel that there won't be another price crash. This time around, I don't think anybody is expecting a drastic price drop for a very long time (if ever).
Increasing costs plus declining EROI plus increasing risk premiums is not a good formula for encouraging commitments of investment capital.
Hence buybacks of shares - lack of investment opportunities.
That is also a problem with all the talk of giving up on growth - if investors can't see a profit, ie growth, they won't invest, so stability rapidly becomes decline.
From my perspective...I work in Permian...the constraint is not opportunities. My team will keep 2-3 rigs busy all year drilling 30-40 wells. Not a single well has an expected capital cost off over $30 a boe. The constraint is rigs, people, and equipment. Management could easily double our capital budget...but we couldn't spend it... at least not responsibly. In the short term, rigs engineers, and geologists are just as finite as the oil in the ground. There simply isn't an infrastructure in place to ramp up drilling to respond to these price signals. We are left with a situation where revenue has quadrupled or more, but rig counts and headcounts are only modestly up. You can't drill 4x the wells without 4x the staff and 4x the rigs...but that would take decades to build up. So companies buy back stock and increase dividends... it's the only responsible thing to do.
Just as a question, how long could you keep up that pace before you ran out of places to drill?
I don't know for sure... at least another few, possibly another decade. Way to many variables to plan drilling (onshore...US) more than a few years out. It does give me some hope that the other side of the peak will be a slower decline than many anticipate.
There were cases in the past year where service stations in Fort McMurray were running short of diesel because of a refinery fire. Fort McMurray is right in the middle of the oil sands surrounded by over a trillion barrels of oil "resource".
Oil in the ground is not the same as oil in the tank. Most people and politicians don't understand that.
Size of the tap not size of the tank
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/volusia/orl-express2208may22,0...
Boy there was a glowing report on ABC news last night about deepwater drilling in the Gulf. Also, they mentioned we use 9 million barrels of oil a day here in the US...I couldn't believe it. Maybe they meant 9 million imported barrels a day?
From the last EIA TWIP report:
Domestic Production (1) 5,093
Net Imports (Incl SPR) (2) 9,977
Crude Oil Input to Refineries 14,884
The import number is just crude and doesn't include finished products. The TWIP gives 12,124 as "Total Net Imports," but that number must add oil & finished products together as if a barrel of oil was the same as a barrel of kerosene. In any case, 9 million is too low.
The "Two Year" Rule
The Lower 48 peaked in 1970, but for the next two years production was basically flat, primarily because of the final Texas peak in 1972. In any case, at the end of 1972, the annual Lower 48 decline rate was only -0.8%/year (C+C), from 1970.
We have seen a similar C+C world decline rate at the end of 2007, -0.3%/year, from 2005. Of course, unlike the Lower 48 we have some unconventional crude oil sources now, e.g., the tar sands play in Canada.
Also, we have seen a couple of months of production higher than the May, 2005 peak, but the question is whether the 2008 annual rate will be above the 2005 annual rate. My bet is no. I suspect that 2008 is to the world as 1973 was to the Lower 48, i.e., the start of the more rapid portion of the production decline.
Of course, unlike the steady exponential production decline rate that we saw in the Lower 48, I expect world net oil exports to show an accelerating decline rate.
Hubbert's Cliff?
During testimony before the US Congress yesterday, Shell's John Hofmeister laid the blame for America's dependence on oil imports squarely on environmentalists, NIMBYs and the Congress. He made it clear that America was now reliant on imports for 60% of demand simply because so much of the US is off limits to drilling.
His accusation is ludicrous given that it has been decades since US supply could meet domestic demand. Anyone care to make a WAG as to what the potential for current and/or future US production might be if all environmental restrictions were removed and oil companies were allowed to explore/develop wherever/whatever they wanted to? Does anyone think we could come close to matching 1970 peak production of 9.5 Mbpd(not that that would meet current domestic demand)?
Copy of an email that I sent to some WSJ writers:
So perhaps the next time Congress parades the oil execs in front of committeee they should ask:
Assume you got unrestricted access to ANWAR, offshore Gulf Florida, continental shelf USA, etc...Over the next 5-10 years hwo much would that offset the decline in your existing USA based fields and how much would that reduce our dependance on foreign imports?
Tweak the Q, add a Q or 2, how acout a TOD email campaign to the committee members?
Pete
post some email addresses people...sounds like fun.
The senators that heard the testimony were the Judiciary committee, subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights:
Democratic Members
Herb Kohl, WI (Chair)
Patrick J. Leahy, VT
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., DE
Russell D. Feingold, WI
Charles E. Schumer, NY
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Republican Members
Orrin G. Hatch, UT (Ranking Member)
Arlen Specter, PA
Charles E. Grassley, IA
Sam Brownback, KS
Tom Coburn, OK
*edit* As you can tell the link here are to their web-forms. Some have individual e-mail addresses, some don't.
Looks like they also met 5/19 and again today (5/20) with House Judiciary Antitrust Panel
Not much press.
Looks to include:
Hon. Conyers Jr.
Chairman (D) Michigan, 14th
Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th
Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th
Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th
Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th
Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th
Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th
Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th
Hon. ChabotRanking Member
(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th
Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th
Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Smith
(R) Texas, 21st
I'll research if there is someway to email this committe - and the Senate Committee.
Pete
The item by Senator Nelson of Florida linked above really lays into the Little Oil's call for more drilling. Drumheads from Florida should send him kudos for his position and press him to join the Peaak Oil Caucus.
Your point about Texas and the North sea are exactly the right response, IMHO. :) Now if only someone would tell that to congress.
After reading about these comments made by the oil tycoons about the environmentalists and the report by the Bush administration I can't help but be reminded of the phrase, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Danny Yergin just crawled out from his Cornucopian hole in the ground and asserted that oil prices were high because of high drilling and production costs and because--drumroll please--a lack of access to drilling locations. Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of these guys.
I'm sure he is right. Drilling access is very difficult to get on Titan, and they are a bunch of commies anyway.
Don't need to drill on Titan. You just have to siphon off the lakes of hydrocarbons. :)
I hear this little factoid bandied about by mis-informed people.
"The US has trillions of barrels of recoverable oil, more than the kingdom of Saudi Arabia!"
No one ever fesses up about how much it will cost or how much energy and water it will take to get at it! It makes an excellent sound bite though :)
Hi, WT
A thought that I had about your ELM. The US is an oil exporter that has turned into a importer because of internal production decline coupled with internal consumption growth. What are the historical data on the rate of US export decline? I would expect it would confirm your model. Does it?
Actually, the US became a net importer long before we peaked in 1970. The EIA's net export/import data start in 1949, and they show the US as a net importer at that point, 21 years before we peaked. We probably became a net importer right after the end of the war. What has happened is that, until recently, our net imports have grown a pretty rapid clip, because of a combination of declining production and generally rising consumption. To keep our imports flat, our consumption has to drop at about the same rate that our domestic production declines.
This does illustrate the difference between net exports and a production peak. For the sake of argument, if we assume that the US were the sole source of crude oil for the world, and assume no other changes, world net oil exports would have ceased more than 20 years before world oil production peaked.
It's even worse now. In 1949 the US imported crude oil and exported gasoline, plastics, fertiliser, etc. Now we import crude oil, and gasoline, and plastics, and fertiliser. It's not good.
Turning methane into benzene in gas flares
http://www.physorg.com/news130592381.html
Still very much laboratory stage stuff though
Benzene is rather useful, but hardly a "safe" liquid.
Good science, bad reporting.
When I worked with benzene in a research lab, rules stated that we had to wear a facemask with activated charcoal (IIRC) filters.
More powerful fuel cells
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20813/page1/
Portable devices, not EV's for some time though
I wanted to take a minute and thank that staff of TOD as well as Stoneleigh up in Canada for providing a valuable service. Some comments yesterday led me to want to express my appreciation.
I know my opinions regarding what to do about Peak Oil are substantially different from others, but the premise of running out of useable oil sooner than later is one of the most enlightening things I've learned. It's really freed me up to go out and enjoy what I have. I don't put off things quite as much.
Anyway, this is a thank you letter. I would like to contribute a few bucks to support the site, but I don't see the links.
Thanks,
jt
I was thinking the same thing this morning.
I especially want to express my gratitude to Gail the actuary. You are a fantastic addition to TOD and I thank you for all your good work.
Wish there was more I could do to but if you are ever in these parts soup is on me, (I don’t mean literally ON me although I do seem to always get a little Tomato Crostini on myself when ever I wear a white shirt :-(
Cheers!
Gail is back from her trip, I believe, so she'll be around today. I'll pass it along though.
My thanks also. TOD is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale, stifling intellectual environment. Thanks so much to those who make it possible. It's a wake-up, a reality check and constant entertainment. Apparently the audience is growing -- yesterday there were 411 comments! I don't think I have ever seen such a high number before. What is TOD going to do when it becomes mass media??
*gulp* believe me, we've thought about it. we'll just do what we do, I guess... :)
I'd like to congratulate the TOD Staff on their impending super-stardom and respectfully offer the following advice:
1: Keep your noses clean
2: Don't leave the house without yer britches
And [ahem] don't skimp on the guest houses at your soon-to-be mighty estate: 'Xanagoose' ;)
Xanagoose, xa-na-goo-ooo-ooo-se, now we are here...in Xa...na...gooose....
awesome.
never going to happen.
