That may be partially explained by the simple fact that no one wants to take the airlines crap anymore.  Let's be honest, airlines were insufferable before 9/11 and have always treated humans like cattle in a box car.  Since 9/11, they have the added excuse that "it's for security" and have become almost completely unusable.  I will never fly if I can drive, until the gas or Diesel in my case, is gone.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

This being a rather Americanocentric place, I am not sure that it is wise of me to mention the following:

Iran is an ancient country with a lot of very nice people living there. Early in the 20th century, the British messed up the place to some degree in order to get at the oil. In WWII, Joseph Stalin took the North and starved it and the British kept the South and did not allow food to be sent up North. After WWII, the British left but the Russians stayed for as long as possible. Eventually they left and took everything they could with them. However, they hung on to the part that is now called Azerbaijan - because of its oil. When the Iranians democratically elected someone who the CIA did not approve of, he was kicked out and the son of a previous despot (who had been exiled by the British) was put in his place. This guy bent over so backwards to give favours (just like with Haliburton in Iraq) to the Americans that eventually he was overthrown. A bunch of religious zealouts and thugs took over - the Shah and his American-inspired "white revolution" had ensured that there were no other centres of power in the country. In view of the above, why does sendoilplease hate and fear these people so much?

Russia is a country with a very sad and dramatic history that I am sure you know better than Iran's. However, let us be a little bit serious now. The events that took place in Russia after the collapse of communism were a good deal more dramatic that the USA's experiences during the "Great Depression". How exactly did the West help out? Did it not try to exploit Russia's weakness to the maximum. Who was it who abrogated the ABM Treaty and why? In view of the repeated threats against the existence of Russia by the USA, is it surprising that Putin is planning to invest in a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles?

If you assume that everyone who happens to have oil is your enemy, you are aiming to create a most unpleasant world. No one encourage you to waste your own oil. With a little effort, you could get by on a lot less oil and probably have a happier society

Europe will be the one playing Sputnic with Russia..

As a percentage of overall web activity, the sport of curling would have an almost infinitely small amount of traffic.  But for the people who are directly involved in the sport and the various businesses surrounding and supporting the sport, it is a big part of their daily activity, web activity, and thought and effort.  If you google the word "Curling" you will get over 16 million hits, including local clubs and organizations all over the world, a national and world governing body, marketing and merchendizing of the sport, schools that teach it, even apparel to buy.  There is also a "strategic plan" on the website (gee, don't you wish the peakists had one of those!) Yet, how many people as a percentage of the TOTAL world population know what curling is?

However, inside the curling community, fantastic controversies and disputes can break out, about rules, policy, methods of merchendizing and marketing, etc.  To the people that have a vested interest, this is big, you can win an Olympic medal doing this after all (gee, don't you wish there was one of those for peak oil disputation! :-)

So, for those of us inside the peak "community" (remember Robert Redford's line in "Three Days Of The Condor?  "Community?  Community?  Gee, you guys sure flatter yourself!" in reference to the intelligence community. great...)  back to subject, for those in the "peak" aware comunity, the disputes between CERA, Matt Simmons, Laharrere, etc., are BIG.  But as a percentage of "blogspace" or public awareness, they rank right up there with discussion about last years world champion curler.

Occasionally though, they blow into the bigger media.  After the complete debacle that was the 1997 natural gas report by NPC (National Petroleum Council) which was agreed with in it's outlook by CERA and USGS and EIA, suddenly you had the Fed Chairman Greenspan testifying before Congress, and American business asking what the hell went wrong.  Then these obscure disputes make it to the main page.  ExxonMobil is obviously aware of the "peak" movement, as witness their advertizing, and their recent attack on a small college for showing films and teaching courses they viewed as endorsing "peak oil" theory, per a link right here on TOD.  The debates may get very hot, as people see their business and future at stake, which brings me to Simmons "big event" but I will do that in another post).

This brings us to the difference between some obscure sport like curling and peak oil, and why we in the "peak" aware community take peak more seriously.  Curling cannot effect in any real way peoples lifestyle, wealth and security (with the exception of those directly involved in the sport).  Peak can affect ALL the people who produce, consume and rely on energy as a part of their existance, in other words, just about everyone.  If we want to flatter ourselves, we can take the position that those of us here are at the vanguard, the cutting edge of world altering set of events.  I can remember when those who discussed "software" and "wireless" were a very, very small percentage of the total population.  But a decade later.....

Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout

By gas, do you mean gasoline or natural gas?  Are we showing signs of gasoline shortages?  

