And there is also a pretty interesting nybooks.com review/article at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19596 which covers a lot of points of interest to peak oil types, without in any sense having anything to do with peak oil.

http://www.bu.edu/cees/people/faculty/cutler/articles/Oil_Prod_Lower_48.pdf

Thanks

Max Oakes
Edinburgh
UK

The HL Method
When we integrate the area under a production rate versus time graph, we get Ultimate Recoverable Reserves, URR, or Qt.  So far, the HL method appears to be the most objective way, IMO, of estimating Qt.

As described by Deffeyes, building on work done by Hubbert, the HL method involves plotting annual production (P) divided by cumulative production to date (Q) to get the Qt  for a region.  

The key point to keep in mind is that the method is better at estimating the reserves, and not as good at estimating precise production rates.  Regions tend to peak at about 50% of Qt.  Regions that peak later than 50% of Qt tend to have steeper post-peak decline rates, e.g.. Texas, which had a steeper decline rate than the overall Lower 48.

There are probably at least four definitions of  "oil."  

Crude
Crude + Condensate (Known as C+C)
Crude + Condensate + NGL's
Crude + Condensate + NGL's + Everything Else
(Refinery gains, ethanol, etc., known at "Total Liquids")

In in his most recent book, Deffeyes, apparently using C+C, put Qt at 2,000 Gb and the 50% of Qt mark in late 2005.   As has been noted, world C+C production (EIA) has been down since 12/05.  

Khebab, in this article:  http://www.energybulletin.net/16459.html, put the C+C + NGL's Qt at 2,235 Gb, with the exact 50% of Qt mark probably in very early 2007.

The 50% of Qt mark for Total Liquids will probably be a little bit later than the C +C + NGL's 50% mark.

I would prefer to deal with crude or C+C, since I define "oil" as the primary feedstock that oil companies buy to refine into petroleum products and since the HL method does not really work on gas reservoirs, and a  large percentage  of NGL's (and even condensate ) comes from gas reservoirs.  

The UK Model
There are two primary reasons to do HL plots:  (1)  to estimate the URR for a region and (2) to develop models for the world and key regions like KSA.  

The production history of the UK as a model for other regions seems to be a recurring theme, and I have often wondered why.  First, it is a sub-basin, a part of the overall North Sea province.  Second, it has a very noisy production profile, principally because of the Piper Alpha accident.  

I really don't see a case for using the UK as a  model for anything.  First and foremost this is because of the P/Q intercept, or K, of about 16%, which implies a very steep decline rate, which is exactly what we have seen.  Khebab and Deffeyes show a K of 5% for the world.  Khebab shows a K of 6.7% for KSA.   Second, the UK is a relatively small sub-basin with a noisy production history.

I submit that Texas, the prior swing producer, with a K of 7.7%, makes a much better model for KSA, and the Lower 48, with a K of 6.3%, makes a much better model for the world.   Mathematically, KSA in 2005 was where Texas was at when it peaked, and KSA is showing lower production.  Mathematically, the world (C+C) in late 2005 was where the Lower 48 was at when it peaked, the world is showing lower C+C production.  

Recent Discussions
There have been a lot of very confusing posts done recently by Hothgor.  His basic theme has been that HL estimates by Deffeyes and Khebab, et al, are too conservative, and the worst case is that the peak is several years away.  

Hothgor showed some fragmentary HL plots with guesstimated cumulative production number in order to bolster his case.   I suggested that he simply use the same BP data base that Khebab used (C +C + NGL's).  Hothgor initially objected with the somewhat novel response that if he used the same data at Khebab, he would get the "same results." I believe that he posted another fragmentary HL plot using the BP data base that more or less matched Khebab's estimate.

In any case, this all started with Laherrere's HL plot, which shows three Qt estimates.  The largest estimate is apparently based on heavily weighting a very small inflection on the last three data points.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, we saw much larger inflections in the Texas, Lower 48 and KSA HL plots, right before they started showing lower production.  In fact, these small deviations from the overall HL trend are probably indicators of peaking production.  

Summary
IMO, we are going to see three liquids peaks:  C+C; C+C + NGL's and Total Liquids.  I think that we are between the first and second peaks.   IMO, this is bolstered by the near certain decline or crash of the four current super giant oil fields.

As Deffeyes and Simmons warned/predicted and as the Lower 48/Texas models suggested, the world and KSA are showing lower (C+C) production.  

