 | Report on First General Assembly of ASPO Switzerland, May 24th 2008, University of Basel | The Oil Drum | How Will Local Governments Respond to Large Increases in Energy Bills? |  |
DrumBeat: May 27, 2008
Posted by Gail the Actuary on May 27, 2008 - 9:11am
Monbiot: We have gone mad, Your Majesty, and only you can cure our affliction
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Your Majesty,
In common with the leaders of most western nations, our prime minister is urging you to increase your production of oil. I am writing to ask you to ignore him. Like the other leaders he is delusional, and is no longer competent to make his own decisions.
You and I know that there are several reasons for the high price of oil.
Andrew Leonard: Stop your motor running
On Friday, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reported that Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles in March 2008 than in March 2007. According to the FHWA, that's the sharpest drop since the agency began keeping records in 1942.
But there is some good news: The Department of Transportation also reported that "greenhouse gas emissions fell by an estimated 9 million metric tons for the first quarter of 2008," presumably in part because of all the miles not traveled.
A clash in Paris between around 200 protesting fishermen and police Wednesday came as Brent crude oil futures for July delivery, the benchmark contract for Europe, jumped more than $1 to hit an all-time high of $129.70, driven by robust demand and reluctance among oil producers to increase output.
European governments are under pressure to cut excise taxes on fuel to provide relief. Rising oil and gas prices already pose an inflation conundrum for central banks and impose higher costs for businesses and commuters that could put economic growth at risk. Now fuel prices risk triggering strikes and roadblocks that could wreak havoc in Europe's largely fragmented transport industry.
Costs to Build Power Plants Pressure Rates
Construction costs for power plants have more than doubled since 2000, according to new index data to be released Tuesday, and inflationary pressures will continue to put the squeeze on electricity prices.
The findings are bad news for consumers and utilities alike, and help explain why power-plant development has become something of a quagmire in the U.S. -- with no type of plant emerging as a reasonably priced option that can meet rising demand for electricity.
A rare peek inside our Fort Knox of black gold
To give a better sense of what goes on at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Energy Department recently opened its Bryan Mound storage site for a rare media tour.
Vancouver: Spectra launches study on burying carbon dioxide
One of the province's largest greenhouse-gas emitters said Monday it is working on a plan to capture and store a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, two kilometres below the ground near Fort Nelson.
Aided by a $3.4-million provincial government grant, Spectra Energy Transmission said it is undertaking a $12.1-million feasibility study to find out if deep saltwater reservoirs in the Fort Nelson area can be used for long-term carbon storage.
Kiev Energy Summit - a desperate cry of ineffective allies of the West
The total price of the game is capitulation of the “democratic” European Narcisses towards the resources-reach (sic) Asia, as it was clearly stated that without Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, the Baltic — Black Sea — Caspian Project has no chances. In this situation, “the globally historical transit alliance” that plans to supply energy resources to Europe not by the natural way — with participation of Turkey and Russia, but under the fantastic parabola from Central Asia to Ukraine and the Baltic Sea is another Utopia. It may sound funny, but such a strategy can be drawn on a school globe, but not in the economy.
New fuel price protests test ministers' green resolve
Ministers face new protests over the spiralling cost of fuel with Labour MPs threatening to revolt over road tax increases and hauliers taking to the streets over rising diesel prices.
Thirty-five Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion demanding the Government reconsider plans to increase tax for the most polluting cars. The concern is that plans for increases in road tax on older gas guzzlers will risk a repeat of the 10p tax fiasco.
But now he has his petroleum herd, 230 low-volume "stripper" wells of which some 45 are in production, yielding "70 or 80 barrels a month, maybe 100 in a good one". Northwest Pennsylvania isn't Kuwait. But 100 barrels a month provides a decent income. Not that Mr Huber is living it up. He's put a new roof on his house in the woods, a few miles north-east of Oil City, and bought a new (or rather new-er) pick-up truck. Soon he may get round to doing up the kitchen. But that's it.
Asking Opec to solve the oil crisis misses the burning point
And watch carefully the unbridled folly of those such as the Lib Dems who want to gang up on Saudi Arabia. Those same naifs who delighted at the fall of the Shah seem to want the same ghastly political outcome in Saudi Arabia - and the $300 oil that would come with it.
The last decade has lulled us into a false sense of security. Instead of tilting at the Opec windmill, we should be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, increasing efficiency, addressing fuel poverty and encouraging the science that will find an alternative to oil.
BPC all set to bargain over premiums of imported fuel
Bangladesh imports most of its refined fuel oil from KPC (Kuwait Petroleum Corporation), which is around 21.56 tons, which comprises 16 lakh tons diesel, 1.36 lakh tons octane, 1.7 lakh tons kerosene and 2.5 lakh tons jet fuel. The total demand for diesel in the country is around 23 lakh tons, kerosene 5 lakh tons, octane 1.5 lakh tons and jet fuel 2.5 lakh tons. BPC meets its rest of the refined oil demand by importing 2 lakh tons of diesel from India and refining around 12-14 lakh tons of crude oil at the Eastern Refinery Limited, a subsidiary of the BPC. It imports crude from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A senior official of BPC said, "We import most of our fuel from the KPC. Our team is going to renegotiate the premium rate with our counterpart."
Alternative fuels a focus at air show
For example, Airbus and American industrial conglomerate Honeywell International Inc. said recently they were developing a vegetation and algae-based biofuel that by 2030 could satisfy nearly a third of the worldwide commercial aircraft fuel demand without affecting food supplies. Airbus also said it had developed a new kitchen for its aircraft using more composite materials that could save a ton of weight in the A380 superjumbo.
NEA reduces power-cuts to nine hrs a week
KATHMANDU: In what comes as happy news for customers who are bearing the severe lack of all petroleum products throughout the country, Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) has reduced the load-shedding hours to only nine hours a week effective from Tuesday.
The NEA has cut down heavily the power-outage hours which stood at over 21 hours per week, the NEA said. According to the new load-shedding routine, the power will be out for only three days a week.
Sulphur price soars on fertiliser demand
An ugly waste product of oil refining has been transformed into a golden windfall for energy companies as demand for fertilisers drives the price of sulphur to unprecedented levels.
For decades oil refiners have struggled to shift stockpiles of the yellow chemical, which is used to make sulphuric acid, essential in the manufacture of fertilisers. Food shortages and higher grain prices are boosting demand for fertilisers, and in only a year the price of sulphur has risen more than tenfold from $50 a tonne to $500 a tonne, according to ICIS, the chemicals-pricing service.
Lofty Prices for Fertilizer Put Farmers in a Squeeze(pay wall)
Fertilizer prices are rising faster than those of almost any other raw material used by farmers. In April, farmers paid 65% more for fertilizer than they did a year earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That compares with price increases of 43% for fuel, 30% for seeds and 3.8% for chemicals such as weedkillers and insecticides over the same period, according to Agriculture Department indexes.
Texas A&M Food Policy Research: The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed
The key findings contained in this report are:
• The underlying force driving changes in the agricultural industry, along with the economy as a whole, is overall higher energy costs, evidenced by $100 per barrel oil.
• With rising energy costs, corn and other commodity prices would have to increase. Rising fertilizer costs led to a 3 million acre reduction in planted corn acres in the 2006-07 crop year. Higher production costs will continue to pressure acres.
• This research supports the hypothesis that corn prices have had little to do with rising food costs. Higher corn prices do have a small effect on some food items.
• Speculative fund activities in futures markets have led to more money in the markets and more volatility. Increased price volatility has encouraged wider trading limits. The end result has been the loss of the ability to use futures markets for price risk management due to the inability to finance margin requirements.
• The potential exists for even higher corn prices based on historical yield variability. Fewer corn acres planted in 2008 leave production susceptible to weather risks. Small yield reductions will result in even higher prices.
• The liveststock industry has borne the costs of higher corn prices. The structure of the industry has made it unable to pass costs on, either up or down the supply chain.
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.
We have gone mad, Your Majesty, and only you can cure our affliction
An open letter to the leader of Opec's biggest oil producer, the one man who can force Britain to cut its carbon emissions
Asking Opec to solve the oil crisis misses the burning point
Undertow, don't post so much of the article (I edited it down). If people want to click it, they will... :) But otherwise, thanks for the catch.
Yes, on reflection I was actually just editing it down when I discovered you already had and notice it's now uptop anyway.
Monbiot is quite correct in his piece. He clearly understands that energy and related policies must be drasticly altered to accomodate the increasingly transparant reality that oil supply will no longer grow, while its price certainly will. True, as you scroll through the article's comments, there are many still in denial, but based on reactions to his previous works, more people have taken the Red Pill. I'm sure our UK readers will agree that Brown's government is "bonkers" and "delusional." And although many Progresives would agree that those words also describe the Bush administration, too many believe there's a conspiracy by "Big" now "Little Oil" lying behind the run up in fuel prices. This too is delusional and bonkers, but convincing people of their irrationality is proving a very hard task. I'm currently engaged in just such a debate with a person at CommonDreams who calls Hubbert a shill and tool for big oil, whereas we know the reality is quite the opposite.
Karlof1 - I have seen your diligent efforts over at CD and really appreciate you hanging in there. I wish I had the chops to dive in on some of these delusional comment threads but I know my limitations.
Also kudos to Arraya for dukeing it out over at Mish’s .
For what it’s worth I do believe that many readers see the logic of your comments or at least get curious enough to seek out answers for themselves.
Cheers!
I'm currently engaged in just such a debate with a person at CommonDreams who calls Hubbert a shill and tool for big oil,
Again - The history books are filled with shills, liars, tools and deception that result in shafting for people. This person understands this and feels they are getting the shaft. I can't fault them for assuming that the price is a form of being jerked around. Because I'm sure that within the structure of the oil business there *IS* people who are looking at the present situation and trying to maximize their profit in a way that others would feel is via deception.
I'm just shocked at the lack of people defending such as 'it is the way "the market" works'.
(The only way to avoid the shills, liars, tools et la is to avoid playing their game. Eris is unwilling to avoid their game, and is using selected data to argue their position "Having followed this issue closely over the last decade I can tell you what I’ve read doesn’t bear this out." You won't be able to convince Eris that s/he is wrong, but *DO* post your best case and let others decide who is correct.)
Thanks to you both for your coaching. We have our own fair share of folks using the current and future energy situation to advance their interest, and I count myself in that group as I have the responsibility for managing our Family Trust, which includes the immediate extended family. Mike Ruppert once said it's insane to expect activists to work for free. Until the current system changes, there's no way to work outside it and expect to survive, let alone prosper, and this is complicated all the more by our responsibilities. I hope CD picks-up the Monbiot item as it presents another opportunity, although I do intend to continue the debate on the other thread.
Thanks again.
This is completely untrue, as the multitude of hippies, drug culture types, black marketeers, tramps, hobos, tree planters, & various other ne'er-do-wells I've associated with over the decades makes plain. Such free spirits prosper & thrive in ways those wholly owned by "the system" can scarcely appreciate.
I would take yet a third tack. The crisis is real and we face the issue of survival. But survival can't be dealt with other than confronting the problem of a hostile gov't (at least the top-most levels). That's where any form of individual (or small-collective) survivalism breaks down. If nothing else, the gov't will come after you, tax you, dispossess you (or worse). (I'm not a libertarian, there can be legitimate taxation.) The worst case is that angry and hungry sections of the populace are incited to turn against each other -- survivalists take up guns against the "starving hordes".
I hate politics. But there is no other route to survival. We need a gov't that faces up to the realities we confront. Ultimately, if we want to survive, we have to get political and create a political force that points to the reality we all face and begins to help us addressing the issues in collective, cooperative and peaceble ways.
I admire Mike Ruppert and his early linking of PO and 9-11. But I never agreed with his survivalist bent. And he's not alone in that. A lot of TODders are survivalists. The ones that aren't tend to underestimate how hostile the gov't is to its people, and therefore think things can be handled (with however much difficulty) within the existing framework.
My daughter lives on commune/farm and I love visiting her, partly to let my imagination run free in seeing what's possible. But their way of living, despite being potentially within reach of self-sufficiency on several fronts, nevertheless is also endangered.
Good governance would be awesome but I believe that "good governance" is an oxymoron. Governments come & go, and every revolution becomes subverted. It isn't so much that "power corrupts" as it is that power IS corruption. Having the means to force others to do one's bidding is the very essence of corruption. The benevolent dictator is still a dictator. The "tyranny of the majority" is still tyranny. I'm not convinced that ANY government is superior to no government at all. "Here is the new boss, same as the old boss...," etc.
I wish my daughter was more like yours. She lives in the city & has a desk job. My grandparents farmed, my parents' generation were all "mod," or thot of themselves as being. My grandparents were all into me & my wife being sortuv back to the land hippie types. They taught me how to garden & tend small livestock. Now my kids are more like my parents were. In my family, at least, the "back to the land" impulse tends to skip generations. Maybe my granddaughter will be more like me. She's already tamed my mean goose!
My comment you cited had to do with my managing my Family Trust investment portfolio; I guess I didn't make the connection explicit enough. You are of course correct that many operate outside of the established system; I figured people here knew me well enough through my writings to know that I would certainly be aware of such.
