no biggie. we're drowning in oil anyway!
Rgds,
WeekendPeak

(yes, I’m bored, in London for an assignment, and growing more and more skeptical of all the energy related statements out there. It’s quite clear that that the net number of BTUs (and certainly per capita) is not going up .
The Thelma and Louise aspect is not lost on me. It is exactly what we are doing. One of the guy in the office is going to Turkey for a long weekend with his wife+2 kids. But hey, it’s only a couple of hundred quid. And yes, I remember all the “immigrant “ (turkey and north Africa) workers in northern Europe when I lived there…..

The individuals at the executive level of BP management don't care whether BP gets hit with big fines. Even if some of them lose their jobs, they still walk away with their fat salaries, stock options, and severance packages GCCF.

No, the way you deal with this problem and all other corporate crime is to repeal the concept of corporate personhood and go after the personal assets of the bastards in charge.

Threaten a rich executive with losing his job, and all he sees is an early retirement and more time on the golf course.

Threaten to make him a poor man, send him to jail, and put his family on the street and you'll see a guy motivated to do the right thing for a change.

I try to buy things with less plastic, especially excessive packaging. I needed some computer parts this week and found "oem" parts that weren't packaged for retail; just cardboard boxes - same parts, and they cost less. We also buy food in bulk and store stuff in glass canning jars. I've always thought that excessive packaging should be discouraged somehow. Avoid disposable products. Some of the stuff I see is just crazy (air fresheners?!).

Learn to use a rake instead of a blower; clippers instead of a weed eater. Better yet, give tax credits for yard goats and chickens: no mowing, free fertilizer ;-)

The easy answer: Tax it.

Pro:

- Taxing transportation fuel is an effective tactic which obviously works in Europe to reduce consumption.
- Taxes are easy and inexpensive to implement, at the retail or wholesale level.
- Taxes would generate tax revenue to offset taxes elsewhere, or reduce deficits.

Con:

- It is honest and transparent and immediately painful, and will thus likely be wildly unpopular.

I've witnessed all the shenanigans, expense, and subterfuge which is associated with the administration of complex government-supported programs to encourage energy efficiency. The goal of reducing oil consumption could be accomplished more efficiently and effectively with a simple tax: let the market work its magic, and people will come up with their own solutions.

Good luck!

Thanks for asking Alan.

My personal crusade at work is to allow telecommuting and/or changing to a 4 day work week.

There are huge numbers of people who drive many miles each day to go sit in a cubicle and do essentially the same tasks they could be doing in a home office.

Combine allowing a day or two of telecommuting with work week reduction from 5 to 4 days (if that's too radical maybe just do it every other week / alternate within the workforce) and I think you would have significant reductions in oil consumption. A side benefit might be that a measure of sanity could be restored in some people's lives since less time is eaten up by commuting / occupying an office space for 5 of every 7 days in a week.

1. Growing any kind of food garden. Even small pots and containers for apartment and condo buildings. Make sure policy allows for people to convert lawns to edible landscapes.

2. Stop the spraying of pesticides in public spaces - convert the lawns to clover. Saves mowing and chemicals. Cheaper, too, on strained city budgets. Incentives for planting of native plants on parkways.

3. Encourage tree planting - shade in summer on houses requires less cooling.

4. Winter weatherization of homes requires less heating. Suggest reducing heating in public buildings. Also, reduce cooling in summer. "Green" roofs help too.

5. Discourage use of plastic bags and plastic water bottles. As mentioned above, reduce plastic packaging in general.

6. Introduce more "shop local" programs, like "Small Business Saturday" - but locally produced items, not just cheap imports sold at small stores.

National recycling law, modeled after one of the state programs. Here's what we have.

http://www.cawrecycles.org/facts_and_stats/california_recycling_laws

Eliminate parking subsidies and minimum parking requirements.

Damn near every city in America subsidizes parking, especially in downtown areas, by offering parking in lots and garages at below-market rates, as well as by setting a fixed-price below market rate for street parking. It is essentially a Soviet-style rationing approach to parking. The net effect is to subsidize drivers and discourage carpooling and mass transit use at taxpayer expense.

Minimum parking requirements, meanwhile, not only encourage driving, they directly increase sprawl by increasing the land footprint of any business. Let businesses decide how much parking they want to provide.

Simply by allowing the market to allocate parking, we would take a significant step toward auto-independence. And in principle, it could be supported by both lefty environmentalists and righty libertarians*.