I'm glad you gave me a chance to make my "nominations for Simmons "some event", so here goes.  Take note that I do not often make predictions, because it runs counter to my belief that we simply do not have enough clean reliable information to predict anything.  The crisis right now is still in my view the COMPLETE BLINDNESS crisis.  We are running in the dark with no lights, a very, very dangerous condition for the industrial modern world to be in.  We have better observation of comet and meteor threats than we do of our oil and gas situation.

I do not believe our energy situation will make the mainstream radar until it affects the business and corporate community in a major way.  There is evidence that this may occur on two major fronts, catching many business and international corporate concerns by surprise:

1.Natural gas crisis
2.American Diesel crisis

The problems with natural gas are well known.  The price is very high by historical standards, and only mild weather has protected us to this point.  Europe is in more jeopardy right now than the U.S., and Britain in most jeopardy of all.  This is a surprising turn of events compared to a few years ago, when North Sea British and Norwegian gas and the pipelines from the Russian and Caspian basin made the Europeans sure that natural gas was "the gas of the future".  Russia was then seen as a reliable partner and getting better.  That view is now seen a Pollyannish and naive.  Europe could be facing a catastrophic nat gas crisis, if the Russians continue to degenerate into chaos.  The North Sea crisis we do not need to comment on.  It is simply getting worse and worse for the British, and as nat gas becomes a critical problem on the mainland, they cannot count on supplies being freed up to them.  The need critical action soon, but cannot decide what to do.  It will have to be a radical move, whatever they decide, because almost no preperation for this event has been made in prior years.

The U.S. has nat gas in storage.  If we have a "normal winter", it should be enough.  However, we are waiting with baited breath to see what the extraction season looks like.  Each year, the extraction seems to go up, even in normal years, compared to the injection season.  Thankfully, we have not been having "normal" years.

What is going unnoticed however is the fact that natural gas is being called on in a big new way.  The new regulation on ULSD requires 15parts per million (ppm) or less of sulfer in Diesel fuel.  This is down from 500 parts per million, a stiff target to make. This change was roundly cheered on TOD NY
http://nyc.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/13/102354/42

But no real explanation of how it is done was given, with only a short quote:
"The new fuel contains 15 parts per million of sulfur, down from the standard of 500 parts per million, thanks to changes in the refining process."

It is done with hydrogen, extracted from natural gas.  For a long technical paper on the economics and technology involved in ULSD, go to
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/preface.html
and don't lose that link if this subject interests you.  Real information on this subject can be VERY hard to find.
The plans for ULSD were laid in the 1990's.  Needless to say, the natural gas outlook was considerably different then.  The EPA projected in the 1990's a price of $2.75 per mm/BTU when the ULSD rule was to come into 80% effect in 2007 on the highside.  As we know, that projection was wildly incorrect, as we were in the high $7 dollar range yesterday, that down from much higher prices in past months.  Of course, the crude oil projections of the EIA have been as greatly in error, so what we have is a natural gas price and a crude oil price that make the cost projections of ULSD made in the 1990's completely useless.

The fact that ULSD requires hydrogen, thus, natural gas imputs on a large scale was not well known by many in the Diesel consuming community.
But how much hydrogen, i.e., natural gas is need to "desulfur Diesel"?
It's very hard to find out.  One has to dig deep and hard to even find an admission that natural gas must be consumed in the process.  And if one digs hard enough, sentences such as the following can be found:

"The amount of hydrogen required for desulfurization is also uncertain, because the industry has no experience with widespread desulfurization at ultra-low levels. One of the primary determinants of cost is hydrogen consumption and the related investment in hydrogen-producing equipment. Hydrogen consumption is the largest operating cost in hydrotreating diesel, and minimizing hydrogen use is a key objective in hydrotreating for sulfur removal. In general, 10 ppm sulfur diesel would require 25 to 45 percent more hydrogen consumption than would 500 ppm diesel, in addition to improved catalysts.58   Hydrogen requirements at lower sulfur levels rise in a nonlinear fashion."

Note that little nugget:
"Hydrogen consumption is the largest operating cost in hydrotreating diesel"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/chapter3.html

Again, think back to the EPA projections of $2.75 natural gas for about now, and you begin to get a feel for why Diesel fuel is, and will remain much higher than gasoline for the foreseeable future.  Remember also, that the rule is only 80% in effect, with the other 20% to come into effect in 2010.

Several months ago, Jack Gerard, CEO of the American Chemistry Council testified before Congress, and dropped the other foot.
"Well, Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) has been readily available all of three days, let's argue about it. Yesterday, the president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, Jack Gerard, issued a statement saying that U.S. lawmakers need to change the policy regarding access to domestic natural gas sources if we're going to keep making ULSD. Why is this, you ask? Because you can use hydrogen to desulferize diesel fuel. So while we've now got diesel engines that emit up to 90-some percent fewer particulates, we've also got to get all this extra hydrogen.