IMO, unconventional sources of liquids will serve to slow, but not reverse the long term decline in total liquids production.

Finally, I have been frankly astonished the degree of credibility that some, such as Robert and Cry Wolf, have given these posts by Hothgor, who used a series of poorly researched fragmentary HL plots, largely based on guesstimated cumulative production numbers, to bolster his case, which was largely based on extrapolating three data points.  The phrase "Grasping at straws" comes to mind.

I can only compare the response given to Hothgor to the level of criticism that I received, especially from Robert, regarding my central three points:  (1)  world C+C production has peaked (2)  KSA has peaked and (3)  world oil exports are falling faster than world C+C production.

There is a fundamental problem with including total liquids in an HL plot. EROEI: years ago EROEI, C+C may have been in some cases as high as 100:1 or some large ratio. At today's production rate of 85 MMBrl's/day; 100:1, 50:1, 25:1 reduce available liquid fuels to 84.15, 83.3, 81.6 MMBrl's/day respectively. Today's EROEI for total liquids is no doubt some where in the range of 10:1 to 20:1 and provides 76.5 to 80.75 MMBrl's/day of available liquid fuels. This ratio keeps deteriorating with time as more LF's are produced by non-conventional means, and as a larger percentage of C+C production is produced from more energy intensive methods. As an example corn ethanol requires 3 Brl's to produce 4 Brl's. Nearly all non-conventional LF's have an EROEI of less than 5:1.

So if you would use a decreasing EROEI and used only available LF's for your HL plots you would see a steeper gradient and Qt would be measurably smaller and peak would occur sooner. That is why I think the problem is already upon us. When the lower 48 and US production peaked world EROEI was much higher and energy consumed in production was significantly less. We just did a step drop in EROEI for C+C+NG when we changed to 15-ppm low sulfur diesel.

Actually there are two paradigms and minority opinion. First there is the current paradigm of Daniel Yergin and CERA. This is the paradigm that most of the world buys into. According to this paradigm there will be no peak in oil production for several decades and even there will be an "undulating plateau" lasting for several more decades.

Then there is the "other" current paradigm, if there can be such a thing, which most members of ASPO buy into. That paradigm contends that there will be a peak in oil production somewhere between 2010 and 2015.  Chris Skrebowski puts the peak in 2010/2011.

Then of course there is the minority opinion which says we likely peaked in December 2005 and we are currently in that undulating plateau which will last, not decades but only a couple of years. And regardless of whether the date of December 2005 holds or not, the minority opinion states that we are currently in the undulating plateau located exactly at the very peak of world oil production. In other words, we in the minority are not hedging our bets, we are at peak!

First I examine the CERA paradigm, which is basically the opinion of perhaps 95 percent of the world or greater. This is important because the second paradigm is based upon at least some of the data from the first. Here are the basic premises of that paradigm.

The world has 1,292 billion barrels of proven reserves,  these reserves will grow by another 730 billion barrels and there still remains another 939 billion barrels yet to be discovered. This means we have, or will have, 2,961 billion barrels of oil to use before we must convert totally to renewables, (sarcasm) which of course everyone expects us to do. And since we are currently consuming about 27 billion barrels of crude oil annually, that would be 109 years supply, or somewhat less if we keep increasing consumption of course. But the message from these figures is, there is no need to worry, it will be at least 40 years before we need to even start making plans for declining oil production. These figures are provided by the EIA.

Of the above reserves of almost 1.3 trillion barrels approximately 70% is estimated to be in OPEC countries. OPEC is said to have, currently, 901.7 billion barrels of proven reserves and of that, approximately 743 billion barrels is located in the Middle East.

Just a few thoughts on those numbers. OPEC currently produces 42% of the world's crude oil but is said to have 70% of the world's reserves. Those numbers just don't make any sense. How can 58% of the world's oil come from only 30% of the world's oil reserves? Looking at another way, Saudi Arabia and Russia have both produced about the same amount of oil this year, approximately 12.5% of the world's total each. Yet Saudi Arabia is said to have 264 billion barrels of reserves while Russia has only 60 billion barrels of reserves.