(*if libertarianism hasn't in practice simply devolved into a sort of cultural nativism that would go to the mat to defend the privileges of the suburban lifestyle.)

All good ideas..

Basically, what I think....

Drastically reduce energy/resource consumption of all kinds. Buy significantly less stuff. (not sure that would be a popular policy suggestion, however.)

The fastest method to reduce oil use would be to impose a direct rationing system for all oil products with a white market for trading allocations. The allocations would be given to each individual with a staggered weekly allocation and the allocations would expire after a time with the unused allocations being returned to the market. The white market would be "primed" with a fraction of the total allocations and trading in the white market would set a premium for consumption beyond each individual's allocation. Allocations would be "spent" whenever an oil product is purchased, using an electronic card similar to a "debt" card. Any purchase beyond the periodic allocation would be cleared thru the white market at the current price in that market. Any unused allocations would be converted to cash and credited to the user's bank account before the next allocation was added.

Business and industrial users would be required to purchase their needs from the white market, which would guarantee a large turnover in the market, resulting in a highly liquid market and a relatively stable price for purchases (and sales) of allocations. There would be no "futures" purchases allowed, since the allocations would expire in a relatively short time, thus minimizing hoarding and other gaming of the system.

A system structured this way could be expected to result in a progressive price of fuel for the average user, that is, the more one consumes, the greater the cost per unit consumed. The incentive to reduce consumption would be obvious to all consumers, not just to those educated and experienced in energy policy. This system would not function like the proposed cap-and-trade scheme, which would appear to the average consumer as just another tax and which would provide another profit center for the banking and investing sector. Such a system could allow for some reduction of present support programs for the poor, as many low income people could benefit from selling their unused allocations at the premium price in the white market.

There you have a short sketch of the idea, which is probably not worth the watts required to type it on my computer, given our present political climate...

E. Swanson

Good Morning Alan,

I sure would be glad to see you posting more often-and I'm sure the rest of us feel the same way.

In my opinion, one of the best things and most effective things that could be done to help cut oil consumption would be to overhaul the regulations that determine the patterns of ownership and use of personal and business vehicles.

It should be possible to do this in such a way that it does not arouse too much ire on the part of the public which insists on its right to go its own merry way to work in hot rod cars and to the convenience store in oversize trucks to fetch a sixpack.

Let me set the stage first by pointing out a few personal realities.

I am the only driver remaining at our house, as my Dad has had to give up driving in the last month due to his health.We keep three vehicles liscenced and insured nevertheless-a full size legacy 97 Buick, which gets fair mileage at around twenty mpg overall which is used occasionally for family outings, funerals, and trips to the doctor, etc;a two wheel drive Ranger pickup, which I use for just about all our day to day business and errands, which does as well as the Buick;and a 4x4 Chevy truck, which is a real gas hog, which is for use off the road on the farm and times when we must go even if the local mountian roads are covered with snow and ice, and for hauling the occasional load too big for the smaller Ranger.

I parked my Escort, even though it gets 50 % better overall mileage than the Buick, because I couldn't drive it enough to save enough to cover the registration and insurance premiums; and I sold my old Toyota pickup for the same reason, keeping the Ranger because although it does use more gas, it is newer and in far better condition.

It is virtually impossible to get an insurance company in Virginia to give a discount on the policy of a vehicle that is commensurate with very low use;the insurance has cost more than gasoline for the Chevy, even though it is the third vehicle in a low milegae family to begin.

Now if the regulations were to be changed such that premiums are based on the number of drivers, rather than vehicles owned, things could be different-and not even Houdini could have driven two at once.

If I could buy a two seater short range low speed electric capable of a thirty to forty mile trip, it would meet nearly all our day to day needs,and we would most likely buy such a car.

But the taxes and insurance and registration would out wiegh any money saved on fuel in our case.

If such vehicles were to get favorable tax treatment in terms that mattered to the people who would actually drive them, they would become very popular very quickly indeed.

The current tax subsidies allowed for vehicles such as the Volt or Leaf probably are helping as intended get the ev vehicle industry off the ground, but the folks who can afford them are simply too prosperous to bother with the limitations of an electric.

On the other hand, a retail worker or mill hand just getting by from week to week who MUST commute would quite willingly put up with a car that is adequate, with some planning, to meet her daily needs-especially if such a car promised to be a very low maintainence cost vehicle, which should be one of the strongest points of an ev.

And quite a lot of people in my situation would by an electric if we could actually save a few bucks over the long term by doing so.