I would have a great deal more respect for Monbiot if he addressed the real issue in the UK, and that is that, as a small Island, we are way passed full. Our population is too great and we are set to increase our population by an equivalent of two Londons in the next two decades.
As our population grows, so too will our gross national carbon footprint. And this will exceede any Carbon Targets we set our selves.
All here know that this will, of course, not happen as we fall into fuel and energy poverty, and as we fail to produce any goods of substantial use, we will fail to purchase adequate food stuffs from outside.
Die-off will occur by: energy poverty; famine; and ultimately, social unrest, which may well verge on civil war or race war.
Because the UK Gov has enjoyed 12 years of unprecedented consumer led growth, low interest rates and a large majority, it has been able to milk the UK Tax payer and create non jobs, bizzarre and nonessential programs and feed a client base of underclass.
This was set to continue, but, the ramp in oil prices and food prices now competes with the Chancellor's hand in our pocket book.
Interest rates, flat wage increases, energy, food and fuel increases now competes with a decade of stealth taxes and increases in duty.
The UK tax paying milch - cow is only good for so much, and then the teat dries up.
The teat has dried up.
I have no problem with taxing the 'sins', but when you also tax the 'good', then a rebellion will happen.
Its happening now. A government cannot tax, tax and tax again, especially when so much is clearly wasted and none is hypothecated to good works such as public transport, underpinning a renaissance in nuclear power etc.
The price of crude has some impact on fuel, but the duty levied and the overall Value Added Tax escalates beyond this.
This Government announced an effective doubling of Vehicle Excise Duty on cars and it was retrospective on vehicles manufactured between 2001-2006.
It was masquerading as a 'green tax'.
It is not so. It is a tax on middle to low income drivers who cannot suddenly switch to a new , low emmission vehicle and so this demographic cohort is trapped with double VED tax, no chance of selling the said vehicle and just too strapped for cash to buy a prius
(the merits of which are highly suspect since the bulk of a vehicles life cycle carbon emissions are actually in the manufacturing phase).
Fine.
UK Gov wants to go 'green'?
Then:
1. Recognise that: As a nation we are full up - people we got.
2. No social security for able bodied people that have left school as long as they are not disabled. (I think you called it tough love in the US). There is work if you look for it.
3. You want babies? - fine , pay for them your selves: should not be a charge on the state.
4. Consider if we need any of the following none-jobs on the public purse:
'Community enforcement officers' (Dog poo and anti smoking wardens)
'Lesbian , Gay, Bisexual , Transgender Outreach Coordinators'
'Five a day healthy living officers'
'Real nappy coordinators'
'Diversity Awareness Officers'
Yes, these jobs plus inflation proof, index linked pensions do exist in the UK.
You could cut about 25% of all government employees by tomorrow lunch time. Take 3% off income tax and increase fuel duty by the following day - AND USE THE SURPLUS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
But we wont.
We will slide into anarchy.
Ten more years. Thats what we got.
Ten years.
(inflation-proof index-linked pensions? I don't believe it ;) )
A slide into anarchy?
Given UK's social history, I rather expect a slide into ever-more-vituperative fascism .. via the Sun, mail, telegraph, etc.
Your hopefully-ironic views miss the curious caste system in force since heavens-knows-when, where a large portion of the population subsist in quite impoverished circumstances, and now, with dumbed-down education, impoverished states-of-being too; a tiny minority in the UK live lives of unimaginably refined luxury, thier wealth squirreled away in financial mazes touching on cyprus, liechtenstein, belize, etc etc.
It's very clear to me that UK right now is an awful lot about making sure the very rich continue to get richer, and with the stranglehold the right wing have on the media, labour's hands were always going to be tied. Brown has and will be bludgeoned into oblivion the second he looks like he's even thinking about the colour red.
happily for you, I think all you can expect is more of the same, all the way back to ration books and feudal estates, indentured servitude, etc.
So .. you're in Burkes, eh ? :/
No, unlike a recent Labour Election Candidate, I am not in Burkes.
The Inflation proof , Index linked Pensions are true (for the payroll vote, not for many others though). How else do you expect the Government to retain a constituency? - Turkeys never vote for Christmas. Read the Guardian Jobs page.
'Happily for me'? Doesnt much matter about me. I weep for the next generation though.
Anyhoo,
Gordon Brown is making yet more pleas to OPEC regarding price and today he meets with Oil Company Execs to see how the UK can produce more oil.
That is the calibre of the man in charge.
The calibre of the man in charge:
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are meeting oil industry chiefs today as pressure mounts over soaring fuel prices.
Writing in the Guardian ahead of the talks, the prime minister said there was no quick fix to the "third great oil shock".
He called on nations to unite to stabilise the price of the commodity, which has increased from $10 a barrel a decade ago to $135 today.
And he said that the UK will argue that a global strategy to tackle the impact of higher oil prices will be put at the top of the agenda at the next meeting of the G8 group of industrialised countries.
Brown will use this morning's meeting with energy chiefs in north-east Scotland to attempt to secure a higher output from the UK's declining North Sea oil fields.
Yes - he really said that:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/28/economy.transport
If I could be permitted to add one more quote from the latter article as it indicates its importance. The author, Alan Duncan is a leading member of the British Conservative Party and will likely (on opinion polls) be a senior member of the UK government after the next election (within two years).
I once wrote to Alan Duncan about three years ago regarding peak oil.
In short, his reply was :
'Not to worry my pretty little head....go back to sleep.... I was in the oil business and I know there is more than enough oil out there etc...'
So, was he a fool or a knave three years ago?
As I found this claim
http://rinf.com/alt-news/contributions/over-60-of-people-do-not-trust-th...
I dug a bit and found this:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/zogby_voters/2008/05/15/96275.html
Huh. So the citizens are not happy with leadership or actions.
Meanwhile, when "the market" is working (Right you free market supporters?) the Germans get upset:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/26/cnoil1...
Say - the hedge funds are just a vibrant part of "The Market" - right? Why would the Germans get upset over "The Market"? Its like a bunch of 'em are commies or socialists or something.
Not suprisingly with oil and gas prices approaching their real value we hear less and less from the pro-taxers on this site.
Combined with a growing awareness of the fecklessness of our "elected" leaders maybe the futility of increasing governmental revenue is finally being recognised by them.
(edit) typo
'Leveraged trading' is what the SPD transport minister wants to ban.
Strangely, leveraged trading was seen as one of the causes of the financial calamities of the late 1920s, and for two generations afterwards, leverage was seen as poison.
But as memories fade, a new generation decides to ignore the past.
But Germans remain surprisingly conservative. Remember, the socialist SPD is over 145 years old - yep, they are older than the automobile age.
But not only the socialists have a certain distaste for financial capitalism, especially as compared to the 'Soziale Marktwirtschaft' (Americans don't understand it anyways, so no translation provided) which is practiced in Germany.
Strangely, Germans in general seem to represent their interests - a regional strike of milk deliveries to dairies is going on at the moment - and feel that people who simply don't stand up for themselves won't actually get much.
Taking on the trading floors of Chicago, New York, and London may seem a bit silly, but let's be honest - somebody has to. Whether it is actually worthwhile may be open to debate, but at least reminding people that the price of oil is a complicated business with massive amounts of self interest. For example, that of a certain capitalist cabinet member whose fingerprints might actually be on a fine bit of oil market manipulation, which definitely added nicely to that year's bonus (just the cash, not the position it may have also earned him).
Sometimes I miss a certain poster, who was at least aware of how profoundly complex 'price' actually is, and what a poor measure it makes in many of these discussions. And how different players can have very different goals, though all are considered part of the same market. The one that the oil fairy is in charge of, the one that will guarantee cheap gasoline until the exurban home appreciates enough to pay off the debt on the spiffy SUV.
Removing leverage from the market is not really a radical position - it just seems that way currently. Nonetheless, it will probably be removed, regardless of any German proposals.
Yep, but are citizens pissed off enough to do anything about it? When's the last time they wrote a representative? Have they EVER shown up for their state/local sessions to see things in action? People can gripe/moan all they want, but unless they're part of the action in changing things, things will never change. I was shocked at how the state congress worked after I showed up for a comittee session. (Shocked, but not in a good way. Rhetoric before facts, but as is par in most debates, and straw men everywhere...)
As long as the situation can be changed on a political level, you can assume that people will NOT change the situation. It's only when the situation CANNOT be changed via politics will people finally be pissed off enough to do something, but by that point, they may be too oppressed or scared to do anything about it.
A Representative of whom? Their are many in our government busy "representing", but I'm not naive enough to think that I am part of their constituencies.
What if the situation actually "CANNOT be changed via politics". It is possible to take a rational look at the system and to decide that it is incapable of effecting meaningful change from within.
Not to worry. Nature will take its course & situations that actually "CANNOT be changed via politics" will be changed nevertheless.
I saw this, and though I don't necessarily agree with the author, his point is interesting:
Iraq War May Have Increased Energy Costs Worldwide by a Staggering $6 Trillion
The guy makes a good point IMO-the Iraq invasion was never about securing supply for Joe Sixpack (i.e. "we" are going to get "our" oil)-Saddam worked for America for years and would have been quite willing to supply the USA-the invasion was about ownership and control of the wealth generated by the oil fields-although he pays the entire bill, Joe Sixpack sees none of the rewards.
In 1999, Hussein had offered Clinton an increase in oil extraction of 3Mbpd if he would lift the Genocidal Sanctions*. Instead, Clinton escalated the undeclared war and ongoing Holocaust through increased bombing in the illegal "no-fly zones." Bush and his bipartisan congressional allies only escalated an already ongoing war and Holocaust, although their actions were just as illegal as Clinton's.
*The source for this is Dr Salameh: an international oil economist, a consultant to the World Bank in Washington and a technical expert of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna. He is also Director of the Oil Market Consultancy Service in the UK and a member of both the Institute for Strategic Studies in London and the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Here is a link to the html version of his ppt given at the presentation where he made the above cited remark. Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of other presentations and interviews given by this expert I'd not heard of before.
Far be it for me to defend U.S. Government actions, but I have to ask: what was Clinton supposed to do? I'll remind you that that the northern no-fly zone was there at least in principal because the Iraqis on at least one occasion perpetrated a genocide against the Kurds. Also, there were hundreds of Kuwaitis killed when the Iraqis invaded in 1990. The oil that the Iraqi army released in the Gulf and in the oil-fields and set on fire while they were retreating was third largest oil spill in history at 3.1 million barrels and the environmental effects of that are still being felt in Kuwait. Given this, should Clinton have have started dealing with a dictator whose hands held the blood of thousands? I don't think sanctions and bombing helped anyone and certainly hurt quite a few, but then again, I also can't think of a plan that would have helped all the Iraqis (not just the Sunnis or the Baath party).
Gwy: Here is a guy (Saddam) who, while being a loyal servant of the USA for years, profited enormously in terms of wealth and power and likely could still be sitting in the catbird seat right now if he had not decided to inexplicably go rogue on us- this is the story that logical adults are supposed to swallow and I would assume you are selling. Come on-really? This servant decides for no reason to challenge the USA to a duel to the death?
It was not "for no reason". Saddam was given deliberately vague signals when he broached invading Kuwait to US diplomats. The US State department maintains it was a "miscommunication" but personally, I believe otherwise. Sadddam was given an implicit green light by the US ambassador to Iraq to go ahead on Kuwait. Unfortunately, I do not believe that any of us alive today are likely to see the real motivations behind that decision by the US government.
Gwyndion -
May I remind you that Saddam had the blood of thousands on his hands long before the Gulf War. Clearly, the US was perfectly willing to accept Saddam's torture and murder of his own people as long as he was our boy and was willing to play ball according to our rules. (Ditto for the Shah of Iran.)
Unfortunately, Saddam went off the reservation by invading Kuwait, though some people maintain that he was given tacit approval to do so with a wink and a nod by the US, but that the US didn't expect him to 'eat the whole thing'. Some even say that the US tricked him into invading Kuwait so it would have a pretense to take him out.
But we did not try to take Saddam out because he was a bad person. The US has a long and shameful history of dealing with all manner of scum and degenerates as long as it is in its interest to do so.
Birds of a feather...
BrianT and joule:
You all make good points and that's certainly something to take into consideration, but you haven't answered my question. I'm not defending the U.S.' actions in supporting these dictators, which I agree with you on is shameful, but the question still remains: What was the correct thing for Clinton to do, even given the U.S.' past actions? Should he have lifted sanctions? This might have been the best thing to do, simply stop trying to influence foreign governments... But, as you said, if the U.S. was responsible for putting and leaving Hussein in power, doesn't the U.S. bear some responsibility for getting rid of him? That is, wouldn't this have been passively enabling the brutal dictator?
Should he have apologized for supporting Iraq? This wouldn't have helped anyone except in a symbolic way and would have left Hussein in power. Should he have sent supplies and aid to Iraq? The UN was doing that, through the oil for food program. Even with the corruption, it hopefully helped some people. What else should they have done? They could have tried assassinating Hussein I suppose, but maybe this would have led to chaos, it's hard to tell. Even with the risk, assassination would probably have been preferable to the invasion in 2003.
