“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/iea_forecasts_2.html
"The agency estimates that demand, driven by increasing consumption in China and the US, will average 85.1 million barrels per day, up from an average 83.3 mbpd in 2005. Demand in the US hit an all-time monthly high of 21.9 mbpd in December, growing by 1.7% compared with the same month in 2004, according to the IEA."
They also said: "The IEA noted that global oil supply reached 85.0 mbpd in December, up by 0.6 mbpd from November."
It will be interesting to see if the 85 mbpd figure can be sustained throughout 2006. I know some readers were skeptical that we would ever get this high.
It should also be noted that by "demand" they really mean "consumption" which is basically the same as "production".
You didn't really mean to say it that way did you? Production and consumption can be as much as 2 million bpd different in any given month.
I noticed in the graph you posted under "IEA Monthly Report for December" that with a very few exceptions, "IEA corrected" has been consistently lower than "IEA raw." It might be worth looking at the earlier numbers to see if this period of overestimation has happened before. Could it be deliberate?
Chris
My guess is 85 mbpd and price in the range of 80-85$. This of course absent major political disruptions. I don't expect we will get significant declines the first year after peak, previous experience of declines was in the presence of spare capacity ready to kick in and producers did not have enough incentitive to tweak the hell out of the fields.
As far as production goes - put me down for 86.25 mbpd next January. What are we going to use as our benchmark?
Also, I have a question that is somewhat related to this post. What do we mean by peak, exactly? Are we talking about simply a high-point on the historical worldwide production chart, or are we talking about peak-oil which I believe involves new discoveries replacing used ones?
I'm sure Deffeyes discusses this difference in Beyond oil, but I can't find my copy. Now I feel silly for asking, I should know this.
"should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter--those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs--will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange"
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
Quick background: currently, all oil is traded in US$ (hence petrodollar). So, the $ gets a boost as all nations buying oil first buy $s. If Iran opens up a Euro denominated market for oil, the dollar will sag - it's just a question of how much. Many speculate this is a factor in some of the US hostility to Iran. It's obviously not the only thing, but may add to the intensity of the response.
Does anyone have information on the current status of the proposed borse? Much of the information on the net goes back to a few article written in the middle of last year saying it would open early this year.
Also, some skeptics claim that with the sanctions in place against Iran, any contracts made there would not be enforceable/deliverable. Any insights??
Rather than go over it again and again, I keep posting these two links, which I think largely debunk the idea that this is a significant problem for the US or the dollar. Oddly the Daily Kos says it best.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/27/115725/53
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12/27/232238/03
(scroll down)
In response Muhandis, says it is not debunked and posts these links:
(as a note, Al-Jazeera.net is a Qatari based company, Al-Jazeera.com is a British company.)
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=28176&NewsKind=Business%20%26%20E conomy
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9.htm
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=9752
My main points are that the role of the US dollar as a global currency is underpinned not by it shortterm use in transactions, but because dollar denominated assets are held for the long term by oil producers and other exporters. They do this because of return and exchange rate considerations.
The Iran Bourse doesn't change anything. It only translates the dollar price into Euros, then asks for that. This may cause some countries to stop converting other currencies into dollars for a few hours, but so what? I am pretty sure that the EU can pay Iran for oil in Euros anyways, the dollar price is only a price, not a currency requirement. It is fundamentally impossible to have two unrelated pricing schemes. If Iran created a Euro price that was anything other than a translation of the dollar price purchasers would just choose whichever one was cheaper.
I contend that no serious economists even consider this issue. Muhandis said that I have a US bias and claimed some Candanians do. I would welcome a link. Maybe the Daily Kos is American, but it is hardly the party line. I think you have to wander pretty far into conspiracy land to get people to say ths is a top tier issue.
I often find mistakes in serious papers where a typist has put a B instead of an M. It can be quite a common mistake as the typist seems to think it is a large number, what difference does a letter make?
Sure everyone (even Americans) hates having their dollars debased by the constant flow of paper from the printing presses, but what are they going to do? At this point, there hasn't appeared to be a significant holder of dollars who is willing to pull the trigger. So, what could cause such a trigger? The USA has a good reason to really crank up the printing presses: devaluing obligations. This includes the unfunded 50-75 Trillion dollars "promised" to retiring baby boomers. Go ahead and toss in the deficit, business debt and personal debt. And, just about every debt or obligation without an indexing that moves as fast as the printing presses. Afterwards, when some time has passed, we will be able to start over again, and do the same thing. It may take another 70 years, but people will forget, they always forget.
So, what could throw a monkey wrench into this already nightmarish future of hyperinflation and freezing baby boomers? In response to hyperinflation, some holders will buy whatever US assets that are not nailed down; others will go for the ones that are nailed down. But, what about those holders who don't want US assets? They will have only one choice, buy something else with their dollars. This is commonly called "Dumping the Dollar."