Now I know many will say that the amount of oil a country extracts each year has nothing to do with its total reserves. That sounds very reasonable but upon closer examination we find that such an assertion is in fact very unreasonable, provided of course that the country is producing every barrel possible. It is just common sense that the more oil you have to pump, the more oil you can pump.  And I might add that the Hubbert Linerization method is based upon the quantity of oil pumped over total quantity of oil pumped and predicts the total reserves left. Therefore if production in not directly related to reserves, after a field has been thoroughly explored and drilled, then the entire Hubbert Linerization method is invalid. In fact if Russia produces approximately the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia does this year, from only 22.7% of the reserves Saudi has, then the entire Hubbert method must be discarded as rubbish. Yet according to the EIA, in August of 2005 "Aramco estimates that the average total depletion for Saudi oil fields is 28 percent, with the giant Ghawar field having produced 48 percent of its proved reserves."

I am not saying that Russian reserves must be the same as Saudi Reserves, but if they produce approximately the same amount of oil, and do this over a period of several decades, then they must have approximately the same amount of reserves from which to pump. And I am not even saying that they would be very close. But it would be absurd to say that one could have almost four and one half times the reserves of the other. The amount of oil you can pump from a reservoir, over the long halu, is directly proportional to the amount of oil in the reservoir. That is only common sense, and it is also the basis of the Hubbert Linerization. And I must add that Russia's reserves are pegged at 60 billion barrels while the Hubbert Linerization puts those of Saudi Arabia at approximately 75 billion. About right I would think.

But what has all this to do with the current ASPO, Chris Skrebowski paradigm of a peak around 2010 or 2011, four or five years down the road? To be fair to Skrebowski, he is hedging his bets and says the peak could be as early as this winter. But the point I wish to emphasize is that Skrebowski and others buy into the early part of CERA's "field by field analysis" of new projects. That is, they believe that enough new projects will be coming on line in the next four years to delay the peak at least until then.

Examining CERA's field by field list found here we find some eye opening revelations.  First let me add that this appears to be an "all liquids" list because it contains Saudi Arabia's Hawiyah field, a gas field, from which Saudi Arabia hopes to add 300,000 barrels per day of NGLs by 2008, but no crude. But even including the NGLs, if all these projects come on in time it will add 8.390 million barrels per day of new production over four years. This comes to an increase in world production of just under 2.5 percent per year. Of course this is not all the new oil CERA expects to come on line, only the major projects. But it is interesting to note that all the major projects combined, will only add about 2.5 percent per year to the world's oil supply. With the world's existing fields declining between 5 and 8 percent per year, all major projects combined, if they all come to fruition, will still only replace less than half the decline. To get to the annual increase that CERA expects, after the decline rate is factored in, all the tiny projects combined must equal almost twice the new oil from all major projects.  That is unlikely to say the least.

For this report I wanted to go over each of the major projects listed by CERA one by one, but finding this work long and tedious, and the fact that I could not get data on every major project listed, I decided to give a short summery with only a few examples instead.

Looking at all the Middle East new projects, it was interesting to note that they all, save one, are from very old and depleted fields. The one exception, Shaybah, discovered in 1968 was the twenty-eighth field discovered in Saudi Arabia, and the last field of any great size. (Simmons, page 37) But because of its very remote location it was not brought on line in 1999. Aramco, hopes to increase production of Shaybah from 500 mb/d to800 mb/d by 2008.

All the other Middle East major projects, that I could get information on, were all new wells in very old fields that have been producing for many decades. A few examples:

Khursaniyah: This field peaked in 1979 at 208,000 barrels per day. By 1982 this field had declined to 107,000 bp/d. Yet Aramco says a new workover of this old field will increase production to 500,000 bp/d.

Haradh: Part of Ghawar but located in the very south that has only very heavy, very sour oil. Haradh III is supposed to add another 300,000 bp/d to the 600,000 bp/d that this section of Ghawar was already producing before Haradh III was brought on line. It should be noted that this project is already on line yet Saudi Production continues in spite of this new addition.

Khurais: This is a most interesting field. Aramco hopes to increase this field to 1,200,000 barrels per day by 2009.

It is expected to be completed by June 2009.
The mission of the program is to design, construct and bring into production safe and reliable facilities to produce 1.2 million barrels per day of stabilized Arabian Light (AL) crude and 4.5 million bpd of treated seawater for reservoir injection.