All this stuff about Saddam being an American servant is way off the mark. In the cold war years he leaned more towards the old Soviet Union. They provided him with all his tanks, among other things. He had a much greater natural affinity with the Soviets Remember he was a great admirer of Stalin. More likely he played Russia and the West off against each other. He was certainly never a servant of the US.
Rumsfeld facilitated Saddam's relationship with American chemical companies. The US had supported other regimes' attacks on the Kurds. It also embraced Suharto's regime in Indonesia, inaugurated by the "volunteer" slaughter of 500,000 suspects and followed by later slaughters by the Army in uniform.
But most of all, the administration knew that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were dying from the sanctions. Madeleine Albright addressed that fact by saying it was "worth it". This is not an acceptable basis for our public servants to operate with using our tax money. If the administration was so full of moral outrage about dealing with yet another dictator, why did it refuse to level with the voters about the preferable consequences of sanctions? Americans went through the era simply not knowing or believing the few reports in their media about the devastation.
Maybe in a democracy, the voters should occasionally be consulted to set the standards for which moral compromises are acceptable. We are certainly paying a very undemocratic price now, and for centuries people in the Middle East will remember the Bush/Clinton/Bush/? megacide as being the intentional act of America itself, and a reflection on its people.
But it WAS "the intentional act of America itself" and IS "a reflection on its people."
So why shouldn't the people of the ME long remember it? Can you blame them for resenting these neo-Crusades, sponsored by "the land of the Free & home of the Brave"? It never ceases to amaze me that people seem surprised when it dawns on them that a nation founded on the principles of genocide, slavery, & ecocide, acts in accordance with its founding principles.
Bush 1 and Cheney felt and said it unwise to go on to Baghdad in 1991, and were confidant the sanctions regime would fulfill the stated policy goal of Iraqi WMD elimination. When Hussein Kemal defected in 1995 and told his handlers that goal was accomplished--certainly now proven beyond doubt--Clinton continued the war on Iraq with the goal of regime change through Holocaust, which Albright confessed was "worth it." Considering the additional millions killed, wounded, displaced, and lives destroyed on both sides, it appears removing the sanctions in 1995 was the best policy choice and to let events run their course as was done with Pinochet's Chile. But then Chile doesn't sit on a "sea of oil." And one can fairly argue that KSA is a state just as repressive, both then and now, as Hussein's Iraq, yet were never subjected to the same treatment. The answer seems to lie with Israel and its de facto alliance with the USA. As Chomsky pointed out in his book detailing the alliances between the USA and fascist dictatorships, there is little hope for any positive outcome for the people in such states, as truely popular revolutions are abhored by the US, and they immediately become its newest enemy, as proven by Iran, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
*edit* See my post above, which I had typed before you posted but hadn't hit send until after.
Well I'm not going to discuss this any more, partly because I don't think I'm going to get the better of the argument and the U.S. government's actions are not defensible, but also because I think that a lot of the time the U.S. government is "damned it if does and damned if it doesn't" and you can't convince people with that attitude. As an example, the KSA may be as oppressive a regime as was in Iraq, but you can rest assured that if the U.S. were to try touching that government at all there would be nearly universal outcry because the KSA hasn't done any single event that you can point to to justify taking measures. Remember that Bush, Jr. invaded Iraq officially partly in order to correct the mistakes of the past and remove the nasty guy they put up and bring democracy to Iraq, and we can all see how well that worked out. If they don't do anything at all, they're in effect passively supporting the regime, if they stop trading with them they are hurting the economy of the KSA and that is just what was killing children in Iraq.
Seriously? Half the planet is run by oppressive regimes. If the MSM or public is working overtime worrying about them they are doing it very quietly-according to you "oppressive regime" and "sitting on lots of oil" are the same thing.
I agree that discussing the past actions of the US regarding Iraq is mostly a wasted exercise as it really does nothing to solve the current problem other than lend additional weight to the demand to cease waging a 18 year-long war/Holocaust on the Iraqi people and get the hell out.
IMO, what the world really needs is for democracy to break out in the USA, but I don't think the pain has reached the required threshold for that to happen.
"the Iraqis on at least one occasion perpetrated a genocide against the Kurds."
Do you have proof of this? May be just propaganda.... This could be just propaganda.
BTW, the US invasion has KILLED FAR MORE PEOPLE than SADDAM. Apparently that is not a problem.
The Anfal Campaign (amongst others) is well documented.
BrianT -
I would agree, in that the purpose of invading Iraq was not to blatantly steal their oil, as some people have suggested. As you correctly point out, Saddam would have been more than happy to enter into some sort of very favorable supply agreement with the US, and then the US would have been able to buy as much of Iraq's oil as it wanted. But that wasn't good enough for the Bush Regime.
In no particular order of importance, my own list of primary reasons for invading Iraq include:
- Demonstrate that the US is still numero uno, and make an example out of any third-rate country that has the temerity to defy US wishes.
- Humiliate the Moslem world in response to 9/11 (i.e., in less delicate terms to teach those ragheads a lesson they won't forget).
- Establish a docile, US-friendly government in Iraq so as to secure long-term control over the Iraqi oil production and major chunks of the future revenue streams generated by that oil.
- Militarily dominate Iraq and surrounding countries so as to prevent China and/or India from gaining a foothold in the Middle East.
- Take out one of Israeli's enemies and thus fulfill part of the neocon agenda in accordance with the extremely powerful and influenctial US Israeli lobby.
As with most wars, the causes generally conform to some combination of the Seven Deadly Sins. In this case we appear to have (at the very least) Pride, Wrath, and Avarice.
"In no particular order of importance, my own list of primary reasons for invading Iraq include:"
and, imo, the empire of debt has failed miserably on each and every count.
The empire succeeded superbly from the point of view of XOM or CVX.
I have pointed out many times to those who criticize ethanol subsidies that the Iraq war is a gigantic subsidy for oil. The subsidy is the cost of the war plus the increased oil prices due to the war oil demand and the restriction on supply it has caused. I have read estimates that the amount is about $6 trillion.
I am leaving out the cost of lives and injuries since they can not be measured monetarily.
To expect ethanol to compete unsubsidized with such huge subsidies is unreasonable bordering on stupid.
You're correct but two wrongs don't make a right. It is simply immoral to grow food for fuel in a world where people are hungry. You probably profit in some way from the federal subsidies on maize grown for ethanol. If so, shame on you. You are culpable for contributing to famine.
I also think that a major motivation for the invasion of Iraq was privatization of their oil industry. It should be remembered that US oil companies do not benefit from high oil prices unless they actually own reserves, or lease reserves from the state, or have a joint-production agreement with a state oil company.
The stark reality is that more and more of the world's remaining oil reserves are in state hands. The great hope of the Iraqi invasion was to change that. As things have turned out, it was mostly a failure - the Iraqis have been unwilling to enter into joint production agreements with US oil companies despite constant pressure to do so. At least, that's my understanding of the situation - someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Ozone: I have seen no evidence that the Iraq invasion has cost XOM or CVX money so anything gained is gravy-the USA is going to be there for a very long time so I wouldn't count them out yet.
Pretty close to exactly the intent outlined in the PNAC document drafted by the Neocons around 1999.
http://empireburlesquenow.blogspot.com/2005/03/dark-passage-pnacs-bluepr...
Joule, you are right enough in your reasons but left out the most important reason of all. Odd, how many on this site continue to argue that world dollar hegemony is not important and that any currency can be swapped for any other at any time (which is true but there is a price to be paid when central banks debase a countries currency), and that it matters not what currency oil is purchased with. I hope that watching the effects of a rapidly declining dollar will demonstrate to posters at TOD that they need to develop a 'reality based' view of the importance of a strong currency. By debaseing the world reserve currency, the dollar, the US has also exported inflation to the world.
'In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.'
And yet another example...
'In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.'
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
by Ron Paul
I think making an example of a 3rd-world country is very important in understanding the similarity of Iraq to Vietnam. Vietnam had no oil production, but a successful people's war against America's autocrats anywhere could lead to uprisings everywhere, including places that had oil.
In other words, we weren't fighting the spread of Communism in Vietnam, but the spread of the idea that mass movements could stand up to American interference. Indeed, America was run out of the Asian mainland in 1975, with a new junta in Thailand closing US bases. Japanese businessmen flooded Asian capitals with Asian capital. Interestingly, that is just about the time that capitalism stopped being viewed as a tool of colonial oppression and became something that Thais, Malaysians, Singaporeans and others could claim for their own benefits. Their societies forged ahead, while America's sole client state in the Philippines was left behind. Is all this a coincidence, or was the sole thing discrediting capitalism in the eyes of ordinary Asians its humiliating association with Western violence and imperialism?
Not only were we not fighting against communism in Vietnam, but it turns out we weren't even fighting for capitalism. Just US-ism.
"Vietnam had no oil production,..."
true, vietnam probably HAD no ,or very little, oil production, but they did HAVE the mekong delta.look at what is happening there today.
imo, the cia knew of this potential. how? probably mekong and delta appearing in the same sentence.
super390 -
You are quite right regarding the need to make an example of defiant Third-World country.
Power junkies from antiquity on down to the present have always had a great reverence for symbolism and an obsessive need to dramatically demonstrate power for its own sake.
During the Jewish uprising, where a relatively small band of insurgents holed up in the now legendary mountain fortress of Masada, the Romans had one of their legions spend something like a year building a huge earthern ramp to access and finally take the fortress. There was absolutely no tactical or strategic reason for expending such an enormous effort. But the Roman Empire could not bear the thought of a rag-tag band of Jews giving them the extended middle finger, for it would set a bad example and erode the aura of Roman invincibility.
A more modern example would be a mafia head ordering a dozen of his best hit men to spend weeks tracking down and killing some two-bit street criminal who cheated them out of a few hundred dollars. It's all about the need for rulers to set an extreme show of force to make sure that the ruled remain cowered and docile.
Vietnam was fought to provide lucrative contracts to the military-industrial complex. It was never even an intention to win the war. It was also a giant military exercise. Great Powers like to go to war every decade or so to try out strategy / tactics / equipment. In the current era Great Power means SU / Russia and USA.
No, you totally miss the point.
The reason the USA is occupying the Middle-East has 3 reasons:
1. Control the Oil, so they can cut off or threaten to cut of other countries from their oil supply
2. Create demand destruction in the ME countries.
3. Give the oil to their big oil companies.
No 1 is by far the most important.
Oh let us not forget those lovely domestic reasons for the invasion: putting us on a war footing enabled consolidation of executive branch power in the US, and a last gasp concentration of wealth in the hands of the few while the grabbing is good, and the legal imposition of state authoritarianism before the domesic uprisings of the former middle class in the post peak oil era.
Brian--
This flash movie shows Saddam and the US joined at the hip:
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
Good one.
I read that article, my impression was that he is relying on this statement as the basis for his assertions for the oil price.
But, if we look at production:
I find it hard to believe that the entire rise in prices over the past four years or so is due to when Iraq oil production is essentially flat on average. If Iraq were so key to oil price, why didn't we see what we're seeing now after the first gulf war in 1991 before the Iraqis were allowed to sell oil for "food"?
I think it's highly probable that the situation in Iraq has contributed to high oil prices but I doubt that "The Iraq War means oil costs three times more than it should." No way, this is just more mass hysteria like the MSM blaming this all on the speculators, the U.S. congress alternately blaming it on oil executives or OPEC, or the oil company executives blaming this on environmentalists and NIMBY.
*edit* On reflection, I just remembered the Saudi's increased their production before, during and after the first gulf war, but their production has essentially been flat since then and again, why should their be a rise in price now when it doesn't correlate with iraq production.
I think this is because light-sweet has peaked both in total availabilty and net exports. Iraq sits on a sea of light-sweet, but global demand is now at a point where any addition by Iraq to total light-sweet supply is negligible as it only serves to lesssen the decline rate. I believe the reason USA wants its IOCs in total control of Iraq's oil extraction is to ramp up light-sweet flows as much and as fast as possible before US economic collapse as it is far more dependent on light-sweet than any other counrty.
Here's a question I've been wanting to ask some of the knowledgeable railway enthusiasts...
In the USA, the diesel that you buy at truck stops and gas stations is taxed by federal and state governments, and this is reflected in the price at the pump. Most, if not all, of the tax collected is supposed to go for maintenance of bridges and roads.
Most trains also run on diesel. Obviously, locomotives don't fill up at the local truck stop. So my question(s):
Is the diesel fuel supplied to trains taxed by federal and state governments? If so, what happens to that money? Could it be that railway companies are paying fuel taxes that subsequently go to maintaining the interstate highway system, which competes directly with the railroads?
Thanks in advance for any info on this topic.
Alan will answer in detail but I think this idea that rail diesel is taxed is incorrect. A while back we were on a conference call with a lobbyist and there was talk of needing to treat rail electrification improvements differently, as any rail work is currently taxed to death. As I recall the words used regarding diesel were "free" or "subsidized" or something like that ...
A rail diesel tax that can only be avoided by electrification would seem a wise thing, but again the guru will likely have a detailed opinion :-)
Not sure about the diesel tax.