I TOTALLY agree... I'd give money for the upkeep of this site...
Yo- Prof. Goose, et. al- Is there a plan to allow donations? Think of all the is coming out of your pockets. Or no... I see the paid ad to the left, and I assume that covers money for bandwidth, domain name registration, etc. OK, think of all the money the readers would give... Then, think of all the PAID ads you could buy on Google, etc. (OK, I googled Peak Oil and saw the oil drum there, so think of MORE paid ads, etc...)
Comments from TPTB of TOD?
There is indeed a 501c3 being formed behind the scenes called The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future. We expect to have 501c3 status soon. If you wish an address, email me at the eds box. theoildrum@gmail.
For all of my colleagues, thanks. I am surrounded by some pretty smart and competent people, and believe me, I realize it every day.
Yes, many thanks to the TOD staff, especially Leanan who plays the TOD drum with so much effort. I would also like to thank the entire community. What keeps bringing me back is seeing so much input from people with such dramatically different walks of life. Energy and energy-related issues are a crossroads. We all owe our very existence to energy: energy ties us together. And, with such a profound energy crisis unfolding, I see the reality of that fundamental common thread on The Oil Drum each and every day.
Thanks again.
-best,
Wolf
I don't post much because I learn a lot from the people that do post and I rarely have anything to add to take the discussion forward, however I read TOD and Automatic Earth every day.
I would just like to echo all the thanks and appreciations above for all the huge amount of effort and time spent by the Staff of TOD, of course especially Leanan. and to all the people who bring so many insights, expertise and varying viewpoint to the posts, making it an absolutely unmissable forum.
Long may it flourish
I whole heartedly agree. The only problem with TOD is that it is such a powerful distraction from my normal duties.
Many thanks to the contributors and to the members posting insightful comments.
No kidding! I have to remind myself I have a wife and kid and a job!
I kid, but... the changes are coming so fast and so furious I barely have time to just keep up. Blog? What blog?
Sheesh...
Cheers
TOD is the *best* energy site on the net. Congratulations to all the hard working staff.
I'll second that wholeheartedly.
however, as an old and successful activist, one thing to remember about activism: "fear success". Now that the entire world balances on a phase shift of epic proportions - the cusp of international hoarding - what's the plan? There's a plan, right? Because once the information is set free, one loses the ability to affect how it plays out.
"When in danger or in doubt;
run in circles,
scream and shout"
Excelsior!
Blog by Todd Benjamin, financial analyst of CNN, on 'Who is to blame for high oil prices?'
http://business.blogs.cnn.com/
I posted this comment - it has not been moderated yet:
What I find interesting in reading the other comments are the number of people who want to blame the messenger. There are lots of people out there who have no clue as to what is going on, and they think that the messenger just "gives producers ideas" about where they can set prices.
don't forget that 90% of people still think that oil is actually "produced" and no extracted. So when someone is saying "we can't extract more" they understand in fact "you don't want to extract more".
I hadn't heard that before, but it explains a lot. Guess I'll toss that on the pile of misunderstandings that need to be weeded out when talking to people.
Equally misleading for the slightly more informed that do realize oil is extracted from the ground, is they think it exists in big pools of liquid trapped in the earth. (Admittedly, I was under the same assumption before joining TOD audience).
The message should get out in broader awareness that oil is like a fluid within a pressurized sponge; and, the sponge is going to have varying levels of porosity and other geological features. People can readily understand that when you squeeze a sponge the most amount of water comes out first and then reduces to a trickle eventually. No matter how hard you squeeze the sponge, you are not going to get all the water out of it.
Good visual aid??
I thought I was the only one. Good to know there were others who were under this misconception.
Strictly speaking, that should probably be geometrically or exponentially. Technically, a logarithmic rise would be more like $100, $110, $112, ...
Not to nitpick, but just for future reference, I think you meant exponential growth. Logarithmic growth is much slower.
Shome terminological inexactitude, to be sure! - My 'O' level math was a long time ago!
Of course any steady exponential increase will eventually result in doublings (the Rule of 72), but my premise is that an accelerating net export decline rate is causing an accelerating rate of increase in oil prices, so the price trend is best expressed as:
$50, $100, $200, $400, $800 . . .
With the question being the time period between the doublings.
I hope I have not misstated your case too badly.
Perhaps you might consider posting there yourself to put the record straight?
Since part of a post that I previously did there was read out, and I referenced you there, I e-mailed you to that effect.
It seems possible that Todd Benjamin is familiar with your work.
No problem.
As we all know, we have definitely seen an inflection in prices. Note that monthly WTI crude spot prices first crossed $50 on a monthly basis in 10/04, and then crossed $100 on a monthly basis in 3/08, an annual rate of increase of 20%/year.
Assuming an average price of $125 in May, we have seen an annual rate of increase of 108%/year since March, 2008, which, at this rate, would produce a doubling about every 8 months.
In any case, I predict the ongoing pattern will be a drop in net oil exports, a price increase to balance supply & demand, and then a sharper net export decline rate, requiring a sharper price increase to balance supply & demand.
The time period between doublings should decrease in theory, correct? The last doubling (to $135) took less than a year.
TAPIS over $140.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/SavingOilSUM.pdf
Needs to be revisited, good deal of work already done on how to reasonably temper the demand side
TAPIS over $140.
Time for a new survey. Will the price hit $200/barrel before $114/barrel? Farfetched? With the market zoaring anything & everything is possible.
I am not a petrologist, geologist, and damn sure not an economist - I thought contango, backwardization, and other words were made up words from a Bush speech - so I got what are probably some lame ass questions.
What makes Tapis so expensive? Easier to refine? Higher gasoline yield?
Thanks!
Grade of oil and proximity to SE Asian refiners, IIRC.
Just a heads up if you had not noticed LIKE ME, but the DB pages are spilling over to two pages at some threshhold that looks like 300 total comments.
I saw it yesterday, but waited until today and noticed there were many "late" "new" posts on yesterday's DB page 1, but none on page 2. Searching for "new", with the browser, only works on the displayed page.
TOD getting more exposure - that's a good thing.
Pete
And doing that leads us back to your entry using that format every time, so you have neatly reduced it's usefulness.
It might be worthwhile investigating splitting the Peak Oil news tracking and the articles. Using something like Drigg for the news stories would reduce the parts to a more manageable size as well as reducing the stress on Leanan.
Slightly OT but I’ll bring it around to oil somehow.
I would recommend to all you DIYers out there to stock up on polyethylene as my source is telling me that prices are skyrocketing and some kinds are not available.
This stuff is fantastic for so many applications. It is self-lubricating, dielectric, workable with most standard woodworking tools.It can be heated and formed, and welded.
Comes in different densities for different applications;
LDPE – low density
HDPE – high
UHMW – ultra high (great for bearings)
Get grey for uv exposed applications
Get some;
Sheet goods 1/16” up to 1”
Rod – 1/4" up to what ever.
Tubing is very useful
You can get some very useful pieces from dumpster diving at plastics and jobshops (ask first as it is getting competitive out there).
Oh, right, and it’s made out of OIL so we all know what that means.
Polyethylene is not made from oil though. The main feedstock is natural gas. There's a big Hoechst Celanese plant in Houston that I toured because nearly all the artificial hips/knees/etc. are made with UHMWPE components.
Most of the medical polymers I have worked with are derived from natural gas feed-stocks, NOT oil. This is a common misperception. Price spikes in NG have really killed the resin suppliers locked into long term supply agreements. In a feedstock contango situation, lock in future prices NOW.
Odysseus -
Maybe things have changed over the last several decades, but if I recall correctly, ethylene monomer (C2H4), the raw material for polyethylene, is (or perhaps was) produced by the catalytic cracking of light oil refinery fractions such as naphtha and 'gas oil'. I may be wrong, but the last time I looked I don't recall natural gas being used to make ethylene. As natural gas is mainly methane (CH4), it would seem that one would need an additional carbon source to build up and rearrange the molecule to C2H4.
Anyway, it hardly matters much, because oil and natural gas are both rising in price and will make all hydrocarbon-based polymers more expensive. This should, however, improve the prospects for natural polymers, around which much research is being done.
It seems 2008 will be the year peak oil goes mainstream, having followed this for a few years I now feel I have an idea of what it's like to hear your child say it's first word.
I can only imagine how vindicated those who have been involved in this for many years or even decades feel now, or at least will feel in the coming months.
Vindicated? That feeling only lasts a little while, and then the pioneers are drowned in the onrush of the new paradigm-- in this case "Peak Oil"-- which, when it becomes mainstream will leave us all behind.
When your kids start to talk, it is very cute. But then they get older, and they never shut up and it becomes annoying. Then they start to think for themselves, and it gets scary. Finally, if you are lucky, and haven't managed to totally alienate them along the way, they grow up and you can really have a conversation. We are a long way from that in the Peak Oil conversation.
But I agree -- great progress is being made. I don't myself have much faith in TOD actually being able to lead the pack, however. Cerebral people don't make good politicians, and that is where this is headed now.
Never mind.
Don't get too excited, people have short memories and when oil crashes down to a "mere" $85-$95, sits there for a few months come september, things will be a rosy again and GM will can breath a sigh of relief that they don't have to subsidise $2.99 petrol for a while.............