Most of us , however, are not able or willing to give up our current car or truck and get by exclusively with an electric , given current day ev driving ranges and prices.

Of course overcoming the entrenched forces of the lawyers and insurance industry will be a very tough job.

They know that our house for instance that their income has fallen of by a third but their risk exposure has fallen off probably by two thirds, since we drive so little these days, putting them in the tall cotton on the bottom line.

Any serious effort to reduce energy use has to start with an energy audit. Whether you are talking about a global corporation, a government department or a single household, if you don't know how much energy from various sources you are curently using and what it costs, you don't have a chance of developing a practical plan to reduce it. I think regular energy auditing should be incorporated into the annual budget process for any institution that has a budget, and any household that does not have an explicit budget should develop one along with the energy audit.

Beyond that, it would help if the question were better defined.

For instance, which entities are supposed to reduce their oil use? Possibilities include oil refineries; individual households; retail businesses; service industries including vacation resorts; the trucking industry; automobile manufacturers; other manufacturers; agribusiness; state governments; local governments; federal government including the military; and anyone not already covered. Are there businesses, regions, and industries that are to see a general reduction in activity because they are inherently oil-consuming, and the best way to save oil would be to have them shut down?

Another sort of question - should these reductions of oil use take place in the context of a general reduction in use of all fossil fuels, or is shifting energy use toward increased use of other fossil fuels and nuclear power considered a good 'solution?' My own opinion is that a general reduction in energy use is the only sensible approach. I am unwilling to contribute to an effort to create more domestic (or international) consumption of coal, natural gas and nuclear power.

55 mph speed limit

The easiest and fastest way to reduce oil usage is to reduce speed limits. It can be done overnight and would cost little to implement.

Do things to reduce travel, and therefore reduce gas/diesel consumption

*a* promote telecommuting and flexible work hours---makes businesses more efficient

*b* promote something like "hire a local" to encourage businesses to preferentially hire people who live within walking or biking distance...could work well with jobs that have many applicants and don't really require anything special---employees will value job more as it doesn't require costly commute

*c* promote stay-cations and local area bike tour vacations---keeps cash in local economy

*d* apply a fuel tax that went directly to public transport and bike lanes---drivers benefit too as it reduces congestion

*e* adjust zoning laws to permit corner stores in neighborhoods (works well with b)---walkable neighborhoods are fashionable, could raise property value

*f* reduce frequency of re-asphalting roads, makes driving less pleasant and reduces asphalt use---saves municipalities money, reduces drag racing and other reckless driving

*g* promote walking and bike commuting with advertising and support programs like work place showers and bike storage---reduces health care expenditure and work time lost for illness, reduces congestion, makes municipality more fashionable

Changing transportation fuel from gasoline and diesel to NG seems to be a no brainer.

If you start off by encouraging buses, fleets of local delivery vehicles and other fixed base vehicles, the delivery system wouldn't be so expensive. If people saw how much cheaper and cleaner it was they would be interested. If there was demand then gas stations would put in the new pumps.

There must be some major roadblock that I don't see. Except for T Boone Pickens no one is even talking about it.

Alan -- you might want to cast your eye over J M Greer's policy proposals in "The Wealth of Nature," final chapter. He discusses taxes, public accounting, and other policy ingredients for a saner economy and culture. Particularly his proposal of dividing the economy into primary, secondary and tertiary economies and selectively taxing primary and tertiary activities (extraction and speculation) rather than secondary (processing, labour, transformation)... I find that intriguing and am mulling it over trying to find a flaw.

On a previous DB thread an astute poster -- no time right now to go back and find the original text, but credit goes to the OP whom I am merely paraphrasing -- suggested a Distance Tax. All products should be taxed based on distance from the purchaser.

This makes some sense to me. For example, there should be a distance tax on vacations which is rather high if you insist on taking your family from N America to, say, Zanzibar for a package tour, but nil if you take your family camping in the regional park which is a mere 50 miles from your home. Cruise ship and air travel vacationing should be expensive. It *is* expensive -- it's just that the "externalised" costs are shoved off onto the world at large, not shouldered by those who indulge themselves in luxury travel.

Transport costs in theory should act as a de facto tax, as do border tariffs: living in Canada I am less likely to purchase from the States when I pay high shipping costs and import duties. However, oftentimes those costs and duties have nothing to do with real distance: I am close to Seattle but far, far from Quebec, yet I am taxed more heavily to buy something from Seattle than from Quebec. Time to stop worrying so much about geopolitical borders and think more about km travelled -- and mode of transport as well: goods travelling by rail should cost less than goods travelling by truck or plane, no?