But what is worse is they pay property tax on their rights-of-way.
Yes, and as I understand it, railways that add electrification see their property taxes increased. That's why they stick with diesel. But I'm wondering if they're taxed on the diesel fuel as well, to subsidize roads. If so, seems like the railways get screwed no matter what they do.
My parents have land on the 'other side of the road' - and that small strip of land is stuck between the railroad tracks and the road. Ranges from 15 feet to 20 feet wide.
Property tax gets paid on that land. Same way property tax is paid on the land that the state parks its water on top of. Fair? Seems not. Yet 'the soverign' can do what the soverign wants. If railroads want to not pay taxes on the land, allow the land to become the property of the state, just like the road is.
In both cases - the law restricts what can be done with that land.
Trucking firms, in the mean time, use public roads. It's this difference that concerns me, not the principle of rails paying property tax.
If it concerns you, lobby for local property taxes to be collected on the land the roads are parked over.
Rights-of-way, and much more, that in the beginning were given to the RRs for free, and from which they reaped massive profits and political power.
ROWs for free
Actually not.
Only the trans-continental RRs got a "deal". East of the Mississippi and in Texas, generally not (only rare local deals in the 1830s - 1860s to get a RR into town).
The Trans-Continental RR deal was good for the feds. They opened up land otherwise not to be settled, AND THE FEDS GOT A CUT RATE ON FREIGHT.
After WW II (98%-99% freight & domestic troops by rail), the RRs calculated that the cut rate had cost them well over a dozen times the then value of the land (without calculating interest of course) and got the deal rescinded. I believe that even with interest, the feds got paid back with a very handsome profit.
And every RR that got the free land out west went bankrupt. So "massive profits" ?
Alan
In addition, in the north east, particularly in New England in many instances the rail roads did not get the land as a fee estate but as an easement.
As the land had been long been in private ownership and divided and settled by the time the rail roads came along the easements were taken for the public good, much as the utility gas lines easements are being taken today.
In Massachusetts because a railroad's property was intended for the use of the public, its right of way was in the nature of a public easement and any structures erected within it were exempt from local real estate taxes. see Inhabitants of Worcester vs. The Western Rail Road Corporation. 45 Mass. 564, 1842
The (non fee) easements expire if the railroads are ever removed and the property will to revert (by a Writ of entry) to the original land owner while for the most part this has not happened there have been cases where landowners have had the land returned after filing suit in land court.
The rights of any party having an easement in the lands of another are measured and defined by the purpose and character of that easement, the easement holder cannot use the land for any other purpose. For all purposes consistent with that easement, the right to use the land remains in the owner of the fee and if the easement is abandoned it will expire and the beneficial use of the land will revert to the fee holder.
This of course presents a problem for future rail projects using the old right of way, because if the road bed is abandoned for any period of time (especially if the rails are removed) even if the rail bed is put to another use, such as a so called rail trail there is a potential for the easement to revert to adjoining land owners.
As a student of Landscape Architecture, I can tell you that the average home in the city has an easement of 15 to 25 feet into the property from the curb in.
They are laying new gas lines in the ground up in the "OLD" areas of North Little Rock, as well as running Fiber Optics to the Street Corners in other areas of town. Old folks who put in Fancy garden thingys or Planter boxes up to the cribs or even some Scrubs are losing them where they are to Near the Easements.
It happens all the time to folks that don't know what their easements are really like and don't ask before they plant.
There is a drainage ditch in the fenced in area on My parents back yard. But the guys who laid down the fence, took a big hunk of Our land and put it on the other side of the fence Literally in the other persons yard. When they went to build a Privacy fence, they had to build it on the Property Line, which means we have to cut the trees down that grow back there in the 3 feet of DEAD space.
Easements are a bane of modern living in the city, where the Houses can be so close to the easement that any serious work can really be felt as if the "Overlords Of the City" are getting you back for you back taxes.
Charles.
The RRs were bankrupted by their highly corrupt owners, who fed on the bodies. Have you read Railroads and Regulation 1877-1916 by Gabriel Kolko? This book proved for me that RRs are natural monopolies and should be state owned as are roads. I admit to being too general in my assertion about ROWs.
I was an avid model railroader in my childhood, but never really studied their history in any serious depth as my efforts have centered on the US Empire and its relations rather than its internal components, with some exceptions. This deficit has bothered me for awhile. I'm considering purchasing Encyclopedia of North American Railroads as a starting point. Do you have any other suggestions?
I wish I could help ! But I mostly research contemporary developments on-line & via other activists. I pick up history from old timers foremost amongst them Ed Tennyson who deserves his own Wiki page.
Later I will edit this and add some Ed T history if no one responds (once a response is posted the original post cannot be edited).
And yes, eminent domain easements were a common means of building railroads (with compensation to the landowners I understand). And these easements can, and do, revert back.
Best Hopes for Learning More Rail History,
Alan
AD, there's a couple of questions on your bailiwick floating around the local government post too, just fyi...
As far as I know, Southern Pacific never went bankrupt.
"[William Mahl's] work was instrumental to making the Southern Pacific the most financially stable of all major nineteenth-century railroads, and the only one to avoid bankruptcy or receivership." (page 31, "Sunset Limited", Richard J. Orsi) William Mahl was at one time the comptroller for the UP and SP systems during the Harriman era.
That is probably the reason why during the SP/UP merger, legally the SP took over the UP and changed its name.
From a document found on the Railroad Retirement Board's website, http://www.rrb.gov/bcd/bcd98-38.pdf , it was said:
"Information about the merger of Union Pacific and Southern Pacific was furnished by Mr. Rob Burbach, Tax Associate with Union Pacific. Mr. Burbach stated, in a letter dated April 16, 1998, that effective February 1, 1998, Union Pacific ceased operations, transferred all of its assets to Southern Pacific, and merged with and into Southern Pacific. In addition, at the time that the merger took effect, the surviving corporation changed its name to Union Pacific Railroad Company. A Corrected Certificate of Merger filed on March 2, 1998 with the Secretary of State of Delaware confirms the information provided by Mr. Burbach. Authority for the merger was obtained in Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No. 32760, Decision No. 44, decided August 6, 1996. Based on the information summarized above, the Board finds that Union Pacific Railroad Company, B. A. No. 1715, ceased to be a rail carrier employer under the RRA and RUIA effective February 1, 1998, the date on which it merged into Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The Board also finds that effective that same date, Southern Pacific, B.A. No.1713, changed its name to Union Pacific Railroad Company."
De facto, UP took over SP AFAIK (UP was dominant organizationally). Still, I was unaware that SP managed to avoid bankruptcy.
Thanks,
Alan
You can buy off-road diesel in numerous places. Typically used for construction vehicles, farm vehicles (tractors) and so forth. This is exempt from road taxes, and is dyed red so that it is clear that the fuel is off-road. I imagine that locomotives essentially use the same off-road diesel.
It is mostly a state tax and different states have different tax rates. In New York railroads pay tax but at a slightly reduced rate. Railroads get a discount on their taxes of 7.28 cents per gallon.
Diesel Motor Fuel Used as Railroad Diesel
As far as the Fed goes, there was a 4.3 cent excise tax on railroad and marine diesel. That was repealed in October of 2004.
H.R. 4520 American Jobs Creation Act
This was written just before the President signed the bill but it was signed into law.
Ron Patterson
Railroads, farmers and other "off road" equipment (construction) pay no federal fuel taxes, and few states charge them.
OTOH, railroads pay quite high property taxes (local assessors tend to "over value" the railroad going through).
An issue with electrification. No taxes on diesel, high taxes on the electrification infrastructure.
Best Hopes for Tax Exemption for Railroad Electrification Infrastructure,
Alan
Alan writes:
I think I can see why. Railroads are a commercial venture. They buy scheduled passage through communities. They pay no sales taxes to support the local jurisdiction. I can see why a state or county might levy higher property taxes for such a commercial venture. There is an impact. And the local power authority would have to maintain the infrastructure to support the railroad just like any other commercial venture.
In France Sarkozy calls for a National conference on the ailing French media. Which I read to mean that the traditional channels for delivering government propaganda are no longer working effectively and people are no longer responding correctly.
Just like those naughty fishermen :)
I will trade you Bush, Cheney, and a whole raft of cronies if you can get Sarkozy for us :-)
Seriously, swamping out the whored out corporate owned media is pretty much the task for our next Congress ...
Yes, but who is going to swamp out the whored out corporate oned Congress?
But...is Congress supposed to DO something...?
Voters will finish the job.
I'll be participating...
1. I know you all are probably tired of hearing from me about this, but something I have learned from talking to folks from other websites is this: if you get coordination from your readers, getting them to vote for your materials at the linkfarms such as reddit, digg, and SU, you increase your site's traffic numbers by incredible numbers.
It is not that hard to do. SuperG added a "ShareThis" button at the
bottom of each one of our posts, if one has an account on these services, all one has to do is go in there and click the particular service (you may also have to login if you have not already). If the post has not been submitted yet, it will submit it--if the post has already been submitted, it will give you the chance to vote it up. Simple.
So, folks, please help us out, click the above links or the "share this" button and vote for our work. It helps us get more eyes, which means more ad revenue to support the site.
2. Has everyone checked out alltop.com yet? Especially http://green.alltop.com? TOD is featured there as are the latest RSS feeds of many of the major green sites.
3. Also, 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...and tweet your friends about our posts now and again.
4. 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. Submit our stuff to those link farms or use the ShareThis buttons found around each post, they're simple (as long as you are logged in to the respective sites).
5. Tell your friends! :) We really do need and appreciate your support. That and "doing good" is what keeps us all going.
Thanks a lot!
Professor,
Do you have specific objectives or is this just a general call for increased visibility ... drop me a note ... sct@strandedwind.org
Neal
Honestly, this is just me being an advocate for our authors. Believe me, they work SO hard on this stuff, for no compensation...and so I would hope that our readers would get in the habit of taking a couple of minutes each day and helping them out by going to these sites and redditing/digging their posts.
Yes, more eyes also means more ad revenue, which gives us more revenue to keep the mice running on their growing wheels too...
Stung at the Pumps, More Hop on a Bus
"three step plan to drive oil and gas prices down 15% in 30 days"
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080527/netu041.html?.v=48
this in a speculationarian. the only step that has any chance of success, imo, is step three: strengten the us dollar by reducing the debt.
elwoodelmore...from your link...
'Surging oil and gas prices are fueling ever-higher inflation.'
Baloney! The Fed is fueling higher inflation by cutting interest rates and weakening the US Dollar. When interest rates paid on treasuries, CDs, et al, are lower than inflation the smart money is going where it can make a reasonable return.
'Investor and fund speculation in the energy markets has grown twenty-fold, from $13b to $260b over the last five years, according to CNBC.'
Baloney! Investors and speculators are running from the crashing dollar and treasuries into perceived safe havens...oil...and other commodities seen as safer than anything the Fed can manipulate.
'The key to bringing oil and gas prices down quickly will be opening strategic areas for production which will flush out widespread energy speculation from the market. Serious government action will send speculators running for cover," says Mr. Smith.'
'Serious government action'? What a joke. We have seen 'serious government action' for the last 8 years...that is why we are in the train wreck that is currently under way. Oil prices are set on world markets and will be effected little by producing small fields in the US.
Mr Smith's point number 3 'Strong Dollar Now' can be achieved by the Fed raising interest rates now as Volker did in the past. There will be a lot of pain...but, there will be a lot of pain on the current Fed course with little to show but loss of faith in the US economy by the entire world. If Bernanke/Paulson destroy all faith in US Treasury issuance then the game is over.
river, i agree with you about 95%, and i dont think reducing the debt can or will happen in any 30 day timeframe. currently the plan seems to be inflate away the debt. i doubt that will achieve anything except a lower standard of living. a lower standard of living is probably inevitable.
a typical person in this country can certainly reduce his oil and gas costs by 15% in 30 days via conservation. no mention in the article.
and btw, good to see you back.
River,
Crude oil is our civilizations' base, when its price rises so do all associated prices, giving it the power of being the ultimate inflationary force.
just about the stupidest things americans could do.
not to mention that the fact that the oil drilling wouldn't be online for years once they decide to start (a bad idea to begin with) and that upgrading refining capacity takes just about as much time, and the fact that the government totally hosed the average american by invading iraq and building a multi-trillion dollar debt level so that no actions could bring the dolalr back up within 10 years or decrease the american debt by any sizable amount without a complete economic recession.
What I'm getting at is that the entire idea of this bringing gas down by 15% by independence day? ludicrous. It would drop by almost nothing with all of these actions employed, and that drop wouldn't happen for 5 years at least.
I'll take Matt Simmons over this mornon any day of the week, the fact that this guy is encouraging americans to shoot themselves in the foot is troubling. Not that any american congressmen (or congresswomen) actually care what the voter thinks unless they're trying to persuade them to vote for them. I would be very suprised if the congress aides even mentioned any of these letters that do go in to the congress "representatives" - I use that term loosely.
Apologies if this came up on TOD on Sunday when the article was published but a Financial Times columnist was saying:
I'd be interested to hear comments on this.