My guess is that the pain of devaluation, and the pain of driving down the price of the dollar will fight it out in most countries with the pain of driving down the price holding sway with the bigger holders. Then there will be a smallish holder for which the pain of driving down the price appears to be low, so they dump their dollars. However, this may cause a series of events which leads to the final situation called "The Collapse of the Dollar."
Is there any historical precedent for this? Well, there are some who believe that the French dumping their dollars started the last stock market crash, and depression. A very small trigger can unleash some very powerful forces, if those forces exist.
Ok, so this is just one future scenario out of countless possible ones. But, I would like to think that it is responsible to consider such a scenario, and to do whatever is possible to prevent its occurrence.
Should this happen I suspect there is a plan to close all Forex and stock markets (just like they did at 9/11) and this is my only hope that it will not be that bad. And I agree that this is more everybody else's fear, what for the world will be a X trillion loss, for us will be a X trillion gain.
"World oil supply increased by 1.3 mb/d in November from October, to reach 85.0 mb/d."
From the new IEA report we have:
Global oil supply reached 85.0 mb/d in December, up by 0.6 mb/d from November.
We're going to reach 85..... oops it's actually 84.4 but this time we're really going to reach 85....
I'm not convinced that April was the peak, but didn't I see Freddy here pounding on the editors because December was going to be 85. Well maybe next month?
Betcha it will be below 2005 4th.
So here is a question I have. If everyone believes that the effects of Peak Oil are near and serious then what has everyone done to prepare? That of course could mean a lot of things.... get out of debt, buy gold, buy a survival cabin... what ever.
I mean to distinguish participation in this site from actual preparations. I ask this not to be argumentative but to maybe raise a point. If everyone here as not done anything then who will? I doubt anything can be done to ease the effects of Peak Oil because no one will act until major effects are seen.
Just a point for discussion
Thanks
In my opinion, there are ALOT of people that are moderately to very Peak Oil aware that are biding their time, waiting for a signal ($100-150 oil?) and then set some back up plan in motion. Alot of us are working in alternative energy field (I imagine).
I still personally believe there is a period ahead when abstract wealth can be increased in traditional ways and then ultimately turned into real wealth (land, water, community, guinea fowl, etc). I have gone 20% down this path and will accelerate or wait depending on how I see things unfold.
What have we done to prepare? We sold our completely car-dependent house last year and are now debt free. Echoing an earlier recommendation, we have significantly reduced our expences, although not quite by 50%. I have moved our retirement money into more conservative funds, but I am still in equities and bonds. I have not bought rurual land, and I have only a small amount of gold. We now rent in an old streetcar suburb (the streetcar was ripped up in the '50s, of course). Work is very close, and we can walk to school and the market. There is a high degree of social cohesion in the neighborhood.
I am not a doom-and-glooomer, and I believe that the back side of the peak will be gradual, at least for a while. Should things get bad, however, I do not intend to move to the bonnies and start farming. As some of you may have noticed with my Roman Empire postings, I've got a soft spot for history. In uncertain times, I would rather be in a town than in the countryside. There tends to be more security, more prosperity and a more interesting mix of people in towns. I'd rather be a medieval merchant than a medieval peasant.
But of coure, I don't really live in a "town"; I live in a vast urban conglomeration of around 7 million people, so maybe if the backside of the peak is severe enough we'll have a certain amount of urban anarchy. But I don't think the chance of that is high enough to go out and buy guns.... at least not yet!
The 'get out of debt' thing is sound advice for everyone, really. Learn to live a simpler life that doesn't involve buying lots of stuff. Learn to reject consumerism.
Learn to live your life in ways that use less energy. If you use less fuel, then the increased costs won't hurt as much. This might involve moving closer to your place of work so you don't have to drive as far or so you can take public transit. It could involve trading in a gas guzzler for a car with good fuel economy (which kind of runs counter to the 'get out of debt' thing).
To the rest of the stuff, I don't own gold, and I don't have a survival cabin.
Personally, my family and I have taken the following steps:
Riding is so liberating when you aren't fearing for your life from cars. I can understand not wanting to if the only way to get to your destination involves busy streets. I do it now more for the love of riding my bike than for the gas savings, though that is nice. And you can carry a surprising amount of groceries in a milk crate on a rack on the back!
The importance of making change is to right now discover the things that make one sustainably happy, and position yourself to attain those things. That way when TSHTF you will mentally be exactly where you want to be, rather than in a perpetually seeking dopamine loop. All we have is the moment then the moment is gone. Take a step back, and determine how you best enjoy your 'moments' and set up a life around that, if possible. For me, its walking in wet forests, with a dog, listening to loud music with a beautiful woman, growing my own food, and watching nature. Clearly Im not going to design a post peak oil life in Arizona or New York City. Money is only good in how it pays for things that I can sustainably enjoy.
