Open Thread
Posted by Stuart Staniford on November 16, 2005 - 6:46pm
Virgin exploration territory. Sign up for a lease and start sinking wells.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
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.
Following is the Warner Brothers website: http://syrianamovie.warnerbros.com/
The website has a link to a website that asks you to get involved in reducing our reliance on oil.
Following is a plot summary from IMDb:
Plot Summary for
Syriana (2005)
From writer/director Stephen Gaghan, winner of the Best Screenplay Academy Award for Traffic, comes Syriana, a political thriller that unfolds against the intrigue of the global oil industry. From the players brokering back-room deals in Washington to the men toiling in the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, the film's multiple storylines weave together to illuminate the human consequences of the fierce pursuit of wealth and power. As a career CIA operative (George Clooney) begins to uncover the disturbing truth about the work he has devoted his life to, an up-and-coming oil broker (Matt Damon) faces an unimaginable family tragedy and finds redemption in his partnership with an idealistic Gulf prince (Alexander Siddig). A corporate lawyer (Jeffrey Wright) faces a moral dilemma as he finesses the questionable merger of two powerful U.S. oil companies, while across the globe, a disenfranchised Pakistani teenager (Mazhar Munir) falls prey to the recruiting efforts of a charismatic cleric. Each plays their small part in the vast and complex system that powers the industry, unaware of the explosive impact their lives will have upon the world.
The only reason I can think of for the many (thousands?)princes putting themselves in such a potentially awkward situation would be the thought that, if the populace were to think the resource might soon run out, the ungrateful might try to end the well-deserved (but paltry) billions paid to them each year (month?) Naturally, every month or year they hang on means ever fatter Swiss bank accounts.
Meanwhile the IEA is carefully covering their rosy estimates (behind) by saying that OPEC must invest many billions to expand production, and that if OPEC can't/won't make the investments in a timely manner, it is OPEC's fault and the IEA obviously cannot be blamed. This position firms up Saudi for the patsy role.
OPEC's past performance of withholding production to firm up prices helps all the more to prepare the cartel for considerable blame. However, it should be said (but won't be) that past withholding, and the ensuing high prices/reduced consumption, clearly delayed the peak by several years (and at least delayed global warming). Try to imagine $3/barrel instead of $3/gallon.
Hmmm....am I missing something? Occams Razor, people....
Lieberman And Other Senators Unveil Oil-saving Plan Don't worry about it, Joe, we'll certainly be down 2.5/mbd within a decade and 10/mbd by 2031. Will make America a pitiful giant? You mean that's not well under way?
If you look at the long-term forecast for U.S. oil production, the U.S. will drop to around 1mbd in 2020. As a ballpark figure, the U.S. military uses around 800,000bpd. So somewhere around 15 years from now, the U.S. will barely have enough domestic oil to fuel its military, let alone fuel its military and economy at the same time. At the same time, the fields supplying the U.S. will become smaller, less geographically concentrated, and more difficult to secure against sabotage. The idea that the U.S. can't really conserve oil is a siren song leading the U.S. into a very dangerous trap.
It also seems to have a good mix of components...incentives for more research, incentives for smarter consumer choices, alternative fuels, and alternative transportation. Better than most legislation, which always seems focused on one component - whether it be ethanol, refinery construction, or ANWR.
So, JD, since you're so busy debunking peak oil, I suppose you think this is real progress. Conservation and efficiency are real but so is Jevon's Paradox. Diminished oil & gas usage--if it is sustained over time--really helps us meet the "Hirsch Gap". Otherwise, Lieberman is just talking about slowed rates of demand/comsumption growth over time. This is just nonsense and helps us out not at all. His 2.5/mbd reduction in a decade would reduce US overall consumption by some small amount over one year's increase in demand given the current trends. Anyone believing that will make any appreciable difference is living in a fantasy world.
In addition, if we look at the EIA's demand increase numbers for the US, we see that over the period 1997 to 2004, oil demand (consumption) increased by about 0.3/mbd year to year. So, if demand increases remain linear and if in the 10 years we cut domestic consumption by 2.5/mbd, we will increase our total new consumption by only 0.5 mb during that period and our growth rate will be cut to 0.05/mbd per year on a linear basis. But, our consumption would still be growing albeit at a much smaller rate. Yet, there will be less world oil supply to share, supply will be decreased. So, where's the solution to our problem here? Obviously, demand must decrease, catastropically so for those earliest affected by the scarcity. Therefore, we are not looking at a situation where excess capacity is available but we are doing the right thing by conserving, instead, we are looking at a situation where demand shrinks (so-called "demand destruction") due to lack of supply. Which is why I think Leiberman's assumptions are all wrong. He frames it as "oil independence". This is a red herring at this point. We will be more oil dependent than ever, there will just be less of it to go around.
What a bunch of hypocrites they are: Joe Lieberman and his cynnical alliance of fundamentalist Christians, right-wing republicans, and environmentalists.
(Oh yeah, we need to conserve oil because we need kerosene and polystyrene to make the new generation of napalm used on Iraqis.)