It's an example of utter dishonesty. Firstly, about half that inventory is comprised of US commercial inventories of crude and products plus the SPR. The rest of the OECD countries maintain buffer stocks of 57 days consumption.
So the world could run for quite some time without the Saudi contribution to world production, but at the end of the period the entirety of OECD and US buffer stocks would be GONE, and there is no way that they could ever be reconstituted unless outright theft was resorted to.
What the guy is proposing is that ludicrous as the 3.5 billion barrels actually represents about 35-40 days global liquids production.
Thank you Londanium.
I'll drop the columnist a line regarding the reliability of his contact at Commerzbank.
Another thing to consider is how much of that 3.5 Gb is required for MOL.
If one does the straight math with Saudi exports at 9mbpd, the result is 389 days. But I would imagine that the 3.5Bbbls inventory includes OECD SPRs, which are unlikely to be drained as the whole of Saudi exports don't go to just those countries. Furthermore, the premise is inane as those inventories will likely be nil by the time Saudi ceases exporting.
The IEA's Oil Market report for May 13th is available to the general public today. It shows inventories lower than the past two years and falling when they should be rising. They say March OECD industry stocks were about 2.5bn barrels. Maybe the 3.5bn barrel number includes strategic reserves. Either way, the March inventory is the lowest since March 2005.
[Edit] And, the IEA says that current stocks in the OECD are down to 53.3 days of forward demand.
Great catch...we just found it too...Efforting...
"We've gone mad"
I've thought for some time that US frustration over the Saudis' failure to increase oil output most resembles a tantrum of a spoiled and throughtless child. Even though Monbiot's piece emphasizes emissions, the madness of western governments is, if anything, even more stark with respect to oil depletion. Given that our oil consumption must soon begin a rapid decline, the best possible thing our suppliers could do for us is to steadfastly refuse to push their aging oilfields any harder. Not only do their grandchildren need some of that oil--ours do too. The economic pain inflicted by high oil prices appears to be the only thing that will make our long-priviliged countries begin to change our ways, and it's terribly urgent for our own sakes that we change our ways. Let's hope the Saudis have enough resolve and enough oil to keep us on this painful plateau for a few more years.
Mark Folsom
Right on. Here is an email I sent to a commentator on Monday:
So, the idea is to use up the oil to the point it is so expensive that other energy sources become viable…shouldn’t we be saving the oil for future generations by cutting our current usage, through conservation, instead of continuing our drilling and hell bent for leather usage? Seems a bit selfish to me; I want my grandkids to have some of the benefits of gas and oil, like fertilizer to grow food so they won’t starve and fuel for ships so we can have efficient transoceanic transportation. Sounds like you don’t care about much more than keeping your oil-based lifestyle, and the future take care of itself.
Collin Riley
Since when do supposedly civilized people purposely impoverish their future generations? This, to me, is the greatest evidence of the corrupting of the American Dream...
Collin: The American Dream is succeeding on a grand scale by beating out your fellow Americans (including future generations of them). Where did you ever get the idea that guys like Trump or Mozillo are losing sleep over the fate of your grandkids? What is interesting is that Americans seem to perceive that their country is far more socialist, far more left wing than it actually is-IMO this colors predictions of a post peak America-grand railroad projects, etc. Constant references are made to WW2 or Manhattan project as if nothing has changed over the last 50 years. In other words, what are Mexico's post peak mitigation plans? I would assume they are to build the walls around the rich higher and increase security force hiring.
I agree entirely Mark.
This painfull process is the only light at the end of the tunnel right now. Gas prices need to keep going up, it's the only way we will be persuaded to develop solutions. When the cars on the road get too old, if gas prices are still this high (hopefully they will be), alternatively fueled cars will start to rise in demand which will push r&d by the embarrasingly slow north american companies into new alternatively fueled cars.
Cheers to OPEC for not increasing production, you are doing us a big favor.
I saw the latest VMT numbers were out this morning. It would be interesting to see the chart Stuart used to put up with the VMT vs.
GDP growth.
More news about the ongoing contraction in the trucking industry.
Soaring Fuel Prices Take a Withering Toll on Truckers
The airline industry and truckers find themselves in a similar predicament. Economic downturn reduces the amount of freight on the road while rising fuel prices dramatically increase costs, with truckers squeezed between these trends.
It sounds like a bonus to me. Let more freight be sent via rail, and use trucks for more local transporting, like from the train depot to the store/warehouse! Added bonus for less trucks polluting the air, clogging up the freeway, and tearing up the highways! Most truckers are great guys, but they are in a business like any other, and there's always risks associated with running a business.
I agree. It's an absolute economic necessity to stop moving goods cross country by truck. There is a lot of conservation to be had by killing this industry, which uses 20 billion gallons of diesel a year. It might be possible to double the fuel efficiency of the truck fleet over the next 10-15 years, but getting trucks off the roads is an even better solution.
“There is a lot of conservation to be had by killing this industry…”
Yeah and all the people that this will put out of work will kill more demand so it’s a win win situation.
www.sarcanol.com
Was that a wistful desire that things might go on just as they have been?
Sorry, painful as it is, a little bit of intentional demand (and job) destruction now can go a long way in preventing even worse in the future.
Shaman - IMHO chipping away at the problem via "conservation" is wishing for some form of BAU.
We need more than incremental measures at this point we need full on TRIAGE!
Triage implies that you have someone with guts and the political power to make the necessary cuts. Triage is about making "tough" decisions, cutting loose the dead weight, whether that means non-important items, or those who couldn't survive with or without help.
Sadly, it's very difficult to instill politicians with a sense of urgency to fixing problems, as solving problems involves stepping on some toes...
After all, we can choose what needs to be cut and cut it, or things will be cut by the nature of the economy.
I agree. I wasn't thinking about "conservation" - although we all need to start learning how to do it.
What I was thinking about was the need to dismantle our current economic system in order to start building something different (local, small scale, organic when possible, low energy inputs, high labor inputs). We can "protect" certain industries a long way into the downslope of oil production, but the result is long term recession/depression. But if we were to purposefully invoke the depression simultaneously with an effort to restructure values so that "economic progress," "financial success," and the like become negative and values like "temperate" and "simple" become positive, then we might be getting somewhere.
Perhaps you should look at US oil consumption post-1973. Based on that past performance, your statement above is a bit ridiculous. Conservation will, in fact, have the single biggest impact on oil consumption in the short term that is possible.
Cheers
2nd generation drug..
http://www.sarcasma.net/sarcasma_002.htm
Back in the '80s, the fuel price had very little to do with so many "tractors" being "taken out". I had a few trucks on the road at that time. #2 Diesel was about 40 -45 cents a gallon. Money could be made by everyone willing to work a little harder. The Teamster issue had a great deal to do with the loss of Tractors. Many, like Gordons Transport, in the top five, closed, rather than deal with renegotiating the union contracts. They probably had 5000 units alone.
The situation today, is nowhere close to what it was then. Now it is a death march.
BZ
Great explanation on why speculation has nothing to do with the recent oil price increase!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=753754816&play=1
Thank you Rick Santelli!
Khebab -
I don't pretend to have a total grasp of the way the oil markets work, but with regard to the effect of speculators on the market, the question I have is this:
If excessive speculation was the main cause of the Tullip bubble in 17th-Century Holland, and if excessive speculation was the main cause of the South Seas Company bubble in 18th-Century England, and if excessive speculation was the main cause of the dot-com and real estate bubbles in modern American, then why cannot excessive speculation be a major contributor to the sharp and rapid run-up in oil prices? In other words, why should the oil markets be any different?
This is a genuine rather than a rhetorical question.
Joule: Of course speculation is a factor-if you think there is investor interest in energy now, wait until 5 years from now. Having said that, a true "bubble" i.e. dot com or RE, has the potential to fall back to the start of the run up because there is no floor under prices. Even persons who call oil a bubble do not believe that oil supply would be this large if somehow prices could roll back to $45-at that price a lot of non-conventional isn't profitable. IMO OPEC would cut substantially were prices to break $90-I might be wrong.
BrianT -
Well, my analogy with actual historical bubbles may be imperfect, and I realize that the oil market is not a true bubble. However, there appears to be a strong consensus at TOD that speculators are NOT having an impact on oil prices. Whereas you seem to think that they are a factor, and my gut feel says the same thing, though I haven't a clue as to how much of a factor.
As I see it, the market doesn't know or care whether somebody is buying oil for actual use or as something to trade later on at a profit. All it 'sees' is that more people are trying to buy oil, and when that happens in any market, there is an upward pressure on price. So, I still don't understand why it is a given around here that speculators are not a factor in the short-term price of oil (but I do understand why over the long term their actions would tend to wash out).
Speculators are a factor but seem to be betting the wrong way. AMEX spokesmen mentioned last week that the Wednesday rally was due to $50 billion in shorts having called wrong and being forced to cover their bets. There is about $260 billion in the oil futures market right now but $50 billion of it blew up in someone's face(s) last Wednesday.
I'll give this a go the effects of speculation will be commodity and/or asset specific. Speculation in financial instruments and shares will not produce a physical strain on the speculator.. its just a piece of paper..
speculation in gold may take ownership of a static resource in storage... oil speculation requires the physical possession of the oil even if in hired storage facilities.. in which case storage costs should be responding as well.
not all items in the market are equal
Ricks words... "oil in particular"
Boris
London
I think there are two different ways to approach answering your question. For the first, imagine that freakish weather in South & Central America destroyed 90% of the coffee crop. What would happen to coffee futures? The answer is that expectations of future coffee shortages will cause prices to rise instantly. This is one of the valuable aspects of the futures markets -- it sends early price signals about future events, so producers and consumers alike can make plans and avoid a real mess when the shortages actually hit.
Of course, if the reports turn out to be incorrect and very little of the coffee crop was destroyed, people will talk about the speculative bubble in coffee prices. However, the reaction of the futures markets is correct, even if the bulk of "speculators" turn out to be wrong. When I cast oil prices in that light, it is tough to call this a bubble. IMO, oil prices are insanely cheap at $130/bbl. Just as in the coffee example, oil ought to skyrocket in price in expectation of future shortage, even if it turns out that the Saudis can pump 20 million barrels a day next year. It is right, at least in part, because it will encourage the Saudis to increase production if they can.
The second answer is that speculators don't buy and sell oil; they buy and sell oil futures. The South Seas Company (SSC) is probably a good analogy (as is the Mississippi Company of John Law). The SSC had shares, and it had expected profits on which the share values were based. If the SSC had actually delivered its speculated profits, no one today would be using it share prices as an example of a bubble. The bubble was only possible because there was a period of time in which people could fantasize about future profits and bid up the shares in expectation. Once it became clear that the SSC could never deliver the expected profits, the shares collapsed.
The difference with oil futures is that oil is "marked to market" every day, so there is no way for near term contracts to get very far out of whack with actual prices. In theory far futures contracts could get very expensive in expectation of future shortages, but I don't see how anyone who understands Peak Oil could consider that a "bubble". As long as oil is plentiful on the spot market, no one is going to buy an expensive contract from a speculator. They're going to buy the oil cheap on the spot market. The speculator will have to cash out the contract at a loss as it expires to avoid getting stuck with 1,000 barrels of oil. If speculators are able to unload their contracts on buyers, it is prima facie evidence that oil is not plentiful and that high prices are justified.
I'm not sure it is possible to have a bubble (in the proper sense of the term) in a base commodity. Bubbles require a disconnect between subjective valuations and "reality". This doesn't happen with base commodities, because they have no subjective component to their value. Their value is derived entirely from their use. If they can be profitably used at $130/bbl (or $200/bbl), and there is no oil at a lower price, then that is the proper price. This is basic pricing theory: things should be priced at the highest price the market will bear.
For $130 to be too expensive, there would have to be a reason why normal market operations don't apply to bring the price down. One reason might be price fixing among suppliers, but there is no evidence of this. Another would be hoarding, but there is no evidence of this either, other than the hoarding that governemnts do as part of their SPR. It could be true if speculators bought actual oil and refused to sell it at a cheaper price, but (most) speculators don't buy oil. It could be true if oil futures contracts were the only way to buy and sell oil, but they are not. Even so, I don't think any of these examples could properly be called a bubble.
shargash -
Thanks for the explanation.
I think I see the difference between a bubble-type situation and a commodity market in which there is a daily 'recalibration' of prices, if you will.
If I understand what you're saying there is somewhat of an automatic control mechanism, in that if speculators get too carried away, they are going to be burned when it comes time to settle up.
Carried away in either direction... just like last Wednesday.
Shargash
Here is an interesting article that includes all but the kitchen sink. George Soros is quoted in the title but the article contains comments from Soros, Matt Simmons, findings from recent Senate investigations, et al. Mike Masters, testifying before a Senate Subcommittee, attempts to show that crude prices have been effected by trading in the unregulated credit default swaps market, as opposed to trading on NYMEX or other CFTC markets.
'Until recently, US energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States, like the NYMEX, which are subject to extensive oversight by the CFTC, including ongoing monitoring to detect and prevent price manipulation or fraud. In recent years, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts that look and are structured just like futures contracts, but which are traded on unregulated OTC electronic markets. Because of their similarity to futures contracts they are often called “futures look-alikes.”