Finally, we spend alot of time on TOD discussing the supply side of Peak Oil(bpd, EROI etc) - the demand side is equally if not more important - the HRoEI (happiness received for energy invested) clearly starts to max out at some point - look at 5th graph from the bottom at [http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/statistics/index.html]. Swedes, Danes, etc consume much less energy that Americans and are happier (they also pay alot more taxes).. The gini coefficient measures disparity in income where the higher the number the more variablity in wealth there is in a country. I havent done an analysis yet but would bet that people living in countries/communities with relative wealth equality are more happy. China has more than doubled its growth in past decade but people (according to worldvalues) are less happy - my guess is this is because their 'relative fitness' algorithm says that although they now have 10k vs 5k in income, they are now chasing some few billionaires that get all the chicks.
For the same reason I prefer Vermont to New York....;)
We live on a small farm just outside a small town, where we raise sheep, alpacas, chickens, bees and sled dogs (for outdoor, fossil-fuel-free recreation). Goats and the occasional cow might put in an appearance fairly soon. We do our own hay with the help of some farming friends and grow our own vegetables. There are also mature fruit trees on the property. Another farmer is currently growing crops conventionally on some of our land, but we could farm it the old-fashioned way if necessary, again with the help of knowledgeable farming friends. Various family members are skilled in fiber arts and have the equipment necessary for spinning and weaving. Tanning (the old fashioned way) is on my list of skills to acquire. Far from finding this lifestyle burdensome, we actually enjoy it a great deal.
As for energy, we heat with an outdoor wood-burning furnace which also provides our hot water in the winter. For the rest of the year, our hot water comes courtesy of a solar domestic hot water system. We can also heat with a high efficiency wood stove in the main house and a wood-burning cooking range in the kitchen. The latter can also deliver additional hot water. We have an old geothermal system that came with the house, but we don't use it often as it is an inefficient design and is therefore an energy hog.
We have the beginnings of an off-grid power system based on 3kW of PV with battery bank in the basement. We run the essentials (well pump, sump pump, circulating pumps for solar thermal and wood furnace, security system, fridge, freezer etc) off this all the time. We can charge the batteries from the PV panels, or the mains (programmable for time of day), or a gas generator or a diesel generator. The latter runs off our tractor, so it can be powered with agricultural diesel. We have a generator panel that runs the next most basic things from either generator, or from the mains. For the inessential things, we still depend on the mains, but we could live without the frills if we needed to. All the lighting is compact fluorescent or LED and the appliances are the most efficient available. The house itself is old and could be much more efficient than it is, but we're working on it.
In addition, we've also added a few extra small things that would make living an energy constrained life easier. We have a couple of solar cookers, solar battery chargers and rechargeable batteries, stand-alone solar LED lighting, hand-tools, and a bicycle-powered generator with a battery pack and built-in inverter. We're hoping to put in a year-round greenhouse, and would like to have a small wind turbine eventually (finances permitting).
We did all this without taking on any debt purely by selling property in the UK (where self-sufficiency would have been much more difficult and the carrying capacity of the country had been very thoroughly exceeded) and moving to rural North America where real estate is very much cheaper. The price difference funded the necessary infrastructure upgrades. We are not wealthy people (we were only a couple of academics after all), but we have been careful with what we had and have invested resources in what we needed rather than what we, or our children, might have wanted. As we live in the country, our children do not have their noses rubbed in the materialistic lifestyle on a daily basis. They know no other life now and are very happy - a happiness which does not depend on spending money.
Do you know your neighbors or spend any real amount of time with them?
I know some of my neighbours, although I don't live in town so my neighbours aren't right next door. I'm trying to find a balance between fitting into the community and maintaining the degree of isolation I need to bring my children up with a very non-mainstream value system. We tend to associate with other people who enjoy the rural life, rather than the many urban wannabees who may live in the country but still spend all their spare time in front of the TV, or playing computer games, or complaining that there's nothing to do here. Kids attitudes are strongly influenced by their peers, so we live where we can chose their peer group. The older they get, the more freedom they will have, but by then their values will be established and less susceptible to being undermined by the lowest common denominator or the path of least resistance. Our closest friends live some distance away, but they're sledders too, so we could still keep in touch in a world without cars.
It'd be cruel to make them run during a summer heatwave though. We could keep in touch with our friends for half the year with the dogs and the other half by cycling - a pleasant experience along our country roads. I have no experience with horses (unlike the friends in question who have 4 of them), so I'm not exploring equine possibilities for the time being.
Stoneleigh,
I am wondering what you use the bike power generator for?
Running electronics and LED lighting are the only uses that I can think of.
Our water is from surface wells, but they're heavily filtered. I need to do more water tests to find out how good it is without them.
Electric is a problem - I had not been planning to go off grid entirely, but I'm worried about the state of the gird & consolidation of utility companies - so I'm re-thinking those plans. I considered a PTO generator, but I don't think I want to tie up the tractor that way. I'm thinking about replacing the engine on my portable generator with a single-cylinder diesel so it will be more efficient. I still think about the idea of a wood/coal fired steam or sterling generator. If I reduce the power requirements far enough, it will become practical - especially in the winter when I can use the energy for both generating electricity and for the heat.