--will those "savings" even offset demand growth?
--aren't those numbers rather puny, and isn't the time frame rather extended?
--aren't these politicians talking, and don't they do everything for show?
Then another thought occurred which sort of made all of the above moot:
If oil peaks between now and 2010, and if the decline is as bad as some say, then we're going to be cutting a hell of a lot more than 2.5 million barrels a day out of our "diet" "within a decade," whether or not Lieberman and the rest of them "act" in a "bipartisan" manner or not.
They're jumping on a foregone conclusion and pretending they're enacting some sort of solution.
As usual, I hate them for their disingenuousness.
But that's just my humble opinion.
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to
the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust..." T. Roosevelt
An shift may be occurring in consciousness amongst conservative/mainline Christians where we stop expecting our superman God to magically bail us out with his infinite unconstrained-by-natural-law powers, and instead realize that we may have to grow up and take responsibility for that which has been entrusted to us, the physical world we should steward, not consume.
This change is quite significant, if it is occurring, and may allow groups to come together who previously saw nothing in common.
Of course that's right and this is a potentially important acknowledgement that we've got serious problems. But it does not yet raise the issue to the level of a national emergency and sends the false message that these moves will be adequate to solve our problems. They will not. They will not even stop growth in our oil & gas usage in the cited period (out to 2015). Since all that time US production will be declining as usual, any new growth depends on new imports.
What is curious about this is that it comes on the heels of the recently passed Energy Bill. So, I'll concede that some people are waking up and smelling the coffee instead of drinking the CERA/IEA/EIA kool-aid.
Maybe the best way to get something started is to get the generals all worked up about their own energy security. Military minds and budgets are the only government operations that seem to be able to think farther ahead than the next election..
Unlike with crude oil, we can't import our way out of this one.
I have tried to make that picture more intuitive and informative (e.g. the thickness of the arrows are proportional to the trade volume). A loop represents the amount of oil that a region produces for its own consumption (i.e. production - exports). Click on the image to enlarge.
Quoting Deffeyes (Beyond Oil): "The world oil peak is a world problem. Supertankers can haul oil
halfway around the world for two dollars per barrel. ... Export-import patterns can be rearranged
with a few phone calls. As the world oil shortage becomes more severe, who ships what oil where is less relevant".
I don't agree with Deffeyes here. My impression is that "who ships what oil where" should be
important. From time to time there will be local reorganizations of the flow (for political reasons
for example) but most of the trade flows will remain the same.
They repeatedly state that their decline number may be too low, but didn't show the impact this would make.
My concerns are amplified by the following quote from the report:
* ... for countries that have been in decline for at least four years the average production decline after the peak was calculated. This production decline percentage was thereafter extrapolated. The problem with this method is that adding new projects to an extrapolated historic decline rate gives too optimistic an outlook. This is because the decline from the entire country (type III decline) is extrapolated. The decline rate is actually steeper than assumed by using this method. A better approach would be to see what projects came on-stream in the period that was used to estimate the decline and deduct the additional production from new projects in that period, then calculate the average production decline. In this way declines in fields and regions in the country (Type II decline) is calculated. However, it is questionable if this changes the outcome significantly, because once an oil producing country has peaked, it is logical that fewer oil projects will be added. This is due to the decreasing amount of discoveries starting at least 5 years before the peak.*
It is unclear if they follow this procedure (subtracting new additions) or not in the final analysis, given their comments. I would note that with US peaking 30 years ago, the contributions of the post-peak developed Alaskan and GOM fields (and other onshore lower 48 fields) are huge, and ignoring them when calculating decline would make a huge difference. The same is true if you ignored the developments in the FSU since it peaked in the 80s. I don't think the report has as good a handle on decline as I would like.
Otherwise, I believe the report is a major and credible contribution.
********
Nov 16th, 2005 - Today's update replaces Rembrandt Koppelaar's draft version with his final 2005 Regular outlook. As some other modellers, he has three scenarios; the other two being the Technological & Disruption Scenarios. He is one of the few addressing refining capacity in his studies. Above, we see he has tempered his peak extraction somewhat and that has postponed exhaustion well into the next Century. His URR remains intact.
The Exhaustion Exit is demarked by each model's failure to produce 8-mbd (was 7-mbd).
See our Comments on Peak Oil, the ASPO Record & other recent Scenario draft updates at the Economics link.
********
test:
This week in Petroleum makes for interesting reading.
I encourage everyone to check it out.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp
I have copied some quotes from the report.
EIA has noted that gasoline supplies have increased due to both an increase in refinery production and a surge in imports. But which of these factors have been "most valuable" in terms of adding supply and reducing prices? While this debate has not invoked a similar passion as the baseball MVP votes did, it is instructive to look at the impacts both had in adding gasoline supply recently.
As the graph above indicates, increases in both production and imports have been important in reducing gasoline prices, but the surge in imports came at a critical time. While gasoline production increased by over 1 million barrels per day in a two-week period in early October, imports surged by significantly less than that in absolute volumes.
I though this story would be of interest to The Oil Drum community.