Yet CERA believes only Khurais Phase 1 will be completed by 2009 and that will only produce 150,000 barrels per day. They apparently don't believe the Saudis. And you must also note this article published by Aljazeera. It is titled: "Are Saudis telling fairy tales about oil?" Apparently Aljazerra thinks the Saudis are lying also. ;-) The Aljazerra article also notes that, according to an IEA report, Saudi Arabia needs 800,000 bp/d of newly discovered oil each year just to offset declining fields and maintain its current production. However I think there is little to no new oil to be discovered in Saudi Arabia. Any increase in Saudi production must come from new wells in very old fields. And according to all reports, that is exactly what Saudi Arabia is trying to do.

But more must be said about Khurais. Khurais was brought on line in 1959 and reached peak production of 144,000 barrels per day in 1981 then began to decline rapidly. In 1983 Saudi begin injecting gas into the reservoir in an attempt to increase production. Nothing worked however as production continued to decline. Then early in this century Saudi decided to spend 3 to 4 billion dollars to increase production to 800,000 bp/d. Some Saudi optimist later decided that 1,200,000 was a much more desirable figure and penciled that in. I agree with Aljazerra, this is a fairy tale. It is a fairy tale that only the most credulous can believe.

Burgan: CERA is counting on Burgan to increase production by 200,000 bp/d. Kuwait has admitted that Burgan, which has been producing for almost 60 years, has peaked at 1.7 mb/d and now is in decline. The idea that a new wells can increase production by 200,000 barrels per day is pure fiction.

Summary:

Of all the "new oil" coming on the market in the next few years, only a small percentage of it is actually new oil. Most of these "new projects" are nothing more than attempts to suck the old reservoirs dry much faster. Such attempts will likely be met with very little success, but to the degree they are successful, such tactics will only make the eventual decline more catastrophic.

As stated above, the amount of oil one can pump from a reservoir is directly proportional to the amount of oil in the reservoir. It is truly astonishing that only a very few "peak oilers" have figured out this very simple and obvious fact. And astonishing as it may seem, even a few peak oilers would argue with this obvious fact. At any rate, if Saudi Arabia truly had 264 billion barrels of reserves, there would be no reason to re-work very old depleted fields. They could just move to a new spot, sink a well and the oil would come gushing out. The same is true for Kuwait or any other Middle Eastern OPEC nation. Reported Middle East reserves are pure fiction. OPEC reserves outside the Middle East are also inflated but not to the extent as are Middle Eastern OPEC reserves.

And lastly, the current paradigm of Chris Skrebowski and others, I believe, is simply wrong. It is wrong because it is based, to a large extent, on the very inflated claims of "new projects" scheduled in the Middle East. In fact, Skrebowski completely buys into the very absurd claim that the Khurais field in Saudi Arabia will be producing 1,200,000 barrels per day by 2009.  And this is the primary reason the Skrebowski paradigm is wrong.

While it is true that most of the "new projects" listed by Mr. Skrebowski, are located outside the Middle East, nevertheless it is likely that many of them are overestimates. His growth in supply is right in line with that of CERA, though he points out that approximately 10 to 20% of all projects slips by a year. I think this is a gross underestimate. He points out, in this 2005 paper, that BPs Thunder Horse has already slipped from 2005 to the first half of 2006. Of course we now know that it has slipped to 2008. Mr. Skrebowski accepts the same overall depletion, 5%, as does CERA.

The thing that both Skrebowski and CERA overlook is that many of these projects will not come in with nearly the volume of barrels per day as predicted. In fact every very few of the projected projects in the Middle East will even approach their predicted daily volume and to the extent that they do, this will simply vastly increase the rate of decline a little further down the line.

And finally there is the obvious fact that the gains predicted for 2006 has failed to materialize. Production so far this year is below the average for the calendar year of 2005. And this is true in spite of the fact that hurricanes lowered 2005 production by an average of over 300,000 barrels per day.

Ron Patterson

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20716640-1702,00.html

"It is much worse in Miami than it is in Baghdad," Gittoes said in Sydney today.

"There is a sense of people with guns, drug dealers lairing at you ... and being there, I knew I was in a war zone."

"Even left-wing Americans ... don't want to recognise the mess they've got in their own backyard," he said.

"To me, this was just another war zone and it was in America," he said.

Wow - it is a good thing he didn't go to Flint or Detroit MI?

Circumcision cuts STD risk, major study shows

Circumcised males are less likely than their uncircumcised peers to acquire a sexually transmitted infection, the findings of a 25-year study suggest.

According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests "substantial benefits" for routine neonatal circumcision.