Then up we go, up and up and up and suddenly the public will start to remember again!! Eventually we will not be able to forget!
Marco
Jim Newsome, CEO of the NYMEX was on CNBC this morning, commenting on what is driving oil prices, fundamentals or speculation? This is a good one folks, you should take a look.
A very important point Newsome brought up. He said Nigeria had a press release this morning saying that their oil production, in the next 3 to 5 years, would decrease by 30%. I searched News.Google for something on this but came up empty. At any rate he said that was part of what was driving the market today. Here is a link to the video:
Oil Crisis
Another interesting point he made: Only about 20 percent of open contracts are held by speculators and half of those contracts are short and half are long. So the speculators are not even pulling in the same direction.
Ron Patterson
We've discussed the issue of speculation before, and how it would be difficult for those who cannot take delivery to ultimately change the price much (also the relative volume between speculators and those who actually ship and receive oil). However, the only ones who would be in a position to store oil in large amounts would be the producers, who could simply leave it in the ground. I do not really think that is what is happening in the main, but do you think that producers may be trimming at the edges?
The "blame the speculators" meme is starting to get surreal: Blame Wall Street for $135 Oil on Wrong-Way Betting.
The article blames short selling speculators for oil going to $135/bbl. Yes, that's right. Those damn speculators were shorting oil, and now that oil has gone up, they have to buy oil to cover their short positions, and THAT is what is driving up oil.
Now, it is true yesterday's surge was, in part, a short-covering rally. But it does illustrate the point that speculators are on both sides of the bets. In fact, the higher oil goes, the more speculators will line up on the short side.
Or as Bart would say
If the high prices were all due to "speculators", one must wonder why the spot prices are all rather high. It seems to me rather off base to think that short covering on the NMEX WTI would bump up all those spot prices, although yesterday's blip in Omani crude was rather strange. Today's prices appear to have settled down a bit. (Click on "Crude oil spot prices" to see the latest quotes.)
E. Swanson
In yesterday's Denninger Market Ticker (and re-emphasized today), Denninger makes the connection between a $250b increase based on the commodity index to the purported $250b increase in "excess liquidity" injected into the system by Big Ben Bernanke.
The inference is that this $250b "additional" liquidity has made it's way into commodities.
I do not know if it's possible to evaluate how much of that might have made it's way into oil verus other commodities.
I suppose that could be an argument by some that is a cause for speculation in the (oil) future market.
However, Jim Newsome, NYMEX CEO, stated in an upstream referenced CNBC interview said that any speculation in NYMEX WTI was no more than 20% BUT equally balanced between long and short - thus nil effect.
It's a fundamental supply-demand issue.
Pete
It is definitely having an impact-many commentators on the Net have been going on about this for a while. I have commented before that Big Ben has been doing everything he can to help commodity investors.
I would agree that he has, but it is entirely an unintential effect. I apologize if that's what you meant, as my "tongue-in-cheek" indicator is in the gray area, and I can't decide exactly how you meant that statement.
High commodity prices are killing the Fed. They slow economic growth at the same time as the Fed is trying to goose the economy. They also limit the Fed's ability to lower interest rates to spur economic growth. Finally, commodities (especially oil, gold, & silver) provide an alternative to the US dollar. The last thing the High Priest of Fiat Currency wants is for anyone to have an alternative to his "print-on-demand" currency.
Yeah, he is really in a tough position-they can provide money to big banks and now big investment houses, but they have zero control over the cowboys. The theory was that benefits would "trickle down" through increased lending to the economy in general, but in reality they will do whatever they want to. Greenspun left him a job that is literally impossible.
The last thing the High Priest of Fiat Currency wants is for anyone to have an alternative to his "print-on-demand" currency.
via linkedin:
MONEY: Whether the patented, dual currency commerce model for new money should be adopted to produce sustainable economic development and prosperity?
Fellow LinkedIn member, Joel Hodroff, is a true visionary.
He has patented a new dual currency commerce model that suggests a "Yes" answer to the main question.
He has produced a brief video and PowerPoint presentation at the addresses listed below:
Video: [http://www.solutionstwincities.org/videos/dual_currency.htm#anchor]
PowerPoint: [http://www.dualcurrency.com/files/HealthBucks.pdf]
Denninger is a passionate guy, and he makes a lot of good points. However, he is a cornucopian, and he is completely blind to the supply side of oil. That makes him say dumb things sometimes. The liquidity the Fed is producing isn't going into the commodities markets. It is being used to keep banks and brokerages afloat. Dinninger is also guilty of the "US is the center of the world" fallacy. Fed operations aren't going to move the TAPIS, and certainly not push TAPIS up faster than Nymex.
Econ 101: supply & demand set prices. Unless you can influence either supply or demand, any effect you have on commodity prices will be localized and temporary. You can hold all the high priced oil futures "calls" you want, and no one is going to buy them from you if there is a glut of oil available on the spot market.
After all the bad press we have given here to economists for not understanding that where fundamental geological limits apply increased demand does not automatically call forth increased supply, I think we need to rally together with them now as the real illiterates in the legislatures etc are now starting to spew forth counter-productive measures, like windfall taxes on oil companies and reducing taxes on petrol.
Shargash: I haven't looked at the data in detail, but I do know that some beneficiaries of the Fed's socialism (Lehman Brothers as an exammple) have actually ramped up their recklessness-I haven't seen any evidence that overall the connected are becoming prudent.
The "blame the speculators" meme is starting to get surreal: Blame Wall Street for $135 Oil on Wrong-Way Betting.
Oh where are the 'Capitalism is good' defenders of 'the speculators'?
I heard a caller to C-Span's call in show "Washington Journal" call for a six-month freeze on all wages and prices today. Robert Mugabe would be proud.
I recommend that we all join in supporting this effort to repeal the laws of nature:
http://www.glossynews.com/artman/publish/laws-of-nature-repealed-1291.shtml
Methinks a better strategy than repealing theses laws would be to modify them.
Original: Causes must exist for all effects, and must come before the effects they produce.
Modified: Causes must exist for all effects, and these causes will be determined by the politicians who get paid by the groups that profit most by these effects.
As Bugs Bunny told us, "Thankfully, I never studied Law!"
"I recommend that we all join in supporting this effort to repeal the laws of nature:"
I would add to that the new tech they have developed that Renders "Blood from a Turnup".
I believe the Banksters are behind that one.
Oh, there's no need to worry about freezing wages. That was a done deal twenty or so years ago -- for us middle class slobs, anyway.
Now price freezes -- that's a good one. I'd like to see how a nation with the US' trade deficit would pull that one off.
Re: Only about 20 percent of open contracts are held by speculators and half of those contracts are short and half are long. So the speculators are not even pulling in the same direction.
Exactly, studies have shown that speculators are mostly trend followers, they don't lead price increase.
How was it that Congress forgot to have this man testify in its hearings yesterday? Having it said that speculators' positions effectively cancel out their influence on price is national headline news.
There was this, from last month:
Nigeria’s oil output could fall by a third, says report
Plenty of comments have been posted on the foolishness of ethanol subsidies. Rarely mentioned is the "splash and dash" trade-up to $1 credit for adding a little US biodiesel to a foreign tanker, then rushing off with full credit for the tanker. Also termed "U-boat" trade.
Marketplace ran a piece yesterday, but it's been under the radar for awhile, doling out the bucks.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0608/p02s01-usec.htm --Last year's story
"Finance panel set to close ‘splash and dash’ loophole"
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/finance-panel-set-to-close-splash-and...
Story from last year as they got tough.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/21/splash_dash/ --Yesterday's piece
Little wonder this boondoggle continues when it fails to generate a comment on the premier oil and its consequences website.
I guess a shredded constitution, debt and war overshadow this insanity.
Lots of mention of the phrase "peak oil" on BNN (The Business News Network) here in Canada. The Bank of Nova Scotia is forcasting higher prices based upon supply problems, specifically citing, among other things floundering mega-projects.
Haven't seen this posted. Have at it TAD, X !!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aj.h0coJSkpw&refer=e...
Thx whaleoil - This is an ethanol-fuel killer, since US Postal has unintentionally achieved a grand scale survey on the ethanol-subject.Their preliminary conclusion : may buy electric vehicles instead
Ethanol Vehicles for Post Office Burn More Gas, Get Fewer Miles
We must wake up to this now. Electric over bio N_O_W (!) rule of thumb "3-4 times" more milage per energy input. Kill the ICE today.
The important point is that the vehicles purchased had larger engines, which tend to give worse fuel economy. That they were mostly run on gasoline or E10 does not change that fact. The mileage rating given for the dual fuel 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV (33.8 miles per gallon for city-highway driving) is the result of an adjustment mandated by Congress, as I recall. This was done to provide a "credit" to the CAFE computation for each car the companies produced. There's no way that these vehicles could ever produce that mpg in real life driving.
E. Swanson
Haven't seen this posted. Have at it TAD, X !!!
Kdolliso will love this one. Of course since it was not in ethanol's favor, he will reject it. He prefers pro-ethanol mileage studies commissioned by the ethanol lobby.