We finished the main barn renovations, fixing the structure and returning the bottom floor to horse stalls - these were for fun, but they'd be suitable for other animals, and the one pony is well trained for driving a cart. It will need some siding work on one side, but that's going to be put off for a year or so. We've got a couple of goats for pets, but the pen and shelter could handle several more. We're up to about a dozen chickens now (my daughter is the boss of the chickens!), but they are in a temporary shelter until I finish the real coop. We had a start to a flock of guinea hens until a fox got all but one - they are insectivores, and we mainly got them to help with the tick problem. We're thinking about a cow. If things really got bad, too many large animals would not be practical - they take too much food. IIRC, it required an acre for each horse just for hay.
The old orchard is mostly dead now, so I'll be replanting various fruit trees in the spring. I'm still trying to figure out where I want to put the garden, but I'll be putting in some serious posts and wire to keep out the deer & other visitors first! I do not have much good tillable land for traditional crops -about 5 acres if I really wanted to. I would focus instead on more valuable produce ("truck farming"), and try to trade for other things.
I'm not really planning on a total collapse of civilization, but we're trying to reduce our energy use, and learning to do a lot more on our own, and enjoying it as well. If things should really get bad, hopefully we'll have the skills we need. I have much work to do - now if I could only figure out how to get paid to work around my home!
I've been researching greenhouse designs of late, and came across this one, which seems to be ideal for home use and a cold climate.
Meanwhile, I'm considering buying a commercial greenhouse outfit to grow organic produce year-round. There is a strong "buy local" movement here that I think might support the effort.
However, I wonder if I might be getting ahead of myself a bit, as PO has not yet manifested in higher food prices, and I would still be competing against cheap food imports.
Reading TOD on a regular basis lends a certain urgency to one's thinking about this subject, but "betting the farm" and buying a commercial greenhouse might be a bit premature, or even foolish. Any thoughts on that?
As for "betting the farm" (maybe it's just winter cabin fever, but I have a hankering to do something dramatic) the commercial version I'm considering is with Crop King. They have a commercial greenhouse package for around $60K, that enables one to grow Organic Certified produce (tomatoes). They are differentiated from hydroponic tomatoes, which are already pretty common. The growing technique is like hydroponics but it uses an organic media. One buys the package from Crop King, and the annual growing supplies, and they provide technical and marketing support.
I'm attending a grow-local presentation at a local food Coop at the beginning of February, which will help me gauge the possibilities. I would want to get assurances from the buyers that there would be a market for this. In asking around, a local greengrocer recently told me that he opted out of selling local hydroponic tomatoes in favor of cheaper (Mexican? Californian?) tomatoes, since people are "pinching pennies", so PO is not yet a deciding factor.
I would have to go into debt to do this, but as I see it, people will always need to eat, and there will come a time when locally-produced food grown intensively in greenhouse conditions will become competitive (especially in winter - in summer you can't give tomatoes away around here, as I'm sure you experience as well!). Of course, get the timing wrong and I'll be one disappointed greenhouse owner, with a lot of tomatoes, and looming bankruptcy. Not a good position to be in, especially in down times, if that's what we're facing.
It might be worth looking into simple preservation techniques (canning) that could be used on a small scale as a value-added aspect to the business. For instance in winter you could sell tomatoes and other vegetables locally, but you could eventually also sell George's Special Salsa or George's Tasty Tomato Relish or George's Homemade Spagetti Sauce all year round with relatively little extra effort.
My family started doing this on a very small scale over the last few years and it took very little extra equipment. So far we've done the cooking on the electric range that came with the house, but we could do the same thing on the wood-burning range if necessary, or even with a solar cooker for our family-scale operation. On a rather larger scale it might make a good project for a small community, especially if there's less cheap imported food to have to compete with at some point down the line.
I'm also wondering about the feasibility of growing soybeans this way, for the protein. Let's say that the chicken stocks get culled because of the bird flu, and that there is less meat readily available; or looking further down the road, we're relying on local agriculture more and more, and there simply isn't enough locally grown meat to go around. One cannot live on lettuce and tomatoes! Soybeans could be a potentially lucrative commercial crop for a protein-starved populace.
I actually did teach myself to can last summer. After a couple of botched attempts I did get it right. Two nights ago we had a nice chicken with a tomato and zucchini reduction from the harvest. It was great, and still some left in the basement and the freezer. Next year I will get more ambitious.
Great idea about the tomato products - has a nice ring to it! If I end up doing that I'll make sure to send you a carton.
I have amassed a great deal of practical knowledge books and several books on doing things the old fashion, no power way. And I have a lot of other useful books. They will go with me whereever I go. I have pared my home down to the barest number of items. I have 2 bills a month. And can live on less than 400 dollars a month. I drive only when I have too. I am single, My second wife having left about 6 months ago. But she knew about the Whole Oil Peak thing and why she left was personal not they way we were reducing.