Oddly enough it can be cheaper for me to buy a book via amazon.ca from a seller in the UK than in WA.USA. Something about special international airmail rates. How much sense does that make eh? A distance tax might sort that out. It would also discourage the practise of stripmining distant and relatively defenseless countries for bulk resources; oil from overseas should be taxed galore, until it's more economical to live within the energy budget of your local area. Long haul trade should be reserved for high-value goods only, a froth of luxury trade floating on a firm basis of local resilience. Right now our entire economy seems to be froth, and is collapsing like an ill-fated souffle.

Taxing long haul goods heavily (maybe exponentially with distance!) and earmarking the revenue for resilience projects such as rail, reforestation, basic health care, land reform, etc. makes a lot of sense to me. It would "hurt" me personally (I do indeed buy stuff direct from HK via Ebay on occasion), but it makes good sense and I'd support it as policy.

Reclassify SUVs and vans carrying fewer than 9 passengers as passenger cars, rather than light trucks, for regulatory purposes.

Place a moratorium on the construction of new roadbeds in other than already built-up areas, i.e. no new roads and streets in green field developments.

Institute a "One Automobile" policy to include:

1. All families, no matter if their name is Gore or Clem Nobody, gets one motor vehicle.

2. Auto Tax equal to 25% of the family's income.

1) Reduced speed limits across the board, though this is most important on highways.
2) Discourage oil use during off peak, non commute hours. Maybe this can be accomplished with night curfews. Some of this is also a business decision, of course. Why businesses choose to be open for 24 hours is beyond me (oh yeah, they can't get enough fiat money).
3) Incentivize smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, across the board (no exceptions for trucks, etc.)
4) More cargo by rail, and less by truck and plane.
5) Reform our financial system; credit needs to become expensive and hard to get.
6) Zero growth in population: this can be accomplished by reducing immigration, and reforming healthcare so that more emphasis is put on broad based public health, and less on futile measures towards the end of life.

Of course, none of the above has a snowball's chance in hell of taking place. Not only that, but this is just a start, just the beginning of what would need to be a decades long process.

Might as well load up on the beans, bullets, and bullion. This ship is going down.

Alan wrote;

One is to encourage children to walk and bike to school more.

This has already been tried, at great expense, and failed;

Take Bailey Elementary School in Woodbury, Minnesota. Like most suburban-style school buildings, it has a problem: kids don’t walk to school.

In the hubbub, no one notices what’s missing – the dying practice of walking to school. Of 620 students at Bailey, not one walks – not even those who live one block away. Managers of a 6-year-old federal program think they know why.

Children don’t walk to schools like Bailey because of the lack of sidewalks and safe street crossings. But after spending $820 million to promote walking to school and reducing childhood obesity, there is no sign the program has actually added any walkers at all.

The whole story is here The long drive to school

So, lets not waste any more money trying to "encourage" people to do stuff, lets spend the money actually doing stuff

In the case of walking to school, that means addressing the reasons, outlined in that article, why parents are discouraging their kids from walking. No amount of PR is going to change that, it needs the communities to change themselves.

Easy. We should have a recession.

OK, that's already in the plan.
No, it's not. No-one is in control of this economic crash. It is just happening.

Education. The population must understand that interest charged on loans automatically mandates that the economy must grow to pay back the principle plus the interest.
See http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

It is an old topic on the Oil Drum but we have to go to a 4 day week as part of the de-growth plan.

Also, those who live in colder climates might consider:

The units sell for $2000 per kilowatt housed inside a standard steel shipping container that will ship anywhere in the world. Sterling Allan of PESN who attended the recent deal-closing demonstration reports that all products are currently designed for industrial and agency use, and “smaller units for domestic use by individuals, [will be] ready in about a year’s time” citing pending certifications as the delay.

http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/

Alan,

It's important to focus on approaches which can make the scale of change necessary, at the pace needed. It also needs to be easy to implement, mainly as a low level driver of other changes.

As such the focus needs to be on passenger vehicles (50% of liquid fuel usage) and particularly commuting, which is the big driver of cost.

My quick and simple approach? Make companies liable for their staff commuting cost. They would very rapidly act to reduce it if they had to pay; with a variety of tools they could use. Telecommuting would become usual, ride sharing required and work practice would adapt. Perhaps most importantly, they wouldn't position themselves in city centres with their staff in the suburbs.