This was first noticed in Africa, where it was noticed the Muslims were much less likely to get AIDS than others.  They thought at first it was because they had fewer sexual partners, but that wasn't it.  It's their tradition of circumcision.

Fed's Yellen: Income gap poses risk

U.S. income inequality has risen to such a level that "there are signs that (it) is intensifying resistance to globalization, impairing social cohesion, and could, ultimately, undermine American democracy," San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet Yellen said Monday.

In language rare for a central bank official, Yellen suggested that high priority be given to improving education, tax credits and other aspects of the social safety net, despite the cost in dollars and possible impact on economic efficiency, according to the text of her lecture at the University of California, Irvine.

"Inequality has risen to the point that it seems to me worthwhile for the U.S. to seriously consider taking the risk of making our economy more rewarding for more of the people," Yellen said.

Can Big Oil turn into Big Biofuel?

Major oil companies have been conspicuously absent from biofuels production so far, but they are set to play a bigger role with the advent of new technology that better fits oil industry skills.

[... ] oil executives say technology is a key problem, because the current first generation of biofuels technology gives a competitive edge to agribusinesses rather than oil companies.

The simple manufacturing processes employed today mean that the key to profitability in biofuels production is feedstock costs. Access to cheap seeds and grain provides an edge, not expertise in operating complex facilities, the oil companies' specialty.

But the oil companies are developing new technologies that will allow them to create a biofuels business model that looks a lot more like the one they are used to.

[...] a more wholehearted move by oil companies into the sector hinges on the use of technology that shifts the economic power away from the feedstock onto infrastructure.

Second-generation processes involve producing gases from cellulose-rich material including straw and waste lumber, which is then converted into liquid fuel. The feedstock costs much less than vegetable oils, and less land is needed to produce a given quantity of fuel.

The capital costs are higher, but this is no deterrent to a cash-rich sector used to investing billions in single projects.

"We believe oil majors will play a significant direct investment role only in second-generation technologies," investment bank Morgan Stanley said in a research note.

Man allegedly chops down pole for copper

HONOLULU - A 47-year-old man accused of chopping down a utility pole to steal its copper wiring was charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass. He also faces several felony charges.

Alden Kaupiko was scheduled to appear in court Monday. His bail was set at $1,000. He also faces charges of second-degree property damage, criminal tampering and fourth-degree theft.

Kaupiko was arrested Friday at Koko Head District Park, where a utility pole had been chopped down, disrupting telephone service in the area.

Police said he was allegedly attempting steal copper wiring from a transformer. Forty pounds of wiring was recovered.

There have been several copper thefts on Oahu in past few months, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In September, thieves made off with more than 2 1/2 miles of copper wire they dug up along the H-1 Freeway in West Oahu. The wire connected 16 lights along the freeway from Makakilo to Kunia, which was already dark after being hit by thieves this summer.

Massimov said he had come "with a clear message from the president that Kazakhstan was a moderate Muslim country that can offer a positive model to the Middle East."

Olmert agreed, saying that the former Soviet republic was a good example of a moderate Islamic nation.

"Kazakhstan can show a beautiful face of Islam," Olmert said. "Contemporary, ever-developing Kazakhstan is a perfect example of both economic development and interethnic accord that should be followed by more Muslim states."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378331988&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"For any normal nation, that tie would be an ever-resounding theme. For us it's hackneyed and benighted.

I once witnessed Romanian and Hungarian journalists facing off passionately on which of their respective ancestors initially appeared on which stretch of Transylvania. The assumption was that the earlier migrant deserves the title deed.

Arabs spuriously stake precisely these claims, though even a dabbler in history knows they are latecomers...

The ironic tragedy of course is that this is our homeland. Since Golda Meir there hasn't been an Israeli leader with the intestinal fortitude to remind the world that "Palestine isn't any nation, but a Roman name specifically invented to humiliate defeated Jews." There's just as much substance to that degrading appellation as there is to the moniker the Romans coined for Jerusalem: Aelia Capitolina.

Golda was the last one to stress that "the Arabs only learned the name from the British in 1918 and couldn't even pronounce it correctly at that, distorting it into Falastin."

Every itinerant foreign Arab laborer drawn to this country by the Zionist endeavor up to 1946 was entitled to indigenous Palestinian refugee status by 1948, even if he resided here for less than two years!...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378312940&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

SHOOT THE COWS: Econuts, idiots and headbangers

The head of the no-frills airline Ryanair has launched a vitriolic attack on the Stern report on climate change, claiming that shooting the world's cow population would do more to combat global warming than banning low-cost air travel.