Ugh, I hope you were defending me here robert? I'm not great fan of ethanol, so this was an unfair attack by Whaleoil, i'd attack back but it would get me banned or deleted cause i'm on the wrong side of the fence to make accusations. Anywho, I've always said I think the future of biofuels lies in the work of LS9, Virent, and the work done by Craig Venter, and Choren, recently discussed by Robert, not ethanol.
Sorry AD, I have no problem with your posts generally, just got carried away with a little teasin', that's all.
Ugh, I hope you were defending me here robert?
My comments weren't aimed at you. :-)
Cool cool, thanks guys. I'm a daily reader of your blog Robert, it always great stuff, everyone here should read it.
I think you got something on your nose there...
Oh, yeah, forgot about him!
Also note that this is not some academic study but real world usage on a reasonably large scale.
Oil The News All The Time
Jerome a Paris summarizes some recent headlines in the European Tribune.
Please somebody help me here. The IEA is saying that the world will see crude supplies increase by 25mb/day by 2015? Where does that number come from. I've heard Matt Simmons, Boone Pickens among others saying that the world's level of production 85mb/day is about it. Where are 25mb/day going to come from over the next seven years?
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects
With regards to the megaprojects list, apparently Canada's production is supposed to add 605,000bpd for the largest non-OPEC growth this year. Any takers on whether or not this might come to fruition?
I don't really know where to look, but presumably Canadian production schedules are considerably more transparent than others.
We are nearly to the middle of the year and the world has added less than 2 million barrels per day to all liquids while mega-projects predicts nearly 7 million barrels per day to be added in 2008. Further, world production has fallen over the last 2 months from its January/February highs, despite a near 30% increase in price.
They add in what the countries say they are going to do, and probably don't allow enough for depletion of existing fields.
Look at this as a top-end guess.
CNBC is carrying a special tonight at 8:00PM Eastern Time on "America's Oil Crisis". Will run in place of Fast Money. Should make an interesting show.
I wish they wouldn't call it a "crisis". Calling it a crisis is as misleading as when oil goes up a couple of bucks: the headline reads... "OIL SOARS". Or when it drops $2 "OIL PLUMMETS".
$2 = SOAR? Don't think so.
The special should be called: "Oil: What the Price Signal Means". And then they should explain the reservoir situations in the North Sea, Prudhoe Bay, Cantarell...
I don't have to watch this show to know that somebody's going to be singing "la-la-la-la" in front of a submersible in the Atlantic off the coast of Brazil.
Bet they don't show the waste water ponds in Alberta either.
;}
Until it's shown w/o commercials.
And that won't happen until we go non linear.
Yes, at $130+, $2 really is a pretty small move. A few years ago it represented a 5-10% jump/drop. Which makes me think the predictions of geometric increases are right on - it'll take larger $ moves to represent the same % move.
I think the original meaning of the word comes from Greek meaning 'turning point'. http://www.answers.com/topic/crisis
-In that respect this weeks IEA calculation turnaround and the Contango event probably back up the original meaning of 'crisis'...
Most people probably think it just means TSHTF though.
1: look at the rate of new posts on TOD! Amazing. Hate to think what the rate will be at $150 and $200 a barrel oil.
2: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10497.html
3: For Alan
http://www.apmex.com/Product/32692/Louisiana_Electric_Light_Company_Bond...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080521/ap_on_re_us/new_orleans_levees
4: http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx
(Oh goddie. More political spam a-comming with wankers who are going to deny reality. All for on-line "points" so you can show others in your self-selected tribe that you out-wank them. )
Anyone interested in my mule breeding program yet?
;}
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic31981-1995.html
"Message shortonoil
Fission
Joined: Dec 02, 2004 Posts: 2110 Location: VA USA
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: Re: Another Record ($135.04) Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Based on the energy model AvailableEnergy crude prices should peak this year at about $165. However, other above ground factors like hoarding, and the intentional reduction of production by some exporters could drive prices much higher.
Crude prices will continue to increase until world economic activity slows by about 3% per year. For the first few years the reduction will be closer to 5% in the US, as the US is almost twice as dependent on oil for an energy source as the rest of the industrialized world. The US will also lose some of its domestic production from its marginal wells that are now net energy losers.
It would be advisable for anyone to prepare for a future of significant declines in the general economy. DantesPeak could best advise us on what areas will be the most susceptible to this upcoming decline. Definitely do not trust economic advise coming from analysts that don’t have a firm understanding of PO."
Folks, just a reminder or two...
1. TOD is on twitter now with our RSS feed: http://twitter.com/theoildrum. If you are a tweeter, erm twitterer, erm, give us a follow.
2. If you have a blog, or are a member of a messageboard, or play at a link farm like metafilter or anything else, the more you plant links to our stuff, the more eyes it gets...it's that simple. Every little bit helps.
We're all doing this for free, and we really do need and appreciate your support. That and "doing good" is what keeps us all going.
Thanks muchly.
This is a new one to me...wind turbine syndrome
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/05/21/wind-farm-stirs-tro...
Don't worry, its covered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El2vVl5Figk
Haha, meanwhile in New Mexico...
Allergic to Wi-Fi?
EDIT: I'm sure this could actually be a medical condition, but I think the solution is for these folks to move to Amish country.
yea a freak of genetic mutation must of made their neuron's or something in their nervous system sensitive to the 2.4 ghz spectrum.
The news from the IEA means it's time for me to say goodbye. That was the final confirmation that amateur hour is fading as far as oil industry analysis is concerned. (Of course, The Oil Drum will have a long and fruitful afterlife, I'm sure, as a sustainability advocacy blog or as a forum to debate policy, looking at technical options etc.)
BTW...if I can be somewhat self-indulgent.... the pseudonym, "asebius", is from ancient Greek (slightly latinized). It means unholy, irreverent and sinful.
For the last two years Asebius1 has slandered the saints of the peak oil movement. He has been a scold, asshole, needler, vivisectionist, sadist and enfant terrible. But he has sliced and shitted in public with a purpose. Not because he didn't believe production will top out rather soon, but because useful analysis doesn't happen in a doom-cult atmosphere. And neither does it happen when we are in awe of our own abilities and unaware of the mind's projections or simply in the grip of some sort of quasi-theology.
It turns out, I think, that the "kill the messenger" phenomenon is a rational and useful response. Since our motivations for 'speaking the truth' are tangled in the extreme, we are luckily blessed with the instinct to cut through that jungle with a little violence. Folks, the Truth Teller is seldom innocent. You don't need to quite kill him, of course, but you might need to beat him within an inch of his life! :-)
All of this been highly rewarding and I am very grateful for TOD's forbearance. An asebius doesn't expect or need warm acceptance (vomit!) but he does need toleration. It's one of TOD's many strengths that it offered that to a rather difficult anti-social persona. May he/it rest in peace.
To the editors and all my interlocutors, "sincere thanks".
George C. T.
1 Asebius, George Asebius, G. Asebius, Asebius of Toronto
Success! You've done quite well at being an asshole needler.
As my oldest, bestest drinking buddy use ta' say:
DON'T LET THE SCREEN DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS ON THE WAY OUT!
I've been away from the internet for a couple of days so I don't know what treatment you're referring to (and am not going to try to look up); if it has been as harsh and unjustified as it sounds then I'm sorry it's led to you leaving. Of course, all the references to your possession of "truth" in your post above rub me up the wrong way, since I find the attitude that one is in possession of the truth to be a big impediment to finding things out, since by definition the truth can't be wrong so one stops looking at the evidence.
I too tend to find some of the bombast and complete certainty by posters here annoying at times, but also many people who are actually thinking and observing and making useful comments. I hope you'll return to making interesting observations (even if I argue with most of them) at some point.
I hope you didn't dislocate your shoulder while you were patting yourself on the back.
Critical comment can be made without being a first class jackass, of which you are.
I'll miss you George, every edifice needs its door man.
Here is a story about a goofy state representative in Michigan trying to buy votes with $100 gas cards:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/NEWS04/80522075...
I see stories like this and I fear that JHK and other are right - society will fight to maintain the status quo until it can't. The exurbs and super-commuters will be subsidized while the urbanites and zero commuters will be left to rot.
This little stunt occurred last week.
Gas Giveaway Clogs Las Vegas Roads
Here is a story about South Africa's recent deployment of troops to quell unrest after attacks that have left 42 dead and created 15,000 refugees:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7415177.stm
I wonder how this will affect South Africa's current plans to host the 2010 World Cup. I wonder if people of modest means will even be able to afford the airfare it will require to attend? Items like this make me think it unlikely.
South Africa seems unlikely to be able to build the stadiums and so on.
The Chinese Olympics will probably be the last successful major games on current scales.
SA and London seem likely to be disasters.
Maybe. SA stories today from my blog:
South Africa: Eskom warns of emergency load shedding
South Africa: Northam platinum may face 5-yr power shortage
South Africa: Eskom says might be forced to resume power cuts
South Africa: Eskom under pressure, may resume load-shedding
All three U.S. crude prices are down $3 or so on http://www.upstreamonline.com/market_data/?id=markets_oil. Does anyone know why? Everything else is stable or dramatically up.
Well natural gas is up a bit:
Nymex Gas Rises After Report of Smaller-Than-Expected U.S. Inventory Gain
And this quote from Mr. Rose about sums the whole issue up:
Thanks for that one.
``We've reached a point where people don't know if there's enough energy,''
``The fear of not having the stuff that makes the world go, whether it's natural gas, oil or coal, is driving this.''