Shopping, school, sports are the other major areas. Shopping can be managed by giving tax incentives to provide free delivery. School should be done via school bus - leaving sports as an exercise for the reader.

,

People like me immediately think of the obvious solution - make the price of fossil fuels represent their real true cost to the planet and our grandchildren- which is unbearably huge. That will make us think a lot harder before using them.

But at the moment at least, since practically everything we do uses petroleum, jacking up its cost would be a real killer to everybody but the super-rich. So it’s a political no-no, despite the necessity of doing it.

Maybe the fee/dividend idea just might work. Here it is.

First,put a big and ever-increasing fee on all fossil fuels.

So if anyone uses fossil fuels for anything, they see a high price for it, getting higher every year- no escape.

Next, take that fee- every penny of it- and immediately give it right back, equal amounts to each citizen, every month. No tax, no government, no management, no lobby, just an automatic monthly check to everybody.

So, for example, I pay a fee for my car fuel, for my food growing and transport, for my airplane flights- for anything that uses fossil fuel, that is to say, everything.

And my friend who uses more of all of the above, pays more fee.

At the end of the month, both of us get back as a dividend, the same amount of all the fees from all fossil fuels. So parsimonious people like me get more back than they paid in fee, and the big fuel burners get back far less than they paid in fees.

So, the result-- we all start looking for ways to live without paying that big fee. And, as we all know, if there is somebody looking around for something and has money to spend to get it (the dividend) , then somebody else will start making something for that somebody to buy. In my case, I would love to buy an electric car that can run on solar energy. No gas fee! Big dividend! Bigger Holier-Than-Thou syndrome!

Same goes for home heating, airlines, anything that uses fossil fuels- people will start looking for substitutes. And they will find them. They are in fact already out there, just not yet being used because at the moment anyhow, fossil fuels are “cheaper”.

But not really- they are costing us our planet, and people alive today are going to have to pay for it.

Read all about it at:

http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/

Grow wind turbines on the Great Plains, tie the electric grid together to distribute the power, use it to make hydrogen. I know, I know, everybody on this board seems to pooh-pooh hydrogen as too inefficient in the conversion, but I just don't see battery-only vehicles as making it. For the consumer, hydrogen vehicles are the most similar to fossil fuel vehicles in terms of performance, range, practicality.

Gradually raise the fuel tax by a penny or two per month, give people plenty of time to adjust.

Set a date five years from now after which new small vehicles (less than a pickup or workman's van) cannot be fueled by fossil fuels. Over the years, gradually increase the size of vehicles that cannot be fueled by FF.

Electrify the rail system and build out HSR. Electrify transit. Gradually ban air travel for short distances in the high speed rail corridors.

Moratorium on new fossil fueled power plants until 80% of electricity is renewables.

Improve the management of freight railroads so they think in terms of service, not costs. Increase competition between railroads by having large reciprocal switching districts as in Canada.

Require new factories and warehouses of greater than X size be located on rail.

Combine flights in dense corridors - just have one "joint airline" fly between N. Cal and S. Cal, any airline can buy into the flights and sell the seats. End the nonsense of three airlines each having flights every hour - put them on one bigger more fuel efficient plane (It would really expose the truth that airlines are all pretty much the same, except the color of the planes and seats).

Establish a CAFE standard for airlines per passenger mile so nobody buys old inefficient planes to start up a new airline.

This one is so obvious I'm surprised nobody mentioned it. Replace oil by gas for heat in industrial processes. According to this recent news release from LLNL, last year the US was still burning 8.0 quads of oil in the industrial sector.

The quantity has has been dropping for decades but I'm sure there is still a considerable potential of fuel switching to do. And best of all, at a reasonable price.

Encouraging bicycling is one of the best options:

• In an urban environment, a bike goes 2/3 as fast as a car. (12 mph net vs. 20 mph net). Given that bikes go door-to-door while cars require parking and walking, total time is often about the same.
  
• With a 7-mile commute, I find that driving costs $6 each day ($3 gas, $3 parking).
  
• Those who do not bicycle to work have 39% higher all-cause mortality than those who do, including the often-overestimated possibility of being hit by a car. (Google "Andersen bicycle mortality Denmark")
  
• Bicycling to work will add around 8 years to your life. Eating your vegetables: a few months. Bicycling fights heart disease, stroke, diabetes.
  
• Electric bikes are a great option for those who have hills or don't want to pedal. An e-bike gets 1000 mpg in energy equivalent. It can be powered by a single solar panel, sustainable at reasonable cost.
  