Michael O'Leary, chief executive of the Dublin-based carrier, said that aviation was responsible for just 2 per cent of European Union carbon emissions. If "eco nuts" were really serious about tackling climate change they should support nuclear power and a clampdown on livestock farming which was responsible for more greenhouse gases than the airline industry, he said.

Referring to last week's report from the former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change, which warned that rising carbon emissions could wipe out 20 per cent of the world's wealth if not tackled, Mr O'Leary said: "A lot of lies and misinformation has been put about by eco nuts on the back of a report by an idiot economist."

"...It is the blend of two radical world views: Islamism and Arab nationalism.

Call it National Islamism.

The last time there was such a synthesis it brought together right-wing nationalism and left-wing populist socialism. The doctrine called itself, appropriately enough, National Socialism.

It is best known by the German version of those two words, Nazism for short..."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378339856&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I also see some faith-based assertions about the peak being now. This is always disturbing to me since The Oil Drum's orientation is supposed to be reality-based, using modeling and data to support conclusions. For example, because Saudi Arabia is a "black box", people can interpret what's going on there anyway they wish.

'Nuff said.

The numbers given, and totals fore each country, are crude only, not including condensate. But in the last line they add all liquids, including codensate.

Ron Patterson

Poll Workers Struggle With Vote Machines

Programming errors and inexperience dealing with electronic voting machines frustrated poll workers in hundreds of precincts Tuesday, delaying voters in several states and leaving some with little choice but to use paper ballots instead.

In Virginia, state election officials called in the FBI after several voters complained about getting phone messages that sent them to the wrong precincts.

Many of the voting machine problems surfaced as the polls were opening.

In Cleveland, voters rolled their eyes as election workers fumbled with new touchscreen machines that they couldn't get to start properly.

"We got five machines - one of them's got to work," said Willette Scullank, a trouble shooter from the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, elections board.

In Indiana's Marion County, electronic optical-scan machines that read paper ballots initially weren't working right in more than 100 precincts. Poll workers had trouble using a computer port to connect those machines to new touchscreen models, which handicapped voters use, County Clerk Doris Anne Sadler said

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/11/07/042.html

This surprises me because I always thought Belarus and Russian were buddies.

This makes me somewhat happy and I would definitely like to see a Democratic House and Senate to put BushCo in check, but what excites me more is the chance to have a more diverse set of views in our governement to possibly tackle many of the issues we have cussed and discussed here on TOD.

We have dreamed up many amazing ideas in hypothetical scenarios.  We may soon have the chance to apply these ideas.

PEMEX, who has already admitted to Cantarell's decline, now confesses to coming up $$$two billion short on infrastructure funds versus what they desire.

I have no idea if this is a management ploy to time-delay and hoard their resources, OR just normal Pemex mismanagement, OR the first foray to help make it easier for Pemex to be removed from Mexican Govt. control and sold-off to IOCs.  Regardless of the actual scenario, it can only point to Mexican Peakoil in a dire combo of both a geologic and logistical decline path.

Here is the relevant Houston Chronicle link:

-------------------------------------
Pemex spending below chief's goal
Amount for '07 is $2 billion short of what leader says is needed  By THOMAS BLACK Bloomberg News

Petróleos Mexicanos, Mexico's state-owned oil monopoly, plans to invest $16 billion in 2007, $2 billion less than what Chief Executive Luis Ramirez Corzo has said is needed.

Production and exploration spending will account for $12.3 billion of the total investment, Corporate Finance Director Esteban Levin said on a call with analysts Monday.

Ramirez Corzo said on Aug. 31 that Pemex needs to increase its 2007 investment to $18 billion to counter a drop in output at Cantarell, the company's largest oil field. Production from Cantarell, which accounts for about 60 percent of Pemex's crude output, fell 9 percent in the first seven months of the year.

Pemex expects to hold production steady at 3.2 million to 3.25 million barrels a day next year by tapping into fields outside Cantarell, such as Jujo-Tecominoacan.
--------------------------------------------

IMO, this is an excellent example of diminishing returns making it increasingly harder to optimize extraction.

The path ahead for Calderon will be extremely difficult as this article discloses.  But this link from the US State Dept details further SuperNafta progress:
---------------------------
North America Sees Security, Economic Gains in Energy Integration

Washington - Further integration of energy markets is the best way to advance energy security interests of the United States and its North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners, Canada and Mexico, a U.S. Energy Department official says.