If you were to wait to long to have the plans in place, you might be to late to get them done. This is Because as we see the end approaching, so do a lot of others and supplies of those items you wanted will be greatly limited.
If you are going to get a gun I would do it now and not wait any longer, better safe than sorry. Chaos can make guns hard or impossible to get and might even make them a crime. This is not a doom and gloom idea, just a fact of life.
I still know where to get wild foods in my area, or how to find them in most places in this country, where ever I end up. But things will be happening sooner than 2015, and likely faster than we would hope.
Dan Ur, aka Charles.
The primary defensive weapon for the survivalist is his HANDGUN. It's the weapon that stays with him when he is doing his business around town or working on the field.
The survivalist IS NOT a soldier, even though you are a soldier or you once were the meanest mother on the battlefield, your home town is not a battlefield and it wont be, even if the SHTF. A LOT of water has to go under the bridge until the situation gets to a point where you can calmly walk down the street with a rifle on your shoulder.
He has a lot of interesting stuff. I have the text if you can't find it.
Some of the most recent models, made primarily for export, are chambered for 5.56mm Nato (AK-101, 102, various US-made derivatives, such as those from Arsenal in Los Vegas, NV).
As the most common assault rifle in the world, and legendary for its reliability, any of the 7.62x39 AK's would be an excellent general purpose choice.
A rifle is far more useful, in a utilitarian sense, than any handgun. Look back to what farmers, pioneers, and rural people had and used routinely, at least until the early 1900's: squirrel rifles and shotguns. Good for defense, better for hunting.
Handguns are pretty useless beyond 25 yards or so. You can't hit anything with them reliably.
My plan is to stockpile canned goods. And then trade some of them, after such time that the grocery stores no longer have any inventory, for the fuelled functioning vehicle I'll need to get the hell out of town. Of course its been suggested that theres not much point in having a stockpile of food if you dont have the means to defend it. Thats why I am interested in finding this rifle. Maybe I should just focus on whatever firearms I can find, but I really had my heart set on an AKM
For topics less macro and more micro peak oil lifestyle I suggest signing up for 1 (or more ) of the yahoo message groups runningonempty1, 2 and 3. good luck.
I dont really want to deal with firearms, and certainly not by myself. Like the comments down below, its also clear that unless I could establish a watch I couldnt defend my food stockpile.
I need to get out there and make real relationships with real flesh and blood human beings, cooperate to do something useful and have a good life. I want a good life for my 2 year old too and I have no faith in the future. I have hope, but no faith.
Remember that all a person needs is food, water, clothing and shelter.
I have a vegetable garden, and living near the seaside, do quite a bit of fishing. I wish I had more time to do this, but my job is probably going to disappear once, so that will give me the time :-)
I am slowly but steadily collecting quality hand tools. I collect rain from the roof in a big barrel. I plan to heat my house with washed-ashore wood. And I plan to generate power from the wind and sun.
I am building a seedbank.
And I have a plan B. Except for living at sealevel the location I reside is just fine in a post peak world, but we ( that's me , my wife and 2 kids)can move to the rural community in Middle Europe where my wife originated. Fertile, not overpopulated, high potence for sulfsufficiency, bearrable climat, lots of trees and game, watersources, houses build to last and so on. Did I mention the wineyards?
We live in Ann Arbor MI, a small city in a fairly agricultural county, but with one of the most dangerous metropolitan areas in the country nearby. The Detroit area is a powder keg with a burning fuse. Our neighborhood is on a city bus line, we're within walking distance of our kids' elementary school, and we're within biking distance of their future schools. Ann Arbor also has both east-west and north-south active rail lines, and we're the busiest Amtrak stop in Michigan. Ann Arbor has a fairly moderate climate and we have adequate water supplies, with food and game within a reasonable distance.
We bike most places we go, using our car mostly for trips out of town. This is probably our biggest preparation for peak oil, though we bike more for exercise and because of climate change than because of gas prices. I've been working for many years to make Ann Arbor and Michigan more friendly to nonmotorized transportation and transit, with mixed results.
We have made a number of financial changes in the past few years, in part based on recommendations in "The Oil Factor" a book on investments in a high energy cost age. I won't go into the changes we've made, but if you read the book you'll get the idea.
Finally, this year we bought a woodstove and the tools to get wood for it without using fossil fuels. We added a significant amount of insulation to the house as well. We have a number of rain barrels to catch runoff and store over 200 gallons from a good rain. We have a vegetable garden and we're trying to convince neighbors to set up a community garden in unused space in our neighborhood park. We buy most of our purchased produce from a local co-op, a co-op farm, and our farmer's market. I'm also working to establish a "Post-Carbon Outpost" in Ann Arbor.