• Bicycles are 10X as efficient as cars in cost and infrastructure per person transported.
  

1)Eliminate use of heating oil and propane for residential and commercial space/water heating, using natural gas, heat pumps, and wood.
2)Switch freight locomotives to LNG-diesel 85:15 blend using existing loco engines (can be done in 2 years at low cost)
3)Add aerodynamic/efficiency retrofits to all road freight trucks/trailers (super-single wheels, nitrogen-filled tires, side skirts, advanced boat-tails)
4)Require energy efficiency labeling of aftermarket light vehicle tires, and/or feebate
5)Vehicle inspection/emissions requirements to include addition of real time mpg displays to vehicles 1996 VY or later
6)Divert freight onto rail via nationwide port fees for drayage, upgrade rail infrastructure to improve transit times and system capacity
7)Include minimum liability auto insurance coverage in price of gasoline
8)Electric or gas service to stationary diesel/LPG loads like pumps, generators, wind machines
9)Free, fast air at the pump
10)Revenue neutral sales tax on motor fuel in all local jurisdictions (add to sales tax base and reduce sales tax rates commensurately)
11)Lower exchange rate to increase cost of foreign oil (has other benefits for trade)
12)Index motor fuel tax to inflation and efficiency, with 10 year gradual reset to 1960's levels
13)Drop import tariff on ethanol
14)Create smartphone/GPS carpool infrastructure for dynamic carpooling
15)Earn taxicab and car rental vouchers (% of travel) by transit/carpool use
16)Variable speed limits on freeways (lower during congestion) to improve traffic flow, with PSA's to explain benefit, and speed cameras for enforcement
17)Signal synchronization and other traffic flow improvement for surface streets

OPEC crude oil, average for 20011 is still about 1.5 million barrels per day below their peak in 2008. Non-OPEC C+C has been virtually flat for 8 years.

Below are the yearly average Non-OPEC C+C production as per the EIA and JODI in thousands of barrels per day. Then I list the total percent change over 7 years and then the average per year percent change. The average yearly gain has been about 4 one hundredths of one percent. The 2011 figures are for the first 7 months for the EIA and first 8 months for JODI. Peak year for non-OPEC C+C, so far, was 2010. The average for 2011 will likely finish the year about 200 K barrels per day below 2010.

	2004	2011	 7 yr % Chg.  Avg Yearly Chg.
EIA	42,157	42,246	   0.21%	    0.03%
JODI	40,609	40,739	   0.32%	    0.05%

The big gains have been in natural gas liquids. The term "all liquids" disguises the totally stagnate production of crude oil. And as far the rapidly falling "net oil exports", well nobody in the media ever talks about that.

Ron P.

This technique has been used in a well very close to Quebec city. However, I have been told this is awfully expansive.

Rock, sounds like an expensive [unless it is more effective at promoting facturing] "solution" to a problem that for the most part does not exist. Still, thanks for the information, something good may.

Ran across another option instead of hydrofracking

Government gets into shale gas research with a bang

Julio Friedmann, carbon management program leader at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said the lab is studying the effectiveness of explosive detonations in creating fractures in oil- and gas-bearing formations as an alternative to hydraulic fracturing, the well-completion technique most commonly employed to free these energy resources from solid rock.

The biggest advantage is that, unlike with conventional hydraulic fracturing, it does not require the underground injection of millions of gallons of water and chemical additives. However a large disadvantage to the use of explosives comes from the energy industry itself, Friedmann said.

"People don't want to use them," because they fear the explosions would damage the integrity of the well bore, he said.

For this reason, the technology might be most useful for recompleting an existing well, rather in a newly drilled well. In addition, researches are testing "fit for purpose" charges that direct the force of the explosion outward, away from the wellbore itself, Friedmann said.

We have a perfectly viable rail line from Courtenay all the way to Victoria on E Coast Van Isl. Citizen/volunteer groups with help from local biz have been refurbishing our rail station in Nanaimo, which fell victim to arson some years back. There is strong demand for reliable commuter service to Victoria, as people get tired of driving the winding and hazardous Malahat section of the coast highway.

But... the rail line belongs to a rail company which got ownership of a huge chunk of the island back in the heyday of resource extraction. In exchange for that huge chunk of valuable real estate it promised to maintain the line "in perpetuity". Well guess what, the Nth generation of management doesn't feel like making good on that contractual obligation, so they have let the rail line deteriorate to below "passenger standard". The only passenger train for years has been a tourist attraction in the wrong direction: N from Victoria in the morning and S to Victoria in the evening, taking tourists to see the scenic coast rather than taking workers and shoppers to the city. The train has to be run very slowly because of the substandard tracks.