The only practical difference between futures look-alike contracts and futures contracts is that the look-alikes are traded in unregulated markets whereas futures are traded on regulated exchanges. The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron' ...snip...
'In contrast to trades conducted on the NYMEX, traders on unregulated OTC electronic exchanges are not required to keep records or file Large Trader Reports with the CFTC, and these trades are exempt from routine CFTC oversight. In contrast to trades conducted on regulated futures exchanges, there is no limit on the number of contracts a speculator may hold on an unregulated OTC electronic exchange, no monitoring of trading by the exchange itself, and no reporting of the amount of outstanding contracts (“open interest”) at the end of each day.'...snip...
The upshot is that ICE is performing a price discovery function and thereby effecting WTI prices...or, that is the claim that was made before the Senate.
It is interesting that Enron asked for the trading exemption (if true), but the Senate needs someone to point fingers at. After reading this article I chased it with a few grains of salt.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/05/soros-skyrocketing-oil-prices-bub...
Something that has indefinite life like land or stock can be the basis of a speculative bubble because the speculators can hold it off the market and drive up the price. Oil futures contracts have finite lifetimes and when they expire the buyer must sell the contract or take delivery. Absent a way to store oil speculators cannot bid up the price of the short term contracts.
Khebab,
The argument is not about whether speculation *can* affect the price of oil. Clearly it can. Just give me the means to buy and store a million barrels of oil a day in a really big store that will let me store a lot more than a day's worth of this activity, and I will be able to push the prices way up.
The argument is about whether the price *is in fact* being affected substantially by speculators. People on the no side of this argument say that storage, rather than use, by people who take physical delivery of the oil is 1) required for speculation to have an effect, and 2) is not happening.
Pretty interesting article by Mish on this. Any comments??
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/05/quantifying-commoditi...
That is interesting. And now I am confused again. If the Index Speculators are dumping money into the futures contracs for oil, and, as the article suggests, they are rolling over their contracts before they expire....? Well,I am just confused again. I thought I had understood how this was working from the post Khebab supplied. But I don't understand how the Index Speculators are able to never take delivery of thier future contracts and rollover to forward contracts...and still make a buck? definately I am out of my league here but trying to understand. This again raises the question for me...is speculation driving the price.
I'm tempted to hazard a guess that the index speculation he's referring to is in fact the Futures; in other words, the contango situation that recently arose.
For markets in general, if the price is too high, you have unsold stock left over.
If the price is at or below the 'best' price, it will all sell.
There is absolutely no sign of unsold stock.
Therefore, the price of oil is at (or below) the maximum price the market will pay for it.
It gets complicated quickly;
Oil is of several grades and 'sweetness' (less sulfur is sweeter);
There are nonlinearities in costs for producing additional oil;
A finite number of ships and pipes transport this oil away from the producers;
A finite number of refinieries operate at partial or full capacity;
Refined products in turn are valued differently from day to day on markets, affecting the value the refiner places on certain grades of oil delivered at certain times.
So I suppose the futures speculators are placing a wager on the refiners' valuation of oil s/he will be wanting to buy at some point in the future - which says as much about the speculators' conception of what the demand will be like at that future time as it does the supply - and the value of the currency ;)
"There is a crucial distinction between Traditional Speculators and Index Speculators: Traditional Speculators provide liquidity by both buying and selling futures. Index Speculators buy futures and then roll their positions by buying calendar spreads. They never sell."
If they indeed 'never sell' how the heck do they make any money on the deal? Something about this whole article smells fishy.
The guy in this video waves his arms and insists it ain't so.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=753754816&play=1
Joule writes: "In other words, why should the oil markets be any different?"
My take on what Rick Santelli spoke of in the video is that he has visibility into the *final* disposition of oil contracts. He states that there's nothing that "reaches out and grabs him" to convince him that speculators are the cause of the excessive rise in the price of crude.
The other commentators were asking about rolling over the contract dates to future months. He replied that he can see the *final dispositions* and the price doesn't seem to him to be caused by speculators.
Bubble or not Rick doesn't think it's caused by speculators.
that made me laugh.. more so because my journey of the last weeks went from believing what Rick said in my own language through a steep learning curve of the market terminology where I became unsure of myself back to where I started.
where is the oil?
Boris
London
That was great. I finally think I get it. I would like to see the chart he describes.
Yes, that was great. To many of those talking heads on TV "oil" is just a mythical thing that gets "traded" around a pit in Chicago or NY - and not a physical substance that has to be delivered to someone who bought it to process.
http://www.tradearabia.com/news/OGN_144189.html
2006 SA million barrels/day
Production 8.9 3.25 billion/365
Export 6.96 2.54/365
Own use 1.94
2007 SA
Production 8.52 3.11/365
Export 6.6 2.41/365
own use 1.92
8.9-8.52= .38/8.9= -4.27% production
6.96-6.6=.36/6.96= -5.17% exports
1.94-1.92 =.02/1.94= -1% internal use
So production is down by 4.3% and exports by 5.2% but interanl use is not up but only down by 1%.
These are good numbers? Was 2005 even higher or peak for SA and will it just keep dropping off a cliff? Will anything really come on line?
It looks like they are just talking about crude oil. The EIA total liquids consumption numbers are higher. I estimate that 2007 total liquids consumption went up close to 10%. The EIA number for the 2006 consumption increase was about 5.7%/year.
Here's the 10 year EIA data through 2006. 2007 is not out yet.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_time_series.cfm?fips=SA
The 2006 rate of change numbers and my estimates (as of 9/07) for 2007 Saudi numbers were as follows:
From this natural gas liquids makes up about 400 million or 1.1 million barrels per day, for a total of 8.5 + 1.1 =9.6 million barrels/day. That was what got me confused. I still don't understand the 11.1 million barrels per day idea as Isee that nowhere. 9.6 with gas liquids and crude is clear of course.
Then they refine a lot of their oil. Last year their export of refined product was down 25% however. They need gasoline for theri cars of course more all the time.
Look at the EIA chart referenced above, for total oil production for 2005.
Of course, they have recently shown a rebound in production, but I expect that 2005 will prove to be their final annual production peak.
Ok I made that a favourite so I could open in a new window and I can hardly wait till I get 2007 figures for th whole year. Everything going down from year to year except internal consumption. Smoking gun sort of thing.
How is the crude production/fuel consumption and a rapidly falling dollar playing out with American Drivers?
'Why Rising Oil Prices Are Deflationary
Rising oil and gasoline prices deflationary? It seems counterintuitive. But take a look at what's been going on as oil prices have increased:
Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles this past March compared to a
year ago, a 4.3% decline
Mastercard (MA) says gasoline sales were down 7% year-over-year last week
For the first four months of the year, while driving less remember,
Americans spent almost double the dollar amount on gas that they did
over the same period five years ago.
That dollar amount comes directly out of consumer discretionary spending. The irony of rising gasoline prices is that Americans will be forced to re-prioritize and readjust what are deemed "necessities." ...snip...
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/buffett-Greenspan-MA-consumer-oil-ho...
by Kevin Depew '5 Things'
River,
Thanks for this:
5. Buying Time... Literally
Tangentially related to this is a fascinating article that appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, "A Superhighway to Bliss." The article is about a neuroscientist, Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, working at Harvard's brain research center who experienced a stroke in 1996.
The results of the stroke were that her left-brain activities were suppressed; her perceptions changed. The left-side of the brain is the source of ego, analysis, judgment and context, or as the Times put it, "the incessant chatter" that normally fills our mind; everyday worries. .
Bolte's TED talk is phenomenal !
That would make sense only if you viewed gasoline purchases in isolation.
Again as basic fuel prices rise the cost of EVERYTHING increases as well.
Here is an illustrative thought experiment:
The challenge is to find ONE thing in the room you presently occupy that did not arrive there or was manufactured by the use of oil.
The Chinese Earthquake
http://www.cctv.com/english/20080527/108753.shtml
I also read the other day that the entire province's food production has more-or-less been lost, including hundreds of thousands of farm animals.
We discuss collapse, but while we do so, millions are already suffering it around the Globe in one way or another.
Yes. What many don't seem to get is that it isn't the large-scale trends that are important to the individual. It's what happens to him or her in their daily lives that's important. A severe illness or car crash that causes injuries is more of a calamity to the person that it happens to than global decline in cheap petroleum is. Of course, large-scale global issues impact the individual but day-to-day personal crises impact him/her more. It isn't the extinction of the human race people care about, it's their own personal mortality & that of those they love or interact with. Pump prices matter more than oil field depletion rates, even tho depletion rates effect pump prices. An earthquake or cyclone can rapidly make concern over Peak Oil moot.
I think you are oversimplifying the human mind (or generalising behaviour and cognition from psychopaths or depressive minds). There are more people than you seem to believe who do care about the future of the human "race", be it only with their own children and close relationships in mind. Caring about others and the future of humans belongs to deep motives if not instincts.
I think selfishness, egoism, egotism, self-centerdness exists indeed (and has always) but has been amplified and pushed to a paroxism in our societies because that is the main motive behind consumption once basic needs are met ...
I think that worrying about the big picture global issues is perhaps a luxury that many do not have. I spend a lot of time thinking about what is happening on a global level, but if I was struggling to find food, water, shelter, or heat, I do not think that I would be concerned with Saudi depletion rates or atmospheric CO2, even understanding that these things are important. And as I focus more on ensuring such basic necessities of life, I find I have less time to ponder big picture issues which I will be unable to effect anyway. This is the same reason that societies without excess food production do not generate a lot of scholars, artists, and scientists.
We are like the ants on the log floating down the river - we all think we are steering.
Caring about the wellbeing of one's own children & close relations is kin selected. Caring about unrelated individuals in the near term can partially be explained by expectations of reciprocal altruism. But what rational explanation can there be for caring about the wellbeing of anything or anyone besides kin after one dies? Explain how selection could hardwire the propensity for that.
As Chucky's mutt, you must know better than to posit any purpose for selection. You might as well ask how selection could hardwire for opposable thumbs. A trait survives because it helps the organism survive. However, it does not arise for any reason at all, it is simply a mutation.
How does this explain semelparous reproduction? No, traits that help the organism pass on its genes are selected for, whether or not those traits favors survival.
Nothing in my post implies a belief in any "purpose" or meaning or orthogenic impetus to selection. So far as I know the universe, including selection, is completely ateleological. If anything I post seems to you to imply or indicate otherwise, I believe the problem is with your interpretation rather than with my intent.
First, we are all kin. Second, our amazing technology that has let the global population rise to 6 billion, this is the result of people publishing their results, sharing ideas, honoring contracts with strangers, giving their lives to defend the rule of law, etc. Teachers working for low pay to educate the next generation.
Whether it's genetics or mimetics or whatever, our globalized culture of ever tighter communication and cooperation has been fantastically successful at reproducing itself and expanding.
Of course we have built up defensive systems, so when sociopaths try to game the system and inflame their parasitic pathway... of course the defensive machinery can never be perfect. But human culture is surely the most amazing and reslient phenomenon on the planet. Which doesn't mean that the next coupld centuries won't be a daunting challenge!
Good post. Yes, it is cultural or mimetic or socialization processes that would engender any sense of caring about the wellbeing of those who share no more of one's own genes than the mean of the population, or about what happens to anything or anyone other than one's own progeny after one dies. The propensity to care about such things hasn't been ordained by natural selection and arguably amounts to cultural baggage that works against the Darwinian fitness of those saddled with such concerns. Since I don't personally believe in any non-arbitrary criteria upon which ethics or morality can be based, it all boils down to personal aesthetics & one is free to adopt whatever ethical/moral criteria one finds satisfying. Most people, of course, simply buy into whatever criteria they've been fed - usually by those whose own interests are served by feeding the gullible crap. I find it interesting how those who profess to care about the future of the species claim the moral high ground & become all pissy when their hypocrisy is challenged. To me it's merely another example of the pervasive primate propensity to indulge in arrogant posturing & hubris.
Myself, I don't believe that it ever actually boils down. Personal aesthetics & sense of satisfaction are just as arbitrary - and really just as culturally programmed! - as whatever dogma gets served up in the church down the street!
My own religion says - when it feels like the crud at the bottom of the pot is the ultimate residue, that just means the process has gotten stuck, and a shift is needed. Rather than holding on even tighter when one finds oneself getting stuck, the funner game is to open up and loosen up. Look for the door, where movement is possible. Find the key!
I really enjoyed Michael Steinberg's book _Fiction of a Thinkable World_. It might help you think about "personal aesthetics".
The odd thing - we folks who can see what a crossroads humanity has brought itself to - sometimes it feels like we are trapped - but actually this kind of opportunity to make a real difference is inconceivably rare! It's like a tightrope walk across some vast canyon. True freedom has a kind of frightening aspect - our actions are always limitlessly consequential, but sometimes it can get really obvious!
I am not sure what you are looking for. I mean, when you seek a rational explanation for this or that structure in the human mind, are you doing so from the point of view of evolutionary biology ? If yes do you mean that nothings could exist in the human or animal mind without a purpose for selection, competition or serving the genome ?