I live in Ann Arbor too, with my husband and two young children! I live within walking distance of King Elementary School. I would like to get in touch via email (c_mccracken [at] hotmail [dot] com) to talk some more about how I can help locally. The local PO Yahoogroup became inactive right around when I joined.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece
I'm also surprised that he's talking about it getting ever warmer in Europe--what happened to the theory about the thermohaline conveyor shutting down and triggering a new ice age in Europe?
This isn't meant to belittle Lovelock in any way, but I firmly believe in the notion of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. And so far, all I'm hearing is a tall tale plus the casual announcement that he has a new book coming out.
If he has solid science behind this prediction of an inevitable catastrophe, then I'll believe him--what other rational response could I have? If he doesn't, then he's just another guy pushing a sensational book and making those of us who know peak oil and peak NG are coming look like nutjobs.
And to the poster who believes the peak is near, why would you be in any equities other than oil/gas/commodity? Oil depletion, at least after the peak, spells the end of growth.(as we know it)
I know this will sound radical, but if you think about it it rings true - the all time forever highs of the stock market were seen in 2000. The Nasdaq will never see those levels again (unless in 2015 its made up entirely of alt energy companies or [blacklightpower http://www.blacklightpower.com/ ] is for real
Yep, my feelings as well, domestic companies will do much better then LNG in the short/medium-run. Lot's of speculation in the LNG industry, no one really knows what is going to happen.
if you really believe that, you have some persuasive stockbrokers. There is no game. If you believe stocks will net net go down, do something else with your money. Dont buy the wall st mantra that 'the best investment over time is stocks'. That may have been true (actually its not, lumber was the highest since the 1930s)in the past but I doubt for much longer (except of course some solar/new energy stocks will go up 1000s of % - wish I knew which.. What I really hear you saying is that youre not convinced the peak is soon and you dont want to time it. And I feel for you there - no one knows.
By the way, Im not sure why - probably (lack of) yahoo earnings after the close, but the market is due for a big spill tomorrow open - nasd futures down 35 tonight already.
Strategies are different for both cases if we get run away inflation the best strategy would be to have as much debt as you can get. Borrow untill you can borrow no more buy phyical things solar cells, farm land, wind generators,gold,oil etc.
On the other hand if we get deflation you want cash in the bank, no debt.
Whats going to happen that is the million dollar question,
I have gone for farm land high rain fall, not to hot not to cold region low imput grazing. Near a resonable size town but a long way from major centers. Invested is fencing, sheds, and other energy intensive items. Maintaining cash and storing physicals. No debt.
Weather this is the correct strategy only time will tell.
When peak oil comes, US interest rates will be extremely high.
Now just go out and buy whatever it is that will increase in value when US interest rates go ballistic.
Bank stocks! Could the answer be anything different? If they arn't collecting money to repay the loans, they're out increasing their holdings through foreclosures. Win-Win!
Physical ownership of precious metals (and no other kind of ownership may be enforceable during a dpression) can be problematic. Gold was confiscated without compensation during the last depression. You could own physical gold (illegally) if that happens again, but that's potentially dangerous and trading it becomes an issue so owning it may not help you much. I'd say silver would be a better bet if it's metals you're after, but at the end of the day you can't eat it and it doesn't keep you warm directly. Capital preservation is the important thing, but it helps if you can store value in a tradable, transportable form that you're legally allowed to own.
I think it's not going to be deflation like in 1900 and 1929, or a slow inflation like 1966, I think it's going to be a fast, fast, hyperinflation scenario taking a week to a month. Cash is all I would be interested in for that.
A thousand in gold, a thousand in silver coins, a thousand in cash, some credit cards, a checking account, and a money fund. A diversified stock portfolio and a house in a village outside a nuclear target zone wouldn't hurt.
And a basement ready to hold a shitload of stuff you bought at Walmart (for cash) and a van to carry it home in wouldn't hurt.
Just remember, panic first.
Also, watch the immigrants. They know what a hyperinflation looks like because they've been there, so they will panic before you do.
Calpine was involved in LNG and look what happened.
The terminals that are in the US now can't get enough LNG to even run at 50% capacity.
If you want to go that route I would suggest BP, it appears their LNG numbers for the 4th quarter will look good after the UK situation.
For start up companies in the US I would stay away for now, LNG is just too expensive to compete with conventional NG/coal/hydro/wind, at the moment.
For the Darkhorse LNG investment......Gazprom.
Low current capacity is due to the fact that global LNG supply is not keeping pace with demand. Production cost of LNG is higher than conventional US production but generally less than unconventional (coal bed methane, tight shale, deepwater, etc) and would tend to bring down US prices if we actually paid cost not market price. LNG sellers were pretty happy with $3 per million BTU up until 2000, and although production cost have gone up since then they haven't doubled or trippled. Unfortunately global LNG supply looks like it will lag demand for some time to come, so the going price will be much higher than producion cost. And if peak oil occurs or gas-to-liquids catches on before LNG production catches up to demand, LNG prices will stay high permanently and LNG won't look like such a great growth industry. High LNG prices aren't necesarily bad for an existing terminal owner, but the terminal owner won't be making the bulk of the profit either.