The refurbed station is almost complete. Many volunteers and donors have put a lot into it. And we just saw the rail cars rolled onto freight barges and taken away. The whole passenger service is being shut down because "we can't afford to maintain the tracks or buy new rolling stock." Meanwhile, the city of Nanaimo has invested millions -- many millions -- in a new conference centre (mostly empty) and a cruise ship dock, and is proposing to spend 10s of $mio more on expanding the airport to accept international flights, building a new hotel/casino complex on the cruise ship dock, etc.

The younger set have a useful expression for times like these: "Epic facepalm."

As a Canadian, I would like to see our oil/bitumen pushed to a Canadian coast. Then, if US suppliers want to buy, product could go to any US refinery. If they don't, then let it go elsewhere.

Perhaps actually refining here and shipping finished product makes the best sense.

The Nebraskan farmers can run their machines on ethanol, produced locally utilizing Dakotan NG fertilizers. It must be what they want?

You could probably even convert an old steam donkey to run on Wyoming coal, and use it to pump dry the declining Oglala aquifer.

I am really impressed just how environmentally minded those dry-land farmers are! I never knew. Good thing they are looking out for the rest of the continent.

Here is more fallout from the Obama government's decision to delay a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the next election:

Keystone decision a setback for U.S.-Canada relations

The Obama administration’s move to sideline the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for relations between the world’s two largest trading partners, and threatens Canada’s role as the leading energy supplier to the United States.

The U.S. State Department’s decision to force TransCanada Corp. to explore alternative pipeline routes in Nebraska pushes out a final ruling until at least 2013, well after next year’s U.S. presidential and congressional elections.

The United States is becoming a “less attractive customer in general for Canada, for not just energy but everything because of their own economic and financial difficulties,” said Gwyn Morgan, the former chief executive officer of Canadian gas giant Encana Corp.

“This is just another signal that Canada is going to have to diversify away from the United States, not just in energy but in everything else we can.”

Encana is trying to put together a system to deliver LNG from shale gas in Northeastern BC to markets in Asia. They have a lot of gas and no markets for it.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had characterized Washington’s approval of the project as a “no-brainer” that would create thousands of construction jobs in both countries and meet U.S. needs for a reliable supply of crude in an unstable world. Now Canada is scrambling for a plan B for its oil.

“Canada will be looking for a buyer and so obviously the Keystone project is one that is proposed and one that we would like to see go forth, but obviously we’re a resource-based, energy-based country and we’ll be looking at all opportunities,” said Sarah McIntyre, a spokeswoman for Mr. Harper.

The Canadian government was completely taken by surprise by the US decision, but will probably be pursuing other options (i.e. China) for its oil. This is costing Canadians a lot of money, so expect them to be aggressive about it. They will probably also be less nice to the Obama government in future.

JODI says not just conventional oil peaked in 2006 but total Crude + Condensate peaked in 2006. Average 2011 production for 2011, first 8 months, is about 1.7 million barrels per day below the peak of 2006 though production will likely increase slightly the last four months of this year.

Crude oil, the stuff you make gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from, has peaked. Throwing bottled gas, propane and butane, into the mix and the EIA, the IEA and BP can say we may reach a new peak in October. Actually we are nowhere near the 2006 peak of Crude + Condensate. Talking about a "new peak in liquids" is misleading.

Ron P.

Seraph,

Why did you decide to post this year-old article in today's drumbeat?

Just curious.

5 years after it happened, they just can't generate quite the same scare factor out of it as they used to, can they? I wish Birol would get someone with experience in oil fields to be his front man though, the "all decline, all the time" point is getting a bit old.

20 million barrels in 2035? Ouch... I'll be in my prime at that point (mid 50's). So much for a college babe and a Corvette. It will be more like a Schwinn and couple of hogs (the ones you eat).

S - "Considering geographical distances, it is more costly to ship that oil to China." Easily avoided: do a "paper swap". The Chinese company swaps 100,000 bbls of US production for 100,000 bbls of KSA production that would have been sold a US refinery. The US customer gets the domesticly produced oil and the ME oil is shiped to China. Some years ago the US govt did the exact same thing with Japan. Though it's illegal to export oil from US gov't leases, N. Slope oil was shipped to Japan who swapped it for oil that was shipped to the US from other countries. Saved the transport costs for both countries so a win/win.