Or are you looking for a rational explanation for human behaviour only through the lense of self benefit (which means equating "rational explanation" with "raison d'être" or trying to find final causes for a structure) ?
But why should we look for a rational explanation for the human mind ? Isn't that already projecting ourselves onto ontology ? Why not try to take things as they appear to be, for instance : humans are contradictory, they care, they harm, they create, they destroy, they make art, they make crap, and so on. That we care about the future of humanity is a fact. That we can consider to destroy humanity is also a fact (and we are equipped to do so). We can be selfish, we can be altruistic. Why should one tendancy be the result of nature, the other a result of construction (or neurosis) ?
Except for a few examples, we aren't yet able to define what the fundamental impulses for our minds are. While the contents (or representations) of our minds are cultural, the way we deal with them, how we select them for action in a general sense are related not only to what we have learned (culture) but also to our structure (see Nate Hagens posts). This structure in turn is very difficult for ourselves to perceive, stand alone to describe. But I firmly believe that every "-ism" we apply to this is but a mere partial projection of this very structure and cannot encompass the whole.
Even if we devote only a little time to care for humanity as a whole, and it would be foolish to do otherwise because we have to care for ourselves, the very fact that a lot of people do so more than our genes would require, is for me a sign that this can only be explained by a fundamental impulse. And TOD is for me more proof than I would need.
People still don't get it. They are protesting higher taxes on fuel because they want to consume more. They are missing the fundamental idea that oil is finite and the faster you use it, the faster it will be gone.
I'm surprised, though, that the EU is (currently) keeping the taxes intact. Compare that to the nonsense here the US where the SPR deposits were stopped, politicians are trying to cut the gas tax for the summer, and there's talk of opening the SPR to flood the US markets. What part of "Strategic" and "Reserve" don't people understand? Oh wait, it's 6 months until election. Time to make sure the masses are fat, dumb, and happy.
"People still don't get it".
A couple of years ago the IEA and EIA didn't seem to get it either. Maybe it's the people's turn next.
IEA says optimistic to think oil price will fall much
Ottawa to Suburbs: Increase Density or No Rail
http://www.canada.com:80/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=fdff65de-...
Quite remarkable turnaround (or ongoing battle) for a city that screwed things up as badly as possible for their first Light Rail line earlier.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Alan: One of the problems with mass transit is politics and corruption. Here in Toronto, the transit system is overloaded where the riders are, and underused where they aren't-so they are expanding where the riders aren't (the inner suburbs). They built a subway line-Sheppard Ave E-because of who owned the land-nobody uses it. Downtown, the system is filled to bursting yet all the expansion is going to be in the outlying regions. There is no acceptance (yet) that the city of the future will have physical limitations in terms of its possible sprawl limits.
OTOH, two streetcar lines have been given private ROWs (taking space from rubber tires and speeding them up), St. Clair and another (Queensway ?).
I think that you are wrong about the proposed Light Rail lines in Toronto having "no riders". As a system expands, density increases on all existing lines (if only by a few %). Hopefully the new lines will be uncongested, but time will tell.
My memory is vague on this, but were there not plans to extend Shepard that were never built (no $) and that is more the cause of low ridership on that stub ?
I have heard that one can tell where the subway stations are in Toronto from the air. Just look for clusters of taller buildings. Hopefully the same (on a lesser scale) for the new stations on the new Light Rail lines.
Urban Rail tends to create it's own riders over time. Post-Peak Oil this will be even more true.
Best Hopes for TTC,
Alan
Alan: You make good points-it is possible that eventually Sheppard east will have the density to support the line-the current situation is frustrating to downtown residents jammed into streetcars and subway cars while the TTC pleads poverty.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052708...
For Texas farmers, production costs are spiraling along with crop prices
12:04 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 27, 2008
By DAVID McLEMORE / The Dallas Morning News
I wonder how the current situation would differ if the biofuel industry hadn't tied grain prices to energy prices.
One possibility: increasing fuel and fertilizer prices could have cut into farm incomes enough to have created a farm foreclosure crisis in addition to the home foreclosures crisis.
Another possibility: high fuel and fertilizer prices could have caused a decrease in the acreage planted and fertilizer use like it did in 2006 after Katrina. In that case we could still have high food prices and talk of food shortages.
Hello WT,
Thxs for this info plus all the other tireless work that you and Khebab do for TOD--please keep flogging the dog on this blog!
This farmland pricing trend again reminds me of my earlier posting on the 'two birds in the bush, or one bird in the hand' postPeak dilemma:
To what extent are people cashing in their fertilizer stock profits [2 bush birds] to buy farmland and store NPK [one hand bird]?
What FF prices, or possible I-NPK nationalization, will tip this farmland and fertilizer supply/demand curve to drastic levels?
How much O-NPK recycling can be achieved to offset postPeak depleting fuel and I-NPK flowrate supplies becoming Unobtainium?
I wish I knew how to use statistics to figure things like this out.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Good job the nations fleet of EPV's aren't dashing home to plug in :)
Sizewell B went offline. No reason given, no idea when its going to be back.
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/05/27/afx5049913.html
Also the LCPD (Large Plant Combustion Directive) has come into force this year. Any plant over 50MW without Flue Gas Desulphurisation is limited to 20,000 hours operating time after Jan 2008, or at the latest must close by 2015.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aYqOp2gTIxkM&refer=e...
Baseload prices hit £80/MWh
Next winter is going to be interesting, specially if the fuel protesters decide to blockade the refineries and disrupt gas supplies.
Good to see its all under control!
This morning CNBC interviewed Steve Forbes (link below), mostly on politics (Forbes is an economics adviser for McCain), but they also asked him what he thought about crude. In short, he said it was all a bubble, not supply and demand, but instead the result of speculators and too much liquidity. He thinks the rational price is closer to $70/barrel, but he also started to babble on about oil belonging down at $50, $40 or even $35/barrel(!!!).
It's unfortunate to see McCain's economic adviser be so completely out of touch. Global oil supply has been stagnant for several years and yet demand has continued to grow-- little wonder that prices have increased dramatically.
It really sounds like McCain needs some new economic and energy advisers... bad.
Link to the CNBC interview(the crude part shows up at 3:30).
Steve Forbes is basically a retarded rich child-IMO guys like Steve Forbes will be guiding the USA post peak.
I've heard that interview also, Forbes is an idiot and has no clue about oil.
Is Forbes an alien...a bot...or the geekiest of geeks?
'REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE STEVE FORBES IS not for real [NATION, Feb. 19]. Or at least he's not real. He doesn't blink. I don't think I've ever seen his eyelashes move. Does he have an eye-drop company as a supporter? Also, he sounds like a tape recording every time he opens his mouth.'
I have seen Forbes speak on tv a few times and have never seen a stranger person(?) or spectacle running for public office. Stevie needs to be returned to bot central for blink chip mods.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984253-5,00.html
Forbes has been so wrong on oil prices for so long he makes Yergin look good. His magazine has religiously parroted his cheapo oil price forecasts apparently he has a bunch of ass munching yes men on staff or they are mentally impaired. Their absurd forecasts have lost the Forbes rag a lot of cred in the financial community. He has continued this oil on the brain spasm about $30-$40 oil for so long without ever giving any rational explanation other than thats what he thinks it should be... He is a boat anchor for McCain and needs to cast adrift.... his grinning piehole is tantamount to a channel change around here.
Steve Forbes is just another mouth piece for the elites.
Every year, he and his magazine republish the ultimate lie for the masses: Ours is an open elitism and yes, you too can become a member (an elite) if only you follow the 9 step plan and try really really hard. Obviously you're not yet trying hard enough which is why you are not yet rich.
_____________________
The 9 step plan is explained in the movie, "Little Miss Sunshine".
You see, there winners and there are losers. Winners never quit. Oh, never mind.
The recent surge in TOD popularity has resulted in 300+ comments every day - making it impossible to keep up with my day job.
I don't know the "approved" phrases for such things, but could we set up sortable tags for the comment threads: markets, geology, transit, climate, etc. ? Users could then select/deselect comment threads of particular interest.
This idea is probably impossible, but I just can't keep up now that TOD has hit the Big Time. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about web design has better ideas...
One thing I would like is if there were a mode whereby when you do a refresh, only the new comments were expanded, and the previously seen comments were contracted...
I'll second that!
Oh man! That would be great!
There is no such thing as new. All comments are old. There is only what is "new" to you. It's relative.
If you have FireFox as your browser, then hit Control-F, type in "[new", then hit Alt-N to jump from one new comment to the next.
Monbiot, just perfect...I laughed so hard I almost lost my lunch.
Google
John McCain/Dutko Worldwide
Dutko Worldwide/Saudi Arabia
The public is invited to a special hearing on the energy crisis in Massachusetts. I will be one of the presenters. No link, sorry, but below is text from media advisory (Sen. Marc Pacheco's office). The Senator and 2 Representatives are forming a group in the MA legislature to understand and advocate policy dealing with Peak Oil and its consequences.
- Dick Lawrence
ASPO-USA
RUNNING ON EMPTY: MASSACHUSETTS FACES RECORD ENERGY COSTS
POST AUDIT TO HOLD OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FUEL PRICES AND THE STATE'S RESPONSE
Committee to Review Impact on Consumers and State Planning
On Wednesday, May 28th, at 1:00 pm the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight will conduct an oversight hearing relative to the impact on consumers of high fuel prices and the state's plans to address the issue.
Requested testimony includes the Department of Public Utilities, Division of Energy Resources, National Consumer Law Center, Conservation Law Foundation, Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Congressman Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
WHAT: The Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight will conduct a hearing relative to the impact on consumers of high fuel prices and the state's plans to address the issue.
WHEN: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at 1:00 pm
WHERE: A -1 Hearing Room, State House, Boston
I hope this goes well.
The mindset on beacon hill has to change and quickly, although there are some good things happening such as reintroduction of the old colony greenbush lines after about 50 years and the soon to be reintroduction of streetcar/trolley service to Union Square and Medford hillside after about seventy years and the (all be it small) farm conservation program, more has to be done, the Commonwealth has to protect its remaining farm land, and further expand the urban rail network, starting with restoring the Arborway Branch as has ben promised and agreed to do.
Which members are currently involved besides Pacheco? I ask because there are some who if given the information about peak oil are open minded enough to actually comprehend the problem, i.e. Marzilli, Evangelidis etc.
In a week's time or so (another priority ahead of me) I will have finished a joint proposal by Ed Tennyson (former Deputy Secretary of Transportation for Pennsylvania) on the first phase of running MTBA commuter trains on electricity.
That is buy EMUs at the end of the current SEPTA (Philadelphia) order. EMUs can operate singly or in pairs between rush hours and on weekends, and then join together in 6, 7 or 8 car trains during rush hour. Regular loco pulled trains can handle the other routes during rush hour.
Significant operational savings (and speeds increase by 15% when electrified). Added speed means 6 electrical trains can do the work of 7 diesel trains.
Just FYI at the presentation.
Best Hopes for a Solid first step,
Alan
Sarkozy calls for suspending European VAT on oil
27 May 2008 | 03:25 AM ET
Good article by Jeff Rubin (almost sounds like JHK)-the only thing he misses is some products will never again be manufactured in NA IMO http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080527.woileconomy0...
Agreed - certainly worth reading. It is remarkable how CIBC World Markets is identifying major trends that until recently would have been sneered at. Kunstler seems a bit less wild-eyed and a bit more clear-eyed by the month.
A little bit of JHK's vision of the future, today.
a quote:
Mosquitoes thrive in the empty swimming pools and junk piles that have been filled and refilled by the recent rains. Ticks flourish in the tall grass. So do rodents, which also like the shelter of dry, empty houses and whatever garbage they might contain. Then come the snakes, with the rest of the animal kingdom not far behind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR200805...
I find it slightly amazing the psychology we see among the financial journalists. We just had a commodity shake-out today, and oil fell "all the way down" to $128. I see things like "the air is getting let out of the balloon" being said.
This signals to me that we will see this same type of hope and complacent optimism when $160 is the new commodity shake-out price.
The path we are choosing is becoming increasingly scary. Hang onto your hats.
--Jack
Hello TODers,
My thxs to TopTODer 'Gail the Actuary' for the toplinks on NPK & sulfur to help bring this topic to a wider audience. When one considers the recent news of possible mine nationalization in Brazil, China's hoarding of NPK by imposing high export tariffs, India and other Third World countries going broke from NPK subsidies [plus screaming at the fertilizer cartels for blatant restraint of trade], oil exporters flooding Morocco with outright gifts in exchange for future consideration, the flood of money being shifted for P & K exploration and possible later production, natgas depletion eventually hammering Haber-Bosch N-production, skyrocketing sulfur and sulfuric acid pricing, Putin urging his countrymen to grow their own food, and erupting NPK pricing and shortages driving agriculture back towards Liebig Minimums--These are not happy trends, especially if droughts, floods, UG99 wheat rust, and another acts of Nature are stirring the global pot.
Colin Campbell, ASPO, and Heinberg have much discussed the 'ASPO Oil Depletion Protocol' yet nothing appears to have been accomplished by the global leadership. Should we hold any expectations of a possible
'N, P, K and Sulfur Depletion Protocol' as the Hubbert Downslope and ELM starts hammering us? Or will food and NPK resource wars erupt that just totally dwarf the earlier Guano Wars?