There it is. That's the mental state I was waiting and looking for to occur in the traders, AND the general public.
Now we are waiting for the critical mass/100th monkey. When a collective "OMG" happens.
Then we will be prone to event changes like a school of fish changing direction all at once.
In the markets, volitity will be the name of the game.
Yesterday's run up was apparently caused by large institutions who had gone short on oil and who had to cover themselves when the front month contract expired yesterday.
I wonder about the fate of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics (aka the white-people Olympics if we are to be honest).
I imagine that they will still take place, but that revenues/attendance will fall FAR short of what they're hoping for.
I dunno, haven't put too much thought into it.
Funny you should mention this...I was actually thinking about the 2012 London Summer Olympics given the financial and energy situation there.
My daughter's boyfriend has bee asked several times to take a sabbatical from his current job to go help with soem infrasturcture development management related to the Games. What's the risk living in the UK for a few years!?
Pete
It's not a lot of fun managing an event where the funds will be drastically and regularly cut.
Budget deficits, balance of payments, house price overvaluation and just about every other indicator is worse than in the States.
Expect the first of a series of really savage cut-backs of all discretionary spending in this autumn or the New Year at the latest, as the position is quite unsustainable at anything remotely like current energy prices.
The dose will be repeated at regular intervals up to 2012.
If we are lucky, they may look a lot like 1948 :-)
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/...
From The Sunday Times
May 11, 2008
The Austerity Olympics: When the Games Came to London in 1948 by Janie Hampton
The Sunday Times review by Andrew Holgate
There was something heroically, almost cussedly amateurish about the London Olympics of 1948.
Run on a shoestring, put together with all the haphazardness of a Heath Robinson cartoon, the first post-war games should, by rights, have been a disaster. The country, still in the grip of rationing, could barely afford a tea party, let alone the exorbitant expense of a two-week sporting jamboree. There was no money for stadiums, no labour for building work, little housing for competitors, and barely enough food for residents, never mind the thousands of visitors expected to attend.
and for those here not familiar with Heath Robinson as mentioned above:
http://www.chrisbeetles.com/exhibitions/Heath-Robinson_2007/Heath-Robins...
Good night!
There's something exhilarating about amateurism in a non-critical activity during a crisis. It might be a celebration of survival.
Katrina hit New Orleans 6 months before the NBA All-Star Game was scheduled to be played in Houston. But not long after the hurricane, with refugees streaming into Houston, the players of the Houston Rockets and the many other players who live in the Houston area organized their own all-star Katrina charity game at the Toyota Center with an impressive, though fluid, lineup. It may have been better than the official game. I wish I had gotten to see it.
Hello Ptoemmes,
Suggested 2012 events:
A. Nuahtl Tlameme backpacking team relay: moving 50 lbs of grain 100 miles to urban center, then O-NPK humanure back out to rural farmland. No food or water allowed to participants. Time not important, neither is actually completing the loop: winning team is the group with fewest medical emergencies [dehydration, heatstroke, muscle cramps, etc] balanced against the highest price received for selling the grain the closest to the urban center.
B. Machete' moshpit: self-explanatory. Bonus points for best retooling of SUV metal into wicked shaped blades, fearsome weapon names, team uniform that best achieves stereotyping generalizations, and best tribal chant that achieves optimal cohesive scapegoating.
C. Team Permaculture Athletics: using sledgehammers, picks, and shovel [Nike-brand, of course!], teams compete to remove asphalt and reinforced concrete, then till the rock-hard dirt underneath to a soft consistency 12 inches deep.
D. Hyper-inflation wheelbarrow racing: can participants move mountains of cash fast enough to the composting pits that pricing equilibrium can be re-achieved?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
ptoemmes:
I would think anyone with a secure well paid job in London will have the best time possible.
The UK is a country of haves/have nots.
Basically London is where the banks are, so you will be mixing with Arab royals, Russian rich, gangsters, thieves and a lot of workaholic, stressed-out bunnies. He may get shot a few times. It will be a real experience for 4 years.
As others have said, the games may be a fiasco - but he will enjoy London.
Had you said he was going to be anywhere else in the UK [eg where I live]....well lets just say the rest of the UK will be sacrificed [as usually happens] for the Cockney Olympics
A couple of stories from North Texas.
Was chatting with a Carmax employee yesterday, while getting rid of a surplus Honda that my daughter was driving (daughter takes commuter rail to work). She (Carmax employee) described a truck that they just--reluctantly--bought. It was a fully tricked out 2006 Ford 350 Lariat, with all options, and a diesel engine. She estimated that the retail price in 2006 was probably on the order of $55,000. Carmax would only pay $13,000 for it. She said that diesels were hard to sell because of high diesel fuel prices.
If you were planning on attending a big country & western concert in the Dallas area featuring Tim McGraw, Pat Green and Carrie Underwood, you need to change your plans. Concert canceled due to poor ticket sales.
The second anecdote boggles my mind. Isn't there a huge audience for those artists in the Dallas area?
The only thing I can think of is that the canceled concert was being held in a large, fairly urban venue. This location and the high cost of gas might dissuade many concertgoers who would normally drive in from the exurbs in their giant SUVs and pickups. In my limited experience not a lot of dyed-in-the-wool country music fans live within city limits. Just not in their nature.
I know I'm stereotyping, but that was the first explanation I could form.
I wouldn't think money would be the main reason in that area. My mother-in-law lives in Fort Worth and that area is booming. I think, and this is my opinion, enormous funds are being widely distributed to the population from lease bonuses and royalty payments from the Barnett Shale.
One consequence of the 1974-75 recession after the OPEC Embargo was a major drop in attendance at rock concerts. Groups that regularly could fill an auditorium found they could no longer do so. IMHO, that killed a lot of creative music groups, as the record industry began to support only proven musical concepts. There's been some creative efforts in the country music world, although quite a lot of what I have heard lately is mindless junk with endlessly repeated phrases for those who have heads filled with concrete (or Oxy). I expect to see lots of similar turmoil as things progress, unless the shift from CD's to MP3 format provides an opening for the seriously creative as the record companies die out. I doubt the Nashville music world would be missed...
E. Swanson
I'm glad that oil's down today. I don't think that I could take any more $5 increases.
If it drops another dollar the MSM will be yelling about the collapse due to lack of demand, China imploding, you name it.
Yes...oil back to 130...crisis averted...stock markets up..woohoo...going to fillup on gas...party on!
Yep..same here. Just a break to catch our breath (the Peak Oil Fairy must have heard my plea). Volatility is the name of the game, but it's really just 2 steps forward and 1 step back from here on out.
Funny I was thinking the same thing, 2 steps forward 1 step back.
IEA worried over oil supply
The International Energy Agency is studying depletion rates at about 400 oil fields in its first-ever study of world oil supply, said chief economist Fatih Birol.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_bi_ge/iea_oil_supply;_ylt=Ajuz...
The irrationality of building a city below sea level (in a hurricane prone area) is mind-boggling. So is the insistence of maintaining this insanity in a energy-scarce world.
If New Orleans gets hit with a hurricane this season, perhaps the city should just be abandoned. Why should billions be wasted on rebuilding something that will just get knocked down again? It will eventually happen anyway; better to have semi-controlled exodus while there's still some oil left.
A leaky New Orleans levee alarms experts.
And NOAA predicts an above-normal '08 hurricane season.
I think your comments are quite offensive! The entire canal system there has been rebuilt. Im sure the little bit of water seepeage isnt a big deal, and on the whole our city is much better protected than it was pre-Katrina. Whether rebuilding a city below sea-level is smart I think is an ignorant way to phrase the situation here in Nola. Not all of the city is below sea level, in fact where I live in the warehouse district we are about 4 feet above! On another note, why do we rebuild San Francisco or Los Angeles with because they will have more earthquakes! Why rebuild any community in Florida or the Gulf Coast because of hurricanes. Why rebuild parts of New York City that were destroyed by terrorists two times! Why allow people to build in areas that are prone to ferest fires in Souther California or Arizona. Why do we allow people to continue building in areas of the west that are prone to massive droughts and have absolutely no access to fresh water. The construction of cities is much more complicated than a simple logistical issue. Many of the worlds great cities are and were built in areas that have disasters!
It isn't that we are against people rebuilding their homes, businesses, infrastructure... devastated by natural disasters. It's that we, as taxpayers, are averse to footing the bill for other people's ill-considered decisions. If you chose to live in a hurricane prone location at or below sea level, fine. Just don't expect people with more sense to bail you out when your homes are destroyed. The same goes for those who live along faults, in floodplains, or anywhere else likely to be whacked by nature. Clean up your own messes.
Including Bush's Iraq war boondoggle?
I am certainly averse to paying for that! I don't know why people are dragging that mess into a discussion about NOLA, though.
Maybe because implicit in all "New Orleans people make bad decisions" comments is the face that we saw of those refugees on the TV news: Black. Yet blacks are never credited for their intelligence in voting 90% against Bush or being heavily opposed to his war from the get-go. When Cheney justified his actions on the grounds that the American way of life is non-negotiable, I bet a lot more whites than blacks felt they were living that way of life and that it should be defended by violence. And the only way a lot of blacks could seize one of the foundations of that way of life, home ownership, was to buy homes in areas where more affluent white people wouldn't, like the 9th Ward.