The Swedish Government has committed to Oil Independence by 2020. Announced measures include:
- Tax relief for conversion from oil;
- More renewable energy;
- Measures for renewable fuels;
- Resources for energy research; and
- Continued investment in district heating.
Source: sweden.govNow why can't the G8 countries get their act together like this?
BTW I've been reading TOD since this past summer and must congratulate you all on excellent work! Thank you!
.
The next point is that when developping these technologies, that may also add considerable advantages in the world market.
This idea occured to me ... I'd rather not reveal
where I was when it did but, with handy legislature -
such as "The PatRIOT Act" and "Emminent DOmain"
readily available
(and there are others in the works?)
Should be a piece of cake.
A major source of Fuel conservation would be to ban
fast food drive thrus but, not the banks.
Please, I still need a quick get away as I make off
with my stash of savings and compounded interest.
You see while it would not be illegal to operate
a fast food drive thru, There could be penalties
for non-co-operatives.
Infidels > painted as unpatriotic BECAUSE
conservation of fossil fuels is ...
a Nationl HOMELAND Security threat.
Any unethically seeking self interest(groups),
burger joints in the publics... minds eye,
will not bode well for the Slider. (ah coercion)
And Large corporate food chains main arguements
against such a ban could possiblly be:
A)Additional heating costs in cold climates,
Additional cooling costs in hot climates,
both direct results of additional DOOR SWINGS.
B)Additional Replacement DOOR COSTS !!!
C)Loss of Revenue due to employees being in
the customer is allways right
line of sight.
Consequently Observing food handling practices;
resulting in lack of appetites,
hence: loss of sales.
D)DANA corp.(Ticker symbol DNC)
Automotive replacement parts division slows.
And your brother-n-law thought it couldn't get
any worse.
Mom and Pop Drive Thrus ... Well,
Do they exist ???
"Hi mom, hey Pop." echoes
THERE IS aN
Upside beyond the obvious fuel savings/emissions
a)Ya gotta get off your but, and put some (energy)
effort into it. What ... exercise!
Big health issue = lots of votes here people.
Come on.
b)DOOR manufacturing booms. Adds Jobs.
c)Professional (contracted) Door Installation trade
increases, providing fast food employees
alternative JOB opportunities. (Upward mobility)
Increasing tax revenue! Adds Jobs. More Votes!
d)Jobs Program - Which Government has an obligation
to provide FUNDING (raising taxes for training)
stimulates an all ready red hot economy ...
and known ripple effect - practically funds
IraQ war and future terror (whoms?) projects
into the unforeseeable future! Win win situation
WoW
All in favor vote yeah
all opposed hates his neighbor.
While there are other points to this delicate issue,
I cheerfully put forth this measure as a simple
remedy. A David v. Goliath solution if you will.
My friends at TOD can crunch the numbers.
The bottom line, I am confident, will be impressive.
Thank you... thank you,
sheeesh... and ALDI sells cheap coffee
Think small, think fast ,PeAcE
The Palace of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan
Bad: Falling for an email hoax. Worse: Using the hoax as the basis for your presentation to the local city planning commission, thereby displaying your gullibility to the entire public.
As reported by the Muncie Star Press (no link), Don Love gets the award for doing the latter. He received an email containing a series of pictures of an opulent estate (shown below), with the caption:
"In case you're wondering where this hotel is, it isn't a hotel at all. IT IS A HOUSE! It's owned by the family of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the former president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Abu-Dhabi."
Enraged, he made a slide presentation out of the pictures and showed them to the planning commission, as part of his effort to get them to approve construction of an ethanol plant. His point was that they should promote local energy projects, to prevent all the city's money going to greedy, oil-rich sheiks. He told them: "This is the type of thing being done with your petro dollars that I want to re-patriate. Keep in mind the gentleman has more than 20 wives. This is one of 70 baths. Some are bigger than my house. This is his little swimming pool. These are his cars."
Of course, the pictures don't show a sheik's palace. In reality they show a fancy hotel in Abu Dhabi called the Emirates Palace. All the stuff about 20 wives is bogus too. If Love had bothered to do any research, he would have found this out. He probably could also have found some real pictures of a sheik's palace, which would have been a more effective way of making his point.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax
Even though, as Darley says, the world's middle classes are by far the primary energy depletors, the first to feel the effects will continue to be the poorer countries and to a lesser extent, the poor of the richer countries. Will those countries left behind suffer famine, genocide, civil war, purges, or will they adapt more stoically like Cuba and the FSU states? Like the poor of New Orleans, the poor of the developed world will become a bit less invisible as they slip towards a ragged, 3rd World level of poverty.
After all that demand has been destroyed, the producing nations will be on the spot. Looking at Roberto's great Oil Trade graphic (which is now my desktop background), I see Mexico, Canada, North Africa, South & Central America, Asia Pacific and, of course, the Middle East caught between the oil needs and weapons of the US, Europe, FSU and China.
Those will truly be interesting times.
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47439
this reinforces my opinion of demand destruction will get ugly!