Gerard's statement was, in part, "Today, most ULSD is produced by treating the fuel with hydrogen to remove sulfur and other impurities. Most of that hydrogen is produced directly from methane contained in natural gas. Yet federal policies continue to put most U.S. natural gas supplies off-limits. If the nation is to be successful in our pursuit of cleaner diesel fuel, then Congress needs to change energy policies to help bring about reliable, affordable access to natural gas."
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/18/what-about-the-hydrogen-that-s-used-to-make-ultra-low-sulfur -die/

We could go on for days.  But the key points to notice are:
(a) The only economically valid way to remove or "desulfur" Diesel fuel is by use of hydogen, extracted from natural gas
(b)  The amount of hydrogen required is not known, or if it is, it is not given in the papers I can find.
(c)  It must be considerable, to have drawn the attention of the EPA in their original documents, and to be the single largest cost factor in the "desulfering" of Diesel fuel to meet the newly mandated standards.
(d)  Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel thus becomes essentially a "bi-fuel" and as such the price of ULSD is now relient on the supply and price of both crude oil and natural gas.
If we assume that natural gas is not showing signs of being cheaper in 2010 than now, and we know that the other 20% of the ULSD regulation is still set to come into effect, we are put in a difficult position in trying to know how the price of Diesel will return to a price below that of gasoline.

Another question arises:  If we are now relient on natural gas to produce "legal" Diesel fuel, why not just go over to the natural gas directly?  As we know, Diesel is already having difficulty with the Nox emission laws, and Diesel engines by their nature have major liabilities (noise, smoke, smell, low acceleration performance, etc.).  What incentive would the customer have to buy an engine that is now relient on both crude and nat gas price and supply, and also noisier and dirtier than a nat gas or LPG engine?

Indeed, the recent race to compressed natural gas in the mass transit area shows the swiftness with which many are cutting the Diesel loose:
http://www.masstransitmag.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=1218

This is also beginning to occur in commerical transit to some degree, as parcel services continue the development of nat gas trucks, and hybrid trucks using nat gas or LPG as the onboard liquid fuel.

The full effect of the changes in the Diesel market are yet to be known.  What we may see is a marketplace moving away from ULSD fast enough to help bring the price down as demand levels off or even drops.  However, after spending somewhere between 3 and 13 billion dollars on the refinery modifications to produce low sulfur Diesel, and being reliant on natural gas price, there is a bottom limit to how cheap Diesel fuel can go.

One thing is certain:  The recent changes almost certainly end the possibility of "rebirth" or "expansion" in the production and sales of Diesel passenger cars.  I own two, and many of my Diesel owning friends, along with myself, are looking to get loose from them as the possibility allows (some have already done so).

What now are waiting to see is if the combined problems facing the now combined fuel (nat gas/crude oil=Diesel) will set the stage for a real price crisis in the Diesel markets.  At this time, Diesel fuel is still the fuel relied on for over 90% of commercial transportation in the U.S.  If there is a price or supply crisis here, America's big players will be forced to take notice.  Could it be Simmon's "event"?  The system is very fragile, and getting more so.

Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout

Google Trends for Peak Oil, Gas Price & Price gouging

Look at how there is little correlation between interest in gas prices and peak oil. Look also at how the news talks alot of price gouging, but there is relatively little public search interest.

To me what that says is that the case for peak oil being real and responsible for much of what's going on isn't connecting with the general public. It looks to be presented too academically and memories of claims in the 1970s and 80s still ring through. However, the claim which is pushed by much of the press on price gouging being responsible for gas prices also isn't ringing through.

The jump between where we are and a widescale realisation in the mind of the common man that peak oil is on the horizon requires a simple, one line phrase that can be grasped by all, addresses the mispredictions of the past, and probably has a well known face behind it.

In short, a meme.

Could you do that in one line?

Much of Europe, especially the Germans, have been playing the PO game since 1972 since the Club of Rome published "The Limits to Growth". It seems they are somewhat tired of debating something that can't be proven yet.. At least it's obvious that the climate's getting warmer, so why not stick to that subject instead? Everyone here seems to be quite aware in one way or another that the oil's running out..

Expat, how far way from Munich are you, anyway?

Cheers, Expat2, GermanDom or what have you.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=curling%2Cglobal+warming&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Growth in coal-fired electricity generation is forecast to contribute to a dramatic rise in
global warming pollution. The Energy Information Administration recently projected
that annual CO2 emissions from power plants will increase by 1.1 billion tons (44%) -
between 2004 and 2030 largely as a result of America's increasing reliance on coal. The
projected rise in annual CO2 emissions from power plants is equivalent to the annual
CO2 emissions from nearly 200 million cars.  