I agree that it is risky to bet on LNG terminals, not only becasue of LNG price/supply concerns but also because of site licence risks. Better to find public companies with rights to large supplies of quickly appreciating stranded NG. BP is a candidate, though you will have to balance new NG with declining oil resrves. Gazprom is a pure play with massive reserves, but how much do you trust the Russian gov to run the company with the the shareholders' interests in mind? I'd stick to smaller western NG producers with the deepest reserves.
Operating pipelines usually do not have a physical barrier between different liquids. e.g., in a products line propane is followed by butane is followed by gasoline (multiple grades) is followed by kerosene is followed by diesel. And then back in reverse order. Turbulence provides an adequate and economic barrier between the different fuels. The small amount of dieselly-gasoline and gasoliney-diesel that is caught in the interface between products (called transmix) is separated out and sold to bottom-feeder refiners. Crude pipelines are even more forgiving...it's destined for a refniery in the first place.
But there are physical devices, called 'pigs', that can be inserted into pipelines and pushed along for a variety of reasons. 'Brush Pigs' are used to keep the inside of crude lines clean, while 'smart pigs' (I'm not making this up) have sensors, electronics, and data storage to inspect the entire length of a pipeline for anomolies such as corrosion. More often they find the dings left from lucky backhoe operators. The unlucky ones sometimes die. One guy on a road grader cut into one of our lines while propane was going by. Propane is pumped as a liquid under pressure, but is a vapor under atmospheric conditions. Steel pipe gets cut open..propane depressurizes..vapor cloud billows forth..finds ignition source..it's a road grader engine..POOF..'nuff said..call before you dig.
As regards a final cleanout of a pipeline as long as TAPS, you bet they will get out as much as they can. When that day comes it will be too valuable to leave in place. They'll likely stick in a 'batch pig' and push it out with another fluid. I have been involved in pipeline retirements in Louisiana, but the Artic would pose some challenges. Water has some obvious phase-change issues, although that can be controlled. Ocean water is reasonably local, cheap, and present in sufficient quantity. Who cares about corrosion at that point? Compressed air can be used, but creates its own problems, and requires (big) new equipment.
Now that I think of it, I read once that TAPS (Trans-Alaska Pipeline System) uses a novel mini-refinery technique for creating power out in the boondocks. A small slipstream of crude is refined enough to get a mild diesel cut. The diesel is used to power generators. Not sure if that system is in use anymore, but wouldn't it be ironic if someone had to airlift large amounts of (then) exhorbitantly expensive diesel out to the pumping stations to get the last drops out???
Regards,
Ed
I heard that the reason they are called 'pigs' was that they made a squealing sound as they went by in the pipeline. I imagine that it depends on the type of pig.
Someone sounds worried.
BTW, author Tom Clancy wrote about three terrorist attacks on the U.S.: (1) a 747 flown into the Capitol Building; (2) a bioweapons attack and (3) a nuclear device. We have had two out of three--everything but the nuke. In regard to #3, the underlying purpose of the nuclear attack was to provoke a nuclear strike on Iran--permanently inflaming Muslims around the world.
Excerpt from Stratfor.com:
Intra-Islamic Diplomacy
If the Iranians are seen as getting too close to a weapon, either the United States or Israel will take them out, and there is an outside chance that the facilities could not be taken out with a high degree of assurance unless nukes are used. In the past, our view was that the Iranians would move carefully in using the nukes to gain leverage against the United States. That is no longer clear. Their focus now seems to be not on their traditional diplomacy, but on a more radical, intra-Islamic diplomacy. That means that they might welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It would burnish Iran's credentials as the true martyr and fighter of Islam.
Meanwhile, the Iranians appear to be reaching out to the Sunnis on a number of levels. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a radical Shiite group in Iraq with ties to Iran, visited Saudi Arabia recently. There are contacts between radical Shia and Sunnis in Lebanon as well. The Iranians appear to be engaged in an attempt to create the kind of coalition in the Muslim world that al Qaeda failed to create. From Tehran's point of view, if they get a deliverable nuclear device, that's great -- but if they are attacked by Israel or the United States, that's not a bad outcome either.
In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be ended. Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make provocative moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be able to live with that as well.
``A number of power stations in the European part of Russia have gotten notification about the possible limits,'' said Tatiana Milyaeva, a spokeswoman for RAO Unified Energy System, the national power utility, in a telephone interview today from Moscow.
Italy hit by Russian gas shortage
Italy has had to dip into its gas reserves to make up for a shortfall in supplies from Russia, Italian energy group ENI said on Wednesday.