"We have to recognize that we are linked through our energy security polices," Energy Department Deputy Assistant Secretary David Pumphrey said.

He spoke at a November 3 conference on energy cooperation in the Western Hemisphere organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based policy research organization.

Researchers and private experts attending the event supported the view that energy integration of and interdependence among the three countries have advanced further than any similar regional effort in the world and bring many benefits to all involved.

Canada and Mexico are major providers of petroleum and natural gas to the United States and the Canadian and U.S. electrical grids are highly integrated.

Pumphrey said private companies from the region, which enter in multibillion public-private partnerships with local governments in Canada and the United States, drive the integration.

In recent years, governments of the three nations have been trying to figure out within the North American Energy Working Group (NAEWG) what to do to make the region's energy markets work even more efficiently "somewhat irrespective of the borders that exist," he said.

"We are trying to allow investors to be able to access energy sources throughout this integrated marketplace," Pumphrey said.

NAEWG, established in 2001, is credited with helping to harmonize minimum efficiency requirements for home appliances in the three countries and boosting electricity trade and power market integration. It is part of the trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) whose energy work plan also covers oil sands, natural gas, nuclear power, coal and new energy technologies.

Pumphrey said similar opportunities for cooperation and integration exist throughout the entire Western Hemisphere. A report he cited concluded that aggregate gross domestic product of Latin America and the Caribbean can grow by 1 percent by 2018 just by increasing substantially the level of integration of the electricity sectors in the region.

To advance collaboration and integration in this and other energy sectors, countries must rely on market-based principles, Pumphrey said.

"We need the market to help countries make right energy choices and attract investment," he said.
-----------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Yep, even I find it hard to believe, but Zimbabwe is about to make alot more poor people homeless:
---------------------------
HARARE -- Zimbabwe's government is planning fresh home demolitions, a little over a year after a similar campaign to destroy shantytowns and city backyard cottages left at least 700000 people without shelter or means of livelihood.

The government in May last year, and weeks after controversially winning a key general election, ordered the police and army to demolish thousands of backyard cottages, shantytowns and informal business kiosks, in a campaign President Robert Mugabe said was necessary to smash crime and to restore the beauty of Zimbabwe's cities.

In addition to those left homeless, another 2,4-million people were indirectly affected by the military-style demolitions to bring the total number of victims to about 3-million, or a quarter of Zimbabwe's 12-million people.

"New illegal structures have come up since Operation Murambatsvina (the official code name for last year's clean-up campaign). We will target these structures that have sprouted up and others that somehow survived the first Murambatsvina," said the official.

Chombo confirmed the government was planning new home demolitions but said that these would be on a much smaller scale than Murambatsvina.

He said: "It is not Murambatsvina. But the spirit of Murambatsvina should not die. To ensure that we don't reverse the gains of Murambatsvina we will do regular follow-ups. We cannot just watch while chaos prevails and people build wherever they want."

The government, bowing to international pressure after the home demolitions, announced in August last year that it was launching a programme to build houses for people whose homes it had destroyed. But only a handful of houses have been built because the government did not have resources.
---------------------------------

From this link:

-------------------------------
Thieves again cause blackouts in Zimbabwe: Report

Harare - Parts of southern Zimbabwe have been plunged into darkness after thieves stole cables from at least 17 power transmission towers, causing them to collapse, it was reported Tuesday.

Part of the power line collapsed onto a railway, and electrical conductors were irreparably crushed under a train, according to the report.

'The towers were vandalised by suspected thieves and this made them insecure, resulting in them collapsing in a storm on Saturday night, a spokesman for power utility ZESA told the Herald.

'It will cost us between 250 million and 300 million dollars (1 million - 1.2 million US) to reconstruct the towers and restore power to the affected areas,' said the spokesman, James Maridadi.

As Zimbabwe sinks deeper into economic recession, thieves are finding a ready market for steel cables, copper components and even transmission oil pilfered from the country's ageing electricity transmission grid.

As a result, suburbs in cities and large districts of the country suffer blackouts, and the government has scarce foreign currency to replace stolen equipment.

Last week western parts of the country experienced blackouts after two towers collapsed south of Harare following similar thefts.
---------------------------------
Duncan's Olduvai Gorge Theory is being validated further each day.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Prop 87 Post Mortem