With rail costs ranging to an unaffordable $300 million per mile (e.g. LA Red Line - I won't even venture a guess on Second Avenue Subway), and even $50 million a mile for surface rail that constantly crashes into car drivers running crossings (e.g. L.A. Gold Line), rail is going to be unavailable to most Americans indefinitely even if every last one of the projects comprehensively listed by Alan is eventually built. And as EP pointed out on the same thread, given a bit of time, fuel efficiency (gas mileage) has a long way to go, which could compensate for a lot of price rise in gasoline/diesel/ethanol. (Though I very seriously doubt that SUVs would actually disappear even at $15/gallon).

Of course, as toilforoil also pointed out, a static analysis is not truly useful, because the car-fuel price that would cause major change according to such an analysis is so immensely high that other factors would probably change enough to void the analysis. Unfortunately, those factors would severely strap governments and that will not work in favor of already unreliable and time-consuming transit. The tiniest percentage shift away from cars would hopelessly overcrowd and bog down most trains and busses, and under toilforoil's assumed conditions, the money would simply not be there for more and better service.

In the spirit of the question up top, I would nominate some sort of geopolitical shenanigans as an eventual catalyst, but by creating political panic by abruptly interfering with fuel availability. But even that might work mainly in favor of car pooling and faster improvement in fuel economy. Most busses and trains would instantly become so overcrowded they wouldn't even stop for you - and additional service cannot be conjured out of thin air, and, just like highway space, it often cannot be added without going through endless years of NIMBY fights.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=peak+oil%2C+global+warming%2C+iraq%2C+sex&ctab=0&geo=all& date=all

Cheers!

If Americans wish to continue consuming their "rightful" share of petroleum products, we are going to have to bid the price up.

Did you see the little box in this month's National Geographic, comparing 1915, 1967, 2006?

They have 1967's gasoline price at $0.33, or $2.00/gal in 2005 dollars.  That looked low compared to Aug. 2006's $3.04/gal ... but I notice that the national average is back down to $2.25 today.  Spitting distance.

That's pretty wild.  We have been amazingly successful at getting worldwide oil production on-line, and holding down those prices.

I can kind of relate to talk of "bidding up" and that consumers might unthinkingly expect "their share" ... but I don't think we're there yet.

I still think you underestimate Khurais oil field, and Saudi offshore.  We'll see...but I don't trust 'um not to have an ace or two up the sleeve, if they hit us with a good blast of cheap oil in the next year or so, they could break the spine of many of the alternatives (with nat gas going up and crude going down, it would pretty much bankrupt the Canadian tar sand operators, the investors are already starting to bail)

Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout

Output at Kashagan oilfield set to beat forecasts by 25% from today's ft.com - 1.5 mb/d from 2020

CNBC reported that tanker rates are falling--there is less oil out there to ship to importers.

I don't know if you're living actually in CH, but i do, in Geneva, and i don't see the thinks like you are.

In the last couple of year, i haven't read just one article on the subject of PO. I really think that a LOT more debating in the US and the UK than in the french-speaking area, FWIK. I saw on TOD mention of Financial Time or WSJ articles on this subject. The most repected and reference newspapers here haven't simply gone into this subjet. It may be a great amazing here soon in the public opinion..

I cannot recall which elected official, whether federal or local, expressed the idea that, maybe, the way our cars are powered will not last for decades.

All i see is the funny green guys that nobody takes seriously when they speak about de-development (some call them the green Khmer), or the "soft" green that say: well, pls, shut off your TV when u don't use it and this kind of nonsense (and don't forget to not let the water flows too long).

The others partys aren't simply talking about that. OIl flows, and wil flow (forever, don't ask question if u don't want to know the answer!)

We have certainly a more expensive gasoline as in the USA, as i can see on this blog, partly because of additionnal taxes, but that's saying a lot that "it doesn't scare nobody".

We do have a moratorium on building new nuclear power stations but his continuation has been refuse by the people recently.

I don't know about wich "alarming talks" you refer to, because i saw any of them, especially in the biggest french-speaking newspaper. I rather think that the people, when electricity lacks, will agree to any solution, include gas-fired powerstations.

It's like: ecology is cool, but my CONFORT must not suffer.
I know many people that went to see the Al Gore film. They found it impressive and indisputable.
But how many leave now their car in the morning? For what i see each morning on my bike, not so much!

I think most of the swiss are as lazy as the rest of their western fellow contrymen!