NOLA seems to be such a popular whipping boy, while it should be remembered that our whole country is operating 'below sea level, with faltering Levees' ..
'Slimy Mudhole?! My HOME this is!'
- Jedi Master Yoda
I apologize and did not mean for them to be offensive.
But is the idea of abandoning New Orleans inherently offensive to New Orleanians? If it is, I guess the matter is closed to any sort of public discussion and/or debate.
Good questions. It's very possible that much of Florida will be underwater within a century. And places like Las Vegas most certainly will not be able to support their current population levels once Export-Land countries stop exporting oil.
The key question to ask is: 'Who is paying for these projects?'
If it is Californians paying for the rebuilding of California, then the discussion/debate is confined to California. If the rebuilding of New Orleans is significantly funded by the American taxpayer, then the discussion should be on the national level.
But is the idea of abandoning New Orleans inherently offensive to New Orleanians?
YES !!
In my life I have lived in Lexington and Georgetown, KY, Urbana IL, Auburn and Tuscaloosa AL, Morgantown WVa, Chapel Hill NC, Austin and Houston TX and Baton Rouge LA. And visited MANY other cities.
In none of these would I be very bothered, and certainly not offended, if there was a proposal to abandon them. I would not make any significant effort to save any of them, not even Austin.
New Orleans is PROFOUNDLY different !
I feel quite guilty diverting much of my time and energy to Peak Oil mitigation when I could be doing more for the recovery. I, and many others, are willing to spill our blood to save this city and unique culture.
I was going to respond again, but I was simply too tired to plow that ground once again.
If the USA wants the best human scale, livable urban form to live in post-Peak Oil, we have the template. Pre-Katrina we were tied with NYC for the fewest miles driven by residents. A VERY different solution with equal results.
To quote the lead singer of ZZ Top "All music is born in New Orleans".
New Orleans, with 6 of the 7 Class I Railroads and the world's busiest rail bridge is absolutely essential to our rail system.
etc. etc. etc.
If the USA abandons New Orleans, I will abandon the USA and stop all my efforts at Peak Oil Mitigation in this country.
Best Hopes for New Orleans,
Alan
New Orleans is PROFOUNDLY different !
And?
If the USA abandons New Orleans, I will abandon the USA and stop all my efforts at Peak Oil Mitigation in this country.
Hint: The Federal Government appears to have a different adjenda than the official printed one.
As the waters rise from global warming, New Orleans will be the 1st big city in the US to be called 'abandoned' due to the rising water VS the spots that get destroyed by storms and not rebuilt once the Fed coastal flood insurance goes away. Look towards the Alaskan natives that are having to move - and now imagine that once there is less excessive energy to spend moving people.
Ya might as well plan on moving NOW before nations close their borders. Or have such an awesome set of skills/pile of wealth that an exception can be made in your name.
And all I can say to others about this is "See?"
No rational discussion allowed. Purely emotional kneejerk response.
I like you, Alan, but your response about NOLA shows a serious weakness.
NOLA shows a serious weakness
New Orleans is my strength.
If I still lived in Austin, I would do NONE, ZERO of what I now do. I would be preparing my hidey hole if I was Peak Oil aware, and concentrating on saving #1's hide. And if I am forced to leave New Orleans, may the devil take the hindmost.
New Orleans has changed me for the better. Anything you like about me and my efforts is due to New Orleans, it is a package deal.
Best Hopes for New Orleans,
Alan
(observation)
If one looks at human beings as a set of conversations that direct their actions (not the only way to look at them, but useful), it's interesting to note the possible sets of conversations that are all formulations of "identity." Looking from here, Alan has adopted a set of conversations that relate to New Orleans to such a strong degree that he now considers it his identity. It's not "his true self" (does that exist?) and he could let those conversations go in an instant, if he wanted to.
One could say that possibility lives in the absence of constraints one places on oneself, and conversations ("identities") that one holds as immutable will kill what's possible.
This is not a pedantic assertion: our ability to have people create new futures for themselves so that we can deal with what is happening with Energy Descent depends in large part on people's ability to let go of the future they thought they had, and any possible anger that may arise as they confront that. Only then will there be the space to create something new.
My apologies to use you, Alan, for pointing this out. I am currently attached to working on peak oil, and no doubt some of that is feeding my ego, which is another way of saying "identity."
-André
New Orleans has freed up my identity, not imposed one.
A few years ago, a friend pointed out that New Orleans was the only city/place that did not impose social expectations. As the famous New Orleans song says "Be Who You Wanna Be".
At one level (Reptilian brain ?) New Orleans food is a delight. Open and free 24 hour access to alcohol if I was so inclined.
At another (Mammalian brain ?) the music is a delight.
At yet another (Primate brain ?) New Orleans society is a delight.
And I am free to find myself within this context, and I quite frankly very much like what I find.
My Peak Oil efforts (one early example below) are a direct result of this liberation/discovery.
And I am VERY far from the only one. Why do you think this very small, poor city has generated so much music and literature ?
"The Big Easy" is descriptive on many levels.
I do *NOT* expect others to understand this.
I COULD take this understanding and growth elsewhere and exercise it there BUT I CHOSE NOT TO !
It is not a requirement that I live in New Orleans in order to do what I do, it is a choice. And because it is a free choice, I will defend it till my death.
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&It...
For the Love of A City, and a way of being, I Hope,
Alan
I understand that this new identity can be liberating. This will happen when the new identity allows new avenues for self-expression that were closed to the person or the person may not have even been aware were possible.
Nonetheless, an identity is still fundamentally a constraint because it draws a line around what is proscribed within the identity. This necessarily means that actions, food, clothing that is not the identity is valued less, or in some cases not at all.
Before I say the next piece, I am going to point out that I believe that I am pointing to human phenomena. They apply equally to me as they do Alan. I am merely using this conversation with Alan to highlight some things (the "teachable moment" as it were).
This is a common conversation for humans. It is what nails their foot to floor and makes it very difficult to generate new possibilities when someone's attachment has gotten to this point. It takes all kinds of different forms. Unions will say "The seniority system is something we have chosen and we will make this company go bankrupt before we give that up!" Management might say, " There is no way we are even going to entertain the idea of paying you more than the industry average, so take that off the table or we walk away."
Bush might say, "There are some preconditions before I even sit down with someone like _____. Unless they meet my demands for x, I will not 'cave in' and even talk to them."
It's easy to see the prevalence of this line of thinking for humans. It is one of the first conversations that must be distinguished and dismantled by mediators before progress can be made in negotiation or creation conversations, whether it is between spouses or companies or countries.
Alan, you are of course welcome to keep saying that you are your conversation that you speak about New Orleans. There's nothing bad or wrong about it. You picked up the conversation at some point in your life and now you are saying that you are going to speak only that. But even the conversation that you're only going to speak that conversation is itself something that you picked up along the way.
When we arrive on the planet, we are born into conversations that are already being spoken, usually in whatever language is prevalent where we live. Some conversations are very short ("it's not fair") some or more involved ("here is how you build a nuclear reactor"). Some have very long lives ("war will solve this") and some very short ("women should wear pink this spring").
But they are all conversations that are spoken in the network of human conversations. The mistake we make (I assert) is thinking that just because we are speaking a conversation means that it is "the truth" or even "the truth for us." We are (among other things) machines that pick up conversations. We can, with practice, drop them too. We tend to have less facility for that, though.
The more interesting question to me is this: what becomes possible that is now not possible while a particular conversation is locked in place?
In that space lies all possibility.
-André
what becomes possible that is now not possible while a particular conversation is locked in place?
In that space lies all possibility.
Logically not so.
We have a quite limited time on this earth, and we can be in only one place at a time (excepting internet delusions, dreams etc.)
I have a significantly broader range of possibilities in New Orleans than any other place I have lived in or visited or even heard about.
Any movement out of New Orleans would severely circumscribe my possibilities (based upon reasonable judgment and experience).
As I said, I do *NOT* expect you to understand, and I do not think that you do.
Best Hopes for the Deeper Truth,
Alan
In 1928, Congress made the prevention of flooding in New Orleans (and St. Louis I believe) the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers. That commitment was reinforced and strengthened in 1968.
The US Army, through malfeasance and incompetence, failed miserably with grossly deficient structures (whose deficiencies they knew and had been covered up, in one significant case building the levee too short to save money and embarrassment).
We are the victims of malfeasance by the US Army, much more than Hurricane Katrina.
Also
Unlike every other coastal city, New Orleans can be saved quite easily. Massive amount of silt come down the Mississippi River. One pilot project to divert river water into the marshes has been quite successful, and the highest priority of the Louisiana Congressional & Senators was to fund more such projects pre-K. We just got some money from the next scheduled oil leases (LA gets 0% from offshore federal oil leases, on-shore oil leases on federal lands give 1/2 the money to the states) before Katrina.
It is quite easy to protect the city from rising waters by using diverted river water to build up the marshland around New Orleans.
Alan
The entire canal system there has been rebuilt.
And Fed. tax dollars should go for that? There is a multi-front conflict going on that needs funding! The Iraq/Afagan thing. The War on Drugs. The War on poverty. The War on Cancer.
Whether rebuilding a city below sea-level is smart I think is an ignorant way to phrase the situation here in Nola.