Recall the quote by Nobel Prize Winner Borlaug, "Without Fertilizer, it is Game Over".
Have you hugged your bag of NPK today?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Related comment, with hotlinks and colored highlighting, that basically covers the same issues I mentioned above:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_1966394~zonei...
-----------------------------
Lofty Prices for Fertilizer Put Farmers in a Squeeze
-----------------------------
Why didn't you all tell me you were fanatics?
Those guys are weird, they have turned genuine skepticism into a dogma, but added some completely irrational beliefs of their own. So they reject God, UFOs, the paranormal, then also Climate Change, Peak Oil - but endorse abiotic oil and "vast untapped reserves of oil".
Forget about having a rational discussion with them, they are no more open minded than creationists.
Is there a way (chart or table) to look at total exports that make it out of oil exporting countries that can show us export declines? The world reached a new peak in oil production this year that beat older numbers (and I can’t find the link but I know it is on The Oil Drum, and I know the number is subject to revision) but an export chart showing declines in exports might help in showing why prices are increasing so much even with new peaks in oil production.
Also, is there any way to look at declining EROEI of oil production that shows available energy to do work in other areas of the economy? With more oil coming from more energy input intensive sources, are oil companies subtracting energy they use to operate machinery (excavators, dump trucks, helicopters to reach remote locations, etc.) from their production?
You may have seen this before...not up-to-the-minute is the problem. I don't think getting current info is possible but that would be really nice. This shows a decline in net oil imports based on the top 15 exporters.
http://netoilexports.blogspot.com/
I believe it is the top 20.
Who maintains this blog (screen name on this board or is it the european oil drum?) and why haven't I heard about it before? As much as westexas talks about declining net exports and how declining net exports is THE problem that is going to hurt energy importers (like the US), I would think we would see and discuss many more world net oil exports graphs like this one on the blog you listed.
Look and only one comment!!
http://netoilexports.blogspot.com/2007/10/annual-net-oil-exports.html
Note that the monthly data are, insofar as I know, based on estimates of consumption (of course, all the data are estimates to some extent), but in any case the best data are probably the annual data, and EIA has not yet released the bulk of their 2007 data. My estimate is that the top five showed a collective net export decline of about one mbpd in 2007, down about 1.8 mbpd from their 2005 peak. Once the 2007 EIA data come out, I have reason to believe that one or more MSM journalists will do a story on net oil exports.
Someone should have warned us about Russian production:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=6b0da38a-3ed4-...
Russia worried as oil production slides
Moscow, May 27, 2008
Hello WT,
Thxs for this info, but, of course, you/Khebab and Darwinian and others have already long ago warned us of this possibility.
I think my downthread link below adds further confirmation. Consider: IF Russia had lots of phosphates, they would be nuts not to maximize sales with DAP currently stratospherically priced. Instead, they are reducing phosphate exports--Big Red Warning Flag to me!
From memory: I believe Russia has just a small single digit % of easily economic recoverable reserves.
Petrobras of Brazil leased a large part of the world's deep offshore drilling fleet in an effort that is projected to double their oil production to about 4 million barrels a day by 2015. Higher prices of oil are causing increased activity in the shipyards of the Pacific Rim where drilling rigs and platforms were built. About 100% of the deep sea drilling fleet is under contract for 2008. The offshore basins of Brazil rival some of the largest oil fields in the world.
West African deep offshore basins were yet not fully explored or developed as was evidenced by the recent discovery in Ghana that might contain a billion barrels of oil.
Land drilling rig uitlization rates were lower than deep offshore rig rates. New drilling technology was decreasing the number of days required to drill a well. Higher efficiency drilling might allow for the development of Eastern shale gas fields such as the Marcelus Shale of NY, PA, and WV; also the New Albany Shale of Indiana and Illinois.
If the price of energy drops significantly, rig rates and utilization rates will fall.
While the United States economy is almost flat lined, the world economy was growing at higher rates with China and India growing at more than 7% each (wholesale inflation in India was nearly 7%), and Europe growing at 1.7%. Yet the world cannot all have more cars without greater oil production unless they lower the consumption per vehicle user(s). Weaker economies have to give up some oil. It is true that you will find greater demand for oil if you lower the price and at higher prices the demand will fall. Part of the U.S. economic problems were with the fall of the dollar. Every so often it starts to reverse and strengthen yet the chronic problems of large government and trade deficits continued. Foreigners were using trade surpluses to buy United States businesses, real estate, and bonds taking the profits out of the hands of Americans.
OPEC calculated Middle Eastern oil demand was expected to grow 4.27% in 2008 or about 280,000 barrels per day. Only China was forecast to grow faster at about 5.28% or 400,000 barrels per day.
See OPEC April 2008 Monthly Oil Market Report page 24:
http://www.opec.org/home/Monthly%20Oil%20Market%20Reports/2008/pdf/MR042...
Total world oil demand was forecast to grow 1.19 million barrels a day in 2008. This was before the current high price spike. It is yet too early to calculate all the conservation that might have occurred as a result of the price spike. Damage estimates might become apparent later.
A lot is riding on the Thursday oil and gas usage stockpiles report, if low gas prices will hit $4 probably this weekend or early next week, if high then gas prices will likely fall before rising in about two weeks.
Oil crisis triggers fevered scramble for the world's seabed
BBC: Fuel demo adds to road taxes row
I've been curious about the twin-issues of Peak oil and Global warming, which one is the greater threat. Matt Simmons (and others?) dismisses GW as the smaller threat, apparently on the assumption peak oil means peak-CO2, while I'm not so sure.
It seems to me that we're progressing towards dirtier and dirtier fossil fuel production, so even if "peak oil" hits or even "peak net energy", I imagine the CO2 production will continue increasing exponentially long after those dates whatever they are.
I'm just curious, along with predictions of peak fossil fuel usage, has anyone tried estimating CO2 production assuming "worst case" of humanity continuing to burn every possible fossil fuel available.
For me "peak oil" isn't a problem since Nature will solve it for us as we run down. The PROBLEM is our response to peak oil in trying to get energy from other fossil fuels to make up the difference.
The problem for me isn't "What are we going to do for energy when oil runs down?" but instead "What force exists to resist increased production of coal, sand tars, etc. to get the fuel we want?"
I don't know if GW responses really have the TEETH to resist this slippery slope of reduced net energy from dirtier and dirtier sources.
I so think the SOLUTION responses are parallel - we need to burn less fossil fuels, and NOT accept the path of diminishing returns, increased pollution that the future of fossil fuel consumption.
I guess the resistance is similar on both fronts. GW detractors doubt predictions of climate change. PO detractors doubt predictions of near-term shortages.
Anyway, I'd love a GRAPH, showing predictions of oil production (assuming we transition further and further into nonconventional oil) AND the CO2 production as a result.
It seems to me such a graph would be informative to the combined threat, and give argument to resist. It's scary because whether peak oil comes early or late, CO2 production is guaranteed to be entirely an unstoppable exponential growth without dramatic change in our incremental choices of status quo.
Let's see...I don't know that we have that per se, but we do have the discussions of the Karecha and Hansen paper (first below) and some other pieces.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2559
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2200
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/18/93514/869
Run your terms through the tag system and see what else you get.
Thanks!
This graph from Hansen 2006 looks pretty clear of the risk, apparently assuming coal can continue to expand for the next century!
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/18/93514/869
Others have coal consumption peaking in 10-15 years, not in 2100.
According to some reports the amount of coal reserves are vastly overstated, I read it on Richard Heidenberg's website.
That picture is of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, not the additions, so don't assume that the BAU scenario implies coal production peaks as late as 2100.
Regarding the larger question - I believe it is unlikely that CO2 abatement policies will have any significance. The problem is that our (human) standard operating procedure is to think only of the short term, or perhaps vaguely about out to the age of retirement. To try and bring the far (in human terms) future effects of the anthropogenic perturbations to climate into the here and now, in the sense of "costs", is a universally losing political proposition.
As such, consider that PO will be a great stimulus to the coal-to-gas/CTL industry, and then to the mining of the kerogen laden rocks, and of course to the maximal development of tars and the clearing of what remaining forests still stand (lots of wood still in the Amazon and Siberia, all waiting for buyers....).
In light of this, I would propose that the most logical consequence for us to do, given PO, is to estimate the long term effects of a more greatly carbon ladened atmosphere, and come up with adaptation strategies.
Note: depending upon how doomer-ish your vision is of PO, one might consider that future coal use will also significantly add sulfur to the atmosphere, as a collapsed economy will likely result in environmental regulations being thrown out the window. This could lead to some mid-century cooling.
Some coal to liquids plants will be made, but not many. They cost around $1B per plant (but that probably has gone up by now), take a long time to construct and provide only 10,000 barrels per day.
http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/faq.asp#9
Just listened to Warren Olney's show, To the point. Discussion on oil costs, economy and peak oil.
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp080527the_future_of_energy
Hello TODers,
Is Russia starting to hoard it phosphate reserves now? Will Putin start to stockpile massive quantities of NPK as they go postPeak?
http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/0/080C9F347437D6E4C225745600462651?Ope...
------------------
Belarus to purchase phosphate rock from Morocco, Syria, Kazakhstan
Belarus has signed contracts with Morocco, Syria and Kazakhstan to purchase phosphate feed stock for the Gomel chemicals plant, deputy chairman of the Belneftekhim concern Mikhail Osipenko told reporters on May 27.
According to him, Belarus turned to these countries as the supplies from Russia were not sufficient. The plant was initially designed to use apatite concentrate supplied by the Russian Fosagro company. “They reduced the supplies and we turned to the feed stock from Morocco,” Mikhail Osipenko said.
------------------------------------------
Too bad the hundreds of military strategists, that are all over the globe reading TOD daily, won't respond. :(
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Compare the size of Ghawar to this chart of Morocco's phosphate deposits:
http://www.scielo.org.pe/img/revistas/iigeo/v8n16/a10fig02a.jpg
Apparently $10/gallon is the limit in Britain, this is interesting because the US and British driving habits are very similar, I expect similar outrages at $8-$10/gallon in the US, but we won't have anything like the 60% tax that the British pay on fuel to reduce and no public transport or healthcare to rely on either. I'm looking for further developments on the European Continent, I'm interested to see at what point the fuel taxes are scaled back there, especially in Germany which has the largest economy and road network in Europe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/28/taxandspending.houseofcom...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/automobiles/collectibles/18SMOKE.html
The Article though old, does make me think that we sooner or later will start figuring out how to live life like Cubans do today.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html
Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'
By Muhammad Cohen
NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
These bombing Iran stories are getting like getting like UFO and Elvis sightings. Give them a rest until something looks like happening.
Hello TODers,
I have covered this topic months ago, but it is nice to see the MSM finally starting to spool up it coverage.
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/costs-of-sulfuric-acid-2/2008/05/28/
-----------------
Skyrocketing Costs of Sulfuric Acid
“Sulfuric acid is one of those unheralded lubricants that keep the gears of the industrial economy spinning,” says Chemical and Engineering News. “Although less in the limelight than petrochemicals such as ethylene or polyethylene, it is, in fact, the largest-volume chemical in the world.”
Key Compton, president of a sulfuric acid producer in Texas, said toward the end of last year that customers soon “may be paying prices for sulfuric acid that they’ve never seen before.”
-----------------------------------
http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6564115.html
-----------------------
Sulfur prices rise, boosting fertilizer costs
Even higher prices coming; farmers group accuses producers of price gouging
In only a year the price of sulfur has risen more than tenfold from $50/metric ton to $500, according to ICIS, the chemicals-pricing service. Editor Stephen Burns writes to clients today that Mideast sellers have mentioned $900/metric ton as minimum target for second-half sulfur contracts, with up to $1,000 possible. “Their position is based on higher spot prices since the start of this year and expectations that the sulfur market will strengthen even further as the year progresses,” ICIS writes.
--------------------------------------
http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6554638.html?q=sulfur
---------------------------
Sulfuric acid prices explode
Buyers are reporting a “perfect storm” of supply and demand issues in the sulfuric acid market that has resulted in a huge jump in sulfuric acid prices in Purchasing’s monthly survey.
So, what’s behind the huge price increases? Increased demand for sulfuric acid from booming agriculturual and base metals markets has pushed the raw material price of sulfur through the roof in the U.S. while the U.S. market continues to see a long-term slowdown in sulfur supply from reduced production at oil refineries.
According to the U.S. Geologicial Survey data, U.S. sulfur production declined in 2007 for the third consecutive year.
-------------------------
The Wall Street Journal evens weighs in:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121186936029322369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
-------------------------
The Lucrative Stink Troubling Farmers
...Sulfur is key but secondary fertilizer ingredient, behind the nitrogen and potassium usually contributed through potash, and the phosphorus that comes in the form of phosphate. And the Journal reports farmers believe the small group of U.S., Canadian and Russian companies that dominate markets for potash and phosphate have too much market power. In some countries, these producers enjoy unusual protection from antitrust rules.
-----------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?