Russia has denied reports that it is holding back gas for its domestic market because of freezing conditions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4625092.stm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000CEA15-3272-13C8-9BFE83414B7FFE87
Also being discussed on slashdot this morning:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/18/1623244
The SciAm article writes:
Total copper resource estimates are 1 to 1.6 billion metric tons. The situation is even worse if we remember that like oil copper will not be produced at full volume until it instantly runs out. Instead it will hit a peak as it becomes more and more difficult to extract. This should occur well before 2100.
And the situation is even worse:
But as we have seen with energy, it is easy to talk about converting coal or oil shale to liquids but the technological costs to implement it may make it uneconomical at best.
Yes, there is plenty to worry about, except in the unlikely event that future society develops technology better than what we have today, in which case it is impossible for us to say what will be difficult for them and what will be easy.
I am not nearly as worried about this as I am about energy shortages and climate change. What do you all think, am I right?
It is not much to worry about as long as we have plenty of electricity.
Btw, Studsvik in Sweden has started a recycling business for nuclear steam generators. They have been able to separate out more then 85% of the steel for reuse in their first scrapped steam generator from Ringhals. And they plan to melt the radioactive part of the scrap to get the volume down to 20-30 m3 in conveniently sized containers.
The value of the scrap will not pay for the work but it makes an outsize nuclear waste problem a lot easier to handle.
I have for a number of years advocated that nuclear powerplants realy are mostly recycleable so it felt realy good to read this in Ny Teknik, a local engineering newspaper. (There should be traces of it in netnews archives. )
This means that you need more complicated splices and connections. This makes it much easier to work with copper wiering when wiering up a car or a house.
This is old and established technology that not yet have replaces all the high current copper use. It can free a lot of copper in use. It can also replace copper wiering in new houses or cars with a higher cost in connectors and labor unless someone figures out a realy smart connector.
The specialized copper uses I can think of immediately are space limited ones such as motor and generator wiering and high tension cabling with expensive insulators such as HVDC undersea cables. And where you need special mechanical properties such as copper alloys for switches and ovearhead wiers for electrified trains.
The only big problem is that you need enourmous ammounts of electricity to make new aluminium. I think Iceland will be a Saudi Arabia of aluminium refining, they are already well on their way.
http://www.icelandexport.is/english/industry_sectors_in_iceland/energy_in_iceland/
Iceland is the only country in Western Europe that still has large resources of competitively priced hydroelectric power and geothermal energy remaining to be harnessed. Although electricity consumption per capita in Iceland is second to none in the world, at about 28,200 kWh per person, only a fraction of the country's energy potential has been tapped. Total economically viable electric power potential is now estimated at 50,000 GWh/year. About 8,490 GWh/year of this power had been harnessed in 2003, i.e. only about 17% of the total electrical energy potential.
Competitively priced electricity has already attracted foreign investors to Iceland in fields such as production of aluminium and ferro-silicon. Export-orientated power-intensive industries now consume more than half the country's electricity production.
Hydropower in Iceland
Economically harness able electricity from hydro resources is estimated at about 30,000 GWh per year. The first hydropower plant was constructed in 1904, generating 9kW. In 2003, the total installed hydropower is 1,155 MW and the hydropower production was around 7,100 GWh. The largest single hydropower plant has a production power capacity of 270 MW.
Geothermal energy in Iceland
Icelanders are world leaders in the use of geothermal energy for domestic and industrial purposes. About 87% of the population enjoy central heating by geothermal energy at a price that is generally less than half of the comparable cost of oil or electric heating, thus contributing to making Iceland one of the cleanest environments in Europe. Geothermal steam has been used directly for a number of industrial processing applications in Iceland for decades now, and has also been developed for electricity generation on a small but growing scale. In 2003 the total installed geothermal electric power was 200 MW and the production around 1,420 GWh.
I've also noticed the problem you mention with the research paper and data resellers. Lots of the docs & data in their coffers that I'm looking for can still be found for free, some even on government web sites publicly available downloads, if you're willing to look long and hard enough. To minimize my search time, I skip page 1-19 of the <search engine of choice returns> and start reviewing at the 200th item on the list.
http://www.energybulletin.net/12179.html
Cloudy with a chance of chaos
Eugene Linden, Fortune
Summary:
Climate change may bring more violent weather swings -- and sooner -- than experts had thought. ("the most apocalyptic thing I've ever seen in a U.S. business publication")
published January 19, 2006.
Am i alone on the idea that executives are out of touch with the common man? Since they (the CEO's) live in the land of excess.
Something tells me John Browne is not experiencing price increases enough to affect his lifestyle.
I have only half-kiddingly suggested to my oil patch brethren that we blend in by driving old lime green Volvos with Greenpeace stickers.
To avoid BP's environmental responsibilities as they themselves advertise publicly, the Turkish segment of the BTC Pipeline was provided to the BTC owner's conglomerate under a separate contract where (technically) all responsibility for meeting BP's supposedly high environmental construction standards were handed off to BOTAS, the Turkish State's pipeline operating company. That left BP free of any actual responsibility, their standards hoisted high, but basically unenforcable and generally ignored inside Turkey.