Strikes me you have an emotional investment. Perhaps the way to look at this is:
80% of the population lives on coasts. As water levels rise, that will have to be left behind to the rising salt waters. Best to line up now from the feds and get what handouts you can NOW before the fed has no money left.
On another note, why do we rebuild San Francisco or Los Angeles with because they will have more earthquakes! Why rebuild any community in Florida or the Gulf Coast because of hurricanes. Why rebuild parts of New York City that were destroyed by terrorists two times!
Reduce the surplus population! Let 'em die, right?
Many of the worlds great cities are and were built in areas that have disasters!
And many have become ruins that others come to see now. Why not NO-LA?
I live in Minneapolis, up toward the headwaters of the Mississippi.
New Orleans is critical to our economy up here, as it is to the entire Mississippi/Missouri River basins.
Saving what we have at the other end of the river is a good deal cheaper than rebuilding for a good long while.
So, besides Alan's cultural argument, you are wrong from an economic perspective as well.
http://www.portno.com/
BTW, I live a mile from you (St. Andrew in Lower Garden District). My eMail address is in my profile. Perhaps we should meet for lunch ?
Best Hopes for NOLA,
Alan
There is something to be said for insanity.
Holland, for instance.
What is more insane? Spending billions on a misadventure in Iraq, or using those billions to build a suitable levee system in Louisiana? With a Netherlands-style levee system, it wouldn't get knocked down again.
The levees are the problem, not a viable solution. Mark Twain wrote long ago about the foolishness of attempting to regulate the Mississippi. It was nothing but plain human hubristic stupidity to channelize the river, build levees & develop the floodplain. The river needs to periodically innundate its floodplain, restoring the natural fertility of the soil. By preventing it from doing so, the topsoil resource is depleted & ag must rely on fertilizer inputs. Today, millions of people live on the floodplain. Cities & powerplants & industry are located there. The river wins in the end. Without diesel to power the bulldozers & earthmovers & dredges the levees can't be maintained. The 1993 flood & Katrina in 2005 were just warning shots across the bow.
Breathing is probably hubristic as well.
I plan to keep going as long as I can.
Yep.
And climate change probably means more hurricane activity, not less. What happens when the next category 4 or 5 slams into New Orleans? In 20 years, the U.S. government will have but a fraction of current liquid fuels at its disposal - most of which will be used abroad in resource wars.
Millions of people suffered in the aftermath of Katrina. Many continue to suffer. But it would have been unimaginably worse without reliable access to cheap fossil fuels.
What came first New Orleans - or the levees !
(the low areas of NO, today protected by levees, that is)
Many areas of New Orleans were in existence before the construction of levees. The homes were built to withstand moderate flooding in the lower areas. Two things should be noted: our levees failed because of government negligence. Spending our money on countless other items like war no doubt contributed. Second: New Orleans was made vulnerable by the oil companies and their dredging canals through the marshes and wetlands. This caused saltwater intrusion that eventually led to storm surges coming much closer to the metro area then it use to. All so the rest of the nation can have access to cheap natural gas and oil! Not to mention the Strategic Petroleum Reserve! Maybe we should stop sending the rest of the country our oil and gas if you think we are so unimportant!
What led to the deterioration of the delta was channelization, which caused sediments to be deposited in deep water instead of them renewing the delta. Dredging of channels no doubt contributed, as you say, but it wasn't the major mismanagement issue that has made life in NOLA inviable. The Aswan High Dam has ruined the Nile, just as the Mississippi has been ruined.
our levees failed because of government negligence.
So - how's the punishment of the negligence coming along?
New Orleans was made vulnerable by the oil companies and their dredging canals through the marshes and wetlands.
If provable - you could make some law firm rich in a class action.
All so the rest of the nation can have access to cheap natural gas and oil!
And that provided NO benefits to the state or the city - right?
Maybe we should stop sending the rest of the country our oil and gas if you think we are so unimportant!
Ok. Do that.
I joined a class action suit. All but one part was thrown out on sovereign immunity.
Alan
The geography of North America's riverine system came first. Next came one of human culture's main components--Commerce. Combined, the two dictated a settlement near the mouth of the Mississippi river. New Orleans exists for the same reasons all the other major port cities of the world exist at their locations, some for millenia. Please note how the two reasons for NOLA's existence will continue regardless the number of hurricanes that assault the region.
Disagree. The river wants to move west, and eventually, it will. No river, no port.
This is no longer true.
Since the 1930s, roughly 30% of the flow of the Mississippi River has been diverted by the "Old River" structure/complex down the Atchafalaya Basin.
A 280 MW hydroelectric plant was added there about 20 years ago, which extracted what had been scouring energy.
The Atchafalaya Basin is 20+ miles wide and it floods every spring across the entire width, and usually has a few inches of water most of the year. The Atchafalaya delta has been the only growing part of the Louisiana coast.
As a consequence of all the silt deposited for over 7 decades, and the enlarged delta, the Mississippi River no longer "wants" to go done the Atchafalaya. The natural/low energy path is again down the Mississippi River by New Orleans.
Alan
PS: I have gone canoeing in the Atchafalaya when there was, perhaps, two feet of water in most of it (we did run aground several times, and there were semi-dry hummocks). The water had clearly lost most of it's sediment (and we were only halfway down from Old River to the Gulf).
It was like going through a quiet forest with a green flat floor.
New River Spot, New city. Best hopes for New New Orleans.
Leanan, I think Karlof1 meant that the River Delta where it hits the gulf is a natural site for a port/city.
New Orleans has happened to sit in the same spot for a good number of years. Karlo1 I think meant that a port/city would basically spring up somewhere near the joining of the river to the gulf because for commerce, that's where it needs to be.
Respectfully
jc
thanks all for updating me on NO and the levees :-) Mississippi river is mastered as I understand it , for now.
One overlooked aspect of the 17th Street and other "interior" levees is that the Corps has erected temporary "gates" at their entrances.
Surge will be prevented from entering the canals, and a repeat of the Katrina failure mode, but we will not be able to pump out our rainwater, and hurricanes can bring 20 to 30 inches of rain.
The Corps has installed some pumps to send the rainwater out the canals, but far less than what the city can pump into the canals.
Just prior to Katrina, New Orleans finished a $400 million upgrade in our rainwater pumping ability (unlike the levees, a local responsibility) that raised from 20" to 24" of rainfall in 24 hours that we could handle with only minor street flooding.
With the Corps gates closed, that figure is now about 12" :-(
Alan
Thx Alan. Obviously if NO was virgin land today, and with all info on that area collected over the last few centuries, there would have been no NO buildt .... not in the midle of the delta itself, at least. I reckon there are places east/west of the delta better suited for a major city.But then again, that scenario belongs to virtual reality. Reality is here and now - always
Best hopes for NO :-)
Why the oil price means bubble trouble
Warning! First-time poster and HTML tag user. Apologies if the above is indecipherable/already posted/both of the above.
IMVHO, it's not a great article, but the matter-of-factness with which it mentions PO is quite striking.
P.S. Since discovering PO about 6 months ago TOD has become one of my main sources of information. Thanks to all the staff and contributors for the amazing work you do here: it's much appreciated!
Best hopes for TOD as PO becomes more 'respectable'. ;)
Another "blame the speculators" item. As was pointed out above by the director of NYMEX himself, traders hold @20% of all contracts and are evenly split long/short thus causing no effect on price in general. There may have been some short covering that caused the spike, but that doesn't account for the overall upward trend.
BTW, your tags work/look fine, and welcome to the discussion.
Violinist, Welcome.
6 mos ago, Peak Oil...
FWIW, Careful of the changes of mental states, as different levels of learning/internalizing occur. The ramifications of the changes in previous held ideas, dreams, plans, paradigms can take calander time to adjust to. In addition, relationships with loved ones and others may go thru changes depending on your set and setting.
Having found out 7-8 years ago, the problem then was nobody would believe you on predictions 5-10 years out. And info and sites were rare. (FromTheWilderness.com, DieOff.com, etc)
BUT those who found out back then had the luxury of going thru the mental changes in plans and most especially, EXPECTATIONS of the future while at the same time having a world that was still supportive of the old paradigms way of life.
Everything still looked normal out.
Anyways,
Good luck and welcome to our reality.
jc
Hello TODers,
I posted this at the bottom of yesterday's extremely long Drumbeat, but I feel it is important enough that another posting today to give my fellow TODers another heads-up is justified:
http://www.weeklyblitz.net/index.php?id=171
-----------------------------------------
Bangladesh: Acute fertilizer crisis ahead
Agriculture sector in Bangladesh is going to face severe fertilizer crisis in the coming months, which may seriously hamper food agro-production...Bangladeshi farmers may be forced to buy fertilizers at almost ten times compared to present market price.
...Experts feel that, if Bangladesh will fail to resolve this issue, the upcoming cultivation of various agro-products in the country will ultimately face severe obstacles, thus leaving the country to a potential femine for years which may start in less than one year.
-----------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I have not had time to read all comments lately so here is a National Geographic on "Tapped Out". 2004 future by Sadad I. Al Husseini.