Also let's not forget the obvious: if China sells $50 billion of oil/NG production in the US that gives them $50 billion to buy by ME oil. Think of it as a hedge of sorts: if oil jumps to $150/bbl China gets the higher price for its US production and thus helps to offset the higher prices it pays for its imported oil.

Rather, this is just more evidence that we are witnessing the development of an increasingly large and powerful "bicycle culture" in cities across North America. Bicycles aren't just for children any more.

And if anyone should have any doubts about that, this ad on the seattlebikeblog.com main page should set it to rest.

Though if I were the Satan look alike attorney, I'd at least lose the tie and wear a bike helmet in the ad >;^)

The legal profession never ceases to amaze me. And I thought viral pathogens were adaptable...

HSR will probably work in some locations in the US, but I think we could get a lot more bang for our buck (and a lot fewer bucks) in a much shorter timeframe by just improving and expanding the existing rail structure where short intercity networks already exist - the Capitol Corridor between the Bay Area and Sacramento, Surfliners in Southern California, and the Cascades route in Oregon and Washington are examples here on the West Coast. Improve these routes to 90 - 110 mph with no freight train interference and they become very competitive with driving.

1.5%? that's pretty generous. i thought it was about 1 to .8%

Published Saturday November 12, 2011
'Bottom of the tank' for region's diesel

By Steve Jordon
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

A severe mismatch between diesel fuel supply and demand in Nebraska, western Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and the Dakotas may last several more weeks and eventually spill over to gasoline as well.

Some retailers have run out of diesel fuel for short periods, a shortage traced to peak demand during the fall harvest plus unusually high demand in the burgeoning oil fields of North Dakota, said Tim Keigher, executive director of the Nebraska Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association in Lincoln.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111112/MONEY/711129933

Getting people to learn about peek oil is difficult, but getting people to play games is a lot easier.

I've been reading the book "Bowling Alone" by Robert D. Putnam, which is about the decline in political and civic connection in America. His book doesn't mention video games specifically (it was published 10 years ago) but it does suggest that the more time one spends in front of a TV, the less socially engaged you are. My reading and personal experience with gamers suggest that the tendency is even greater with video games.

So... you might get them to play, but those who play are unlikely to be civically engaged.

Lloyd

They have tried that. World Without Oil was designed by someone who believes that computer games can solve real-world problems. I believe she's since gone on to design other games that she hopes will make a difference in the real world.

I wonder if the Li packs will have the option for changing out individual, damaged sections, or even cells that are failing earlier than others, in order to support pack-life without complete replacement?

There is a newer Lithium-based battery technology which is much less prone to this problem (overheating / fire after penetration damage). This technology is Lithium-Iron-Phosphate, LiFePO4. The company A123 Systems (Watertown, MA) is betting on this chemistry for their push into the EV market. I've seen some of the trials the batteries are put through to qualify them as safe under U.N. guidelines (see Batteryspace.com). They pound steel rods through these batteries and they don't burn or explode - quite impressive. Also A123 claim disposal and recycling of these batteries is much safer since nothing in the chemistry is particularly toxic.

I believe you get these batteries in DeWalt battery-powered tools and some other brands. I used them for a bicycle-light battery. They claim up to 2000 charge-discharge cycles if used conservatively.

- Dick Lawrence

Well, OK. And yet OTOH, I can sort-of see some point in running the second and third horses in that trifecta. After all, as Ernest Rutherford observed,

All science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Possibly that's slightly unfair, but then again, biology (aside from mainly some of the molecular stuff) passed on into the stamp-collecting stage ages ago. Gee, some guy discovered a "new" "species" of animal. Of course it's just another self-filling stomach signifying nothing - get down to brass tacks, and it ingests, it excretes, seen one, seen 'em all. And another guy found a "new" "species" of microbe. Its flagellum averages 3.4 microns long instead of 3.2 as on the next "species" in the same pond in Outer Nowhere. Yawn. Oh, and yes, breathless news flash, the last of a failed "species" of whatever has wafted off to the Great Darwinian Garbage Dump In The Sky. Yawn again.

At least if they find something on Mars, it might conceivably have evolved independently - rather than being merely another stamp sporting yet another trivial perforation variation noticeable only to a Ph.D. specialist. Maybe something analogous might even hold for the "squishybots", except that for all one can tell from the bald assertions in New Scientist's content-free blurb (not article), they may as well be running on about pure magic.