If it was already discussed sorry.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/06/world-oil/roberts-text
Hello TODers,
IMO, if KSA can pull this off: they could be the dominant lowest-price controller of many key industrial and agricultural inputs going postPeak forward:
http://www.ameinfo.com/157847.html
-----------------------------------
Saudi profits from mineral wealth rush
-----------------------------------
I imagine you realize this, Bob, but if all of that energy-intensive mining development, particularly the aluminum smelter and phosphate plant, ever came to pass, then ELM could run amok (i.e., they would be exporting metal and fertilizer in place of "our" transport fuels). I question, however, the economic wisdom of using extremely high priced (for the forseeable future) fossil fuels for such ventures as the aluminum smelter. Traditionally, aluminum smelters have been built near inexpensive sources of e.g., hydroelectic power. So the "lowest price" may depend on an artificially low price set for domestic FFs (vs. selling those FFs abroad for a very high price and then importing any needed aluminum cheaply). Remember, the aluminum price is closely related to the electricity price (why that's one metal you definitely want to recycle), whereas the ore is practically free by comparison. You can't simply make aluminum with oil or NG - you have to waste most of that energy running an inefficient electric generator. Cheap solar electric power, if it ever happens, might change the aluminum picture.
I note also that most mineral deposits, unlike petroleum, are recovered at or very close to the surface, and so are relatively simple to explore for, especially in desert terrains. IIRC, the US Geological Survey has thoroughly explored the KSA for minerals, under various cooperative agreements, and so the mineral potential is relatively well known, contrary to what is implied in that article. FF's and capital might not be a significant constraint on mine development in the KSA, but such factors as a well trained and motivated workforce and abundant water for mineral processing might well be. Home-grown mining might therefore be nearly as unfavorable in the KSA as home-grown agriculture has proven to be. When the oil runs low, will the KSA, like many an African country, support themselved by exporting cheap metals and minerals instead? Somehow I doubt it, but I'm merely speculating (no inside information).
Hello Metalman,
Thxs for responding with your usual excellent input. Yep, it is a complex analysis beyond my ability, but I agree: it could have important ELM ramifications if KSA moves to extensive vertical integration to reap a greater profit percentage of the value-added supply chain.
Hello TODers,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/todaysfoodcrisisisntablip;_ylt=AqVATCyn...
------------------------------
Today's food crisis isn't a blip
By Paul E. Roberts
For anyone wondering where food prices are really headed, the news that Beijing has begun buying up farmland in Africa and South America offers a troubling hint...
----------------------------------
Have you hugged your bag of NPK today?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
actually, today I bought 20 fifty-lb bags of 10-20-20 to stick in the backyard to keep my tropical fruit trees happy. when it's delivered next week, my wife and I will BOTH hug our NPK bags in your honor.
cheers
PS: the price increased in the 15 minutes between our first and second calls to them... by 12%. They honored the first price, after my wife flirted with them.
Hello Greenish,
Good for you & your spouse--Kudos!
BTW, there are lots of other NPK pricing increase horror stories on Google. Shortages, thievery, broken contracts, supposed shipping delays, counterfeit NPK, market rigging, govt. hearings...and so on. It is getting to be a big problem [with rising anger], and I would imagine the same is probably occurring in pesticides & herbicides, too.
Hello TODers,
CFR's latest on AFRICOM. Recall my prior postings that extensively discuss my feeble 'geo-strategery'.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16330/africom_seeks_militarytomilitary_re...
-------------------------
Africom Seeks Military-to-Military Relationships
------------------------
Analysis of the Chinese thrust into Africa:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200805210194.html
---------------------
Africa: Keen On Business, China is Yet to Flex Her Military Muscle
In spite of her thirst for African oil and hunger for Africa's emerging markets, China has not matched her economic forays in the continent with a military presence even as the USA tries to establish its African Command, writes policy analyst Patrick Mutahi.
...According to the US Defense Department Annual report released in May 2007, China is modernising its military in ways that give it options for launching surprise attacks on targets far from its borders....
----------------------
And just like a precision ticking clockwork, The US State Dept:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/may/105143.htm
---------------------------------
Morocco Endorses the Proliferation Security Initiative
-------------------------------
http://www.afrol.com/articles/29012
-------------------------------------
Morocco "planning military attack on Sahara"
-------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Now the IEA are going to present a new report in November, reassessing potential future world oil production. Now numbers are things I have always had a hard time to put 2 and 2 together with. I just want to wish Faithful Biro all the best in coming up with a dream that will still be a beautiful dream and keep us all on trucking. 100 million in 2030 is a fantasy like Scarlett Johansson, not quite 116 million like Angelina but we'll take it. We all misoverestimate sometimes, especially when our salaries depend on it.
You're doing a heckofa job Mr Biro.
Re: Now numbers are things I have always had a hard time ... with.
I find the main problem is that things can be numerically true but logically false. Some people have a hard time with this concept.
Logic, which is in a realm outside of numbers, controlling how numbers are used seems to be anathema to them. But that is the only way that a valid conclusion can be reached.
Logic is the boss; numbers are the workers. Logic tells numbers what to do so that that they get real work done. Numbers without logic go off on pointless tangents.
Without direction from logic numbers can be twisted and tortured to say anything.
Adding up future oil production based on unaudited estimates from oil producers is a case where logic is not doing it's job to control numbers. Numbers are running amok with no direction. It is pointless.
The logic of Hubbert analysis of actual production data is a valid use of numbers and the correct way to estimate future oil production.
Since it is seldom mentioned, I think the premise that the IEA or EIA attempt to accurately forecast future oil flows or reserves needs to be in question-it cannot be accepted at face value as appears to be the case.
Just to lighten the comment, IMO the IEA appears to be more credible than EIA, but the desire of both to accurately report is questionable-continually using the best case scenario is not an attempt at accuracy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/22/171259/714/994/520721
a diary at dKos that kindly cites TOD...
ATTN: AlanfromBigEasy,
My guess is Putin and his Boyz are quite the fans of your postPeak RR & TOD ideas:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7528114
--------------------------
SOCHI, Russia, May 20 (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Tuesday pledged nearly $550 billion to modernise Russia's creaking transport system by 2015.
"We are talking about the biggest investment project ever launched by the Russian government," he told a meeting of top transport officials in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.
----------------------------------
Sadly, the US is still building A/C sun-tanning salons, shopping malls, and heavily-watered golf courses in the desert suburbias instead of a huge RR & TOD campaign.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
My post didn't appear.
Any problem?
Meanwhile, according to http://www.gasbuddy.com the average price for unleaded in the US is now $3.88, just 12 cents shy of the psychological $4 mark. AAA will report this tomorrow and the MSM will pick it up, I expect it to get a lot of coverage.
8 dollars 48 cents here in Cambridge, UK.
Just keeping things in perspective :)
Granted, but you have good public transport, which is almost absent in the US, and free medical care, which doesn't exist in the US, 50 million uninsured at last check, with premiums and copays for everyone else, and vehicles that get good gas mileage. I got a car recently that got 36 mpg, that was the max I could find, all the rest were in the 20s mpg. It all balances out somewhere. Also the Euro and the Pound are serving as a hedge against the dollar, and since real incomes in the US are actually falling, this means that the rise in the price of oil actually effects the US far more directly than it does people in Europe. $1 rise is gas = £0.50 rise in UK.
Some great Technocornucopian Porn on Discovery Science: 2057 "The City"
Need some assistance. My hospital is finally starting to think about my ideas to save energy. Somebody finally figured out electricity is costing them almost half a million a year. Gee.
Anyway, they are operating under the assumption that, if you turn off a florescent light, you have to leave it off for a lengthy period of time, or else you burn more electricity firing it up than you save. I'd appreciate any authoritative answers. TIA
I'm trying not to get too excited or anything, but a few people are even mentioning PV. Over a not yet built parking lot, even. I need to get them to have an energy audit first.
Rat
Biggest bang for the buck may be to put a CO2 monitor on the make-up air, rather than a fixed amount "regardless".
Where are you located, how old is the hospital, public ownership, how big ?
Best Hopes,
Alan
Location...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izfHqjN3Un8
25 years old?
78 beds
Owned by Adventist Health
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/fluorescent_lights.html
Anyway, they are operating under the assumption that, if you turn off a florescent light, you have to leave it off for a lengthy period of time, or else you burn more electricity firing it up than you save. I'd appreciate any authoritative answers. TIA
Nothing says 'WRONG' like proof.
Thus:
555 timer circuit to a 5 VDC - 120 V AC solid state relay. Said circuit turns on/off the light. You can adj. the duty cycles. Plug all that into a P3 Kil-o-watt wattage tracking unit. (they are under $40 and that is something that should be in ones energy audit toolbox). Thus you then 'know' how much power is used over time.
Janitorial services should be able to provide a sample standard lighting unit.
If you have trouble building the circuit yourself - approach the local high school industrial arts program or engineering college. Odds are a student would whip up such a circuit for some $ in their pocket - they might do it for free just for the ego stroke. The youth may do the data collection for ya too.
Supply and Demand are driving(sorry) the price currently...but as the season of dread is just around the corner I thought I would check in with Jeff Master's.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
And here is the link to today's NOAA hurricane forecast:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml
Only time will tell...
Ya...it will be an interesting hurricane season. We got lulled back into complacency last year with nothing big materializing. This would be a very unfortunate year to get hit hard in the Gulf.
The NHC's predictions are worthless, you might as well throw darts at a map of the Ocean.