 | New Liberal Leader - First Green PM? | The Oil Drum | A Debate on the Substance and Timing of the Peak of Oil Production and Consumption, Part I |  |
DrumBeat: December 4, 2006
Posted by threadbot on December 4, 2006 - 10:37am
Yet there were further signs of the desperate measures individuals would take to ensure mobility. A couple of oil strikes that hit many pumps revealed the ferocity with which Australians would defend their right to fill a tank. Long queues formed at the stations with petrol – and anyone who tried to sneak ahead in the queue met raw violence.
PayPal's Thiel Scores 230 Percent Gain With Soros-Style Fund
Thiel is a proponent of a geologic theory known as peak oil, which holds that global oil production is now at or near its apex. Among his picks was Calgary-based EnCana Corp., which wrings oil from the tar sands of Canada. EnCana stock rose 54 percent in 2005.
Billion growth rate in Danish export of energy technology
The Danish export of energy and environment technology will reach EUR 7 billion this year, estimates Denmark’s export council. And it is still growing, writes Børsen.
Producers strain to supply growing wind power market
STOCKHOLM - There is an inexhaustible supply of wind to drive their blades, but materials needed to make wind turbines are limited and the industry fears it will fail to keep pace with growing demand for the clean energy source.
Working on empty: Planning for oil's end
The prophets of gloom meet every Wednesday in a church basement to plan for the end of oil as we know it.
Copernicus, Darwin and the cure for autistic economics
Autistic children can spend much of their time in a world of elaborate fantasy, emotionally detached from real people and objects. Unfortunately, it is not much of a leap to substitute the words "most economists" for "autistic children" in the previous sentence. So apparent has this become that there is a burgeoning movement to establish what is now called a "post-autistic economics" to meet the challenges of describing the real social and physical world we live in.
Oil prices and exploration cycle may have ended
While it is doubtful that Deffeyes' crystal ball is precise, the general implications for what's known as the theory of "peak oil" are still worth noting.
The Lottery: a creative & effective way to avoid economic collapse
There will be many more losers than winners on Wall Street during our transition to renewable energy. At the end of the day, a renewable energy-based economy requires extreme conservation of resources. That means only buying stuff we really need, in other words, less economic activity. That is a lessee faire capitalist’s nightmare.
Crude oil production in EU drops by 10%
Crude oil production in the European Union dropped by 10.4% in 2005 with a total of 119 million tons. Crude oil production of the United Kingdom, which is the largest producer in the European Union, continued to fall.
Ahmadinejad: Iran ready to meet European gas needs
EU, Kazahkstan Pact Aims to Bypass Russia
In the European Union's growing struggle to break Russia's grip on the bloc's gas imports, all roads are leading to Kazakhstan.Today, the EU signs a memorandum of understanding with Kazakhstan on energy aimed at binding this vast country -- which stretches from the Caspian Sea to China -- closer to Europe.
China firms struggle to get Mideast footing
BEIJING: It should be a match made in heaven – China’s vast market of energy-thirsty factories and gas-guzzling cars paired with the enormous crude reservoirs of the Middle East. But although Beijing buys nearly half its oil imports from the region, and is working to flesh out its diplomatic role there, energy firms have struggled to establish a presence.
India: Up in arms over oil survey - Environmentalists fear oil exploration could endanger river dolphin
Brazil offers to help Ghana out of its energy crisis
Brazil has offered to help Ghana out of its current energy crisis by sending down a thermal electricity generating plant to the country.
The European Energy Charter is 15 years old. Russia signed a charter treaty 12 years ago, but has not ratified it up to this day. Moreover, after years of negotiations, our leaders have declared that Russia is not going to ratify its current version at all. What's wrong with this document, which has been signed by more than 50 nations, and ratified by 46?
The Philippines: Betting fortunes on biofuel boom
Bolivia's Morales signs into law contracts nationalizing natural gas
LA PAZ, Bolivia: President Evo Morales signed into law Sunday contracts giving the government control over foreign energy companies' operations, completing a process begun May 1 with the nationalization of Bolivia's petroleum industry.
Uganda: Oil policy must be all-embracing
Questions like how we can avoid over dependence on oil must be raised and answered convincingly. How shall we prevent a massive, destabilising manpower shift from agriculture to oil, the way it happened say in Nigeria? How can the expectations of local people in the areas around the reserves be met realistically?
Iraqi govt agrees on Kurds' budget, electricity and oil demands
IRBIL -- The Iraqi government has agreed on most Kurdish demands including returning USD 482 million to Kurdistan, increasing the region's stake in the national electricity network and holding a series of talks on the issue of oil investments, a Kurdish official said Sunday.
Change the system, not the climate!
The island nation lost 70% of its food imports and faced the threat of starvation. However, by converting to organic, low-energy-input agriculture and using alternative/renewable energy, the country was able to avert catastrophe. By 2003, Cuban food availability was at a level recommended by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, and in 2006 the World Wide Fund for Nature declared Cuba the only country in the world to achieve sustainable development.
How Global Warming Threatens U.S. Businesses
Rep. Salazar: Democratic Congress will focus on renewable energy
Dell claims new servers save on electric bill
Computer maker Dell Inc.'s solution to the data center energy crisis is to market more energy-efficient versions of its PowerEdge line of servers.
Old oil field barracks turn green with solar power, super-insulation
CODY -- A home built in the 1930s as housing for Husky Oil workers in Oregon Basin is getting an extreme makeover as an energy efficient "green house," designed to produce more power than it consumes.
Researchers from the University of Toronto and the University of Michigan have concluded that ethanol derived from municipal solid waste (MSW) can deliver a life cycle total energy use per vehicle less than that of corn-ethanol and cellulosic-ethanol (derived from energy crops).
Endesa Sees Clean Coal a Reality from 2015
ABU DHABI/VIENNA - OPEC is worried by a fall in the dollar that is eroding member states' oil revenue and ministers will take up the issue when they meet next week to discuss a further cut in output.
U.S. retail gas prices continue to rise
As Vietnam gets richer, locals trade bikes for cars
Flowers in Alps, bears can't sleep as winter waits
VIENNA (Reuters) - Flowers are blooming on the slopes of Alpine ski resorts and bears are having trouble hibernating in Siberia amid a late start to winter that may be a portent of global warming.Rare December pollen is troubling asthma sufferers as far north as Scandinavia, sales of winter clothing are down and Santa Claus is having to reassure children his sleigh will take off on Christmas Eve, snow or no snow.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/16149450.htm
Spending spree in Russia is fueled by its oil and gas
By James Brooke
Bloomberg News
Posted on Sun, Dec. 03, 2006
Hopefully as production declines and the economic pain resumes in Russia, the russian bear doesn't turn rabid.
This just adds another log to the bonfire... hopefully Russia has also seen peak pollonium.
What our world's leaders do and say in public is one thing, what they are planning behind the scenes is another thing entirely.
Well, one ugly year is usually required to get things moving. Only in fairy tales can you wake a princess with a kiss....
I guess I was aiming for the idea that most people only roll out of bed and get moving after a stern push or a slap. Something like that.... Countries behave similarly.
We are not yet close to the happy ending (hum... yet?) only waking the dragon for now.
http://www.saveandconserve.com/2006/12/top_25_peak_oil_websites.html
If you think the list is worthy, please head over to Digg.com and digg the post. To find the post at Digg, just search for "peak oil" or click this
If the post gets 50 to 75 diggs, there is a good chance it could land on the front page of the World & Business section.
That could drive significant awareness of sites like TOD to Digg users who otherwise would not be searching for "peak oil".
thanks! -tom
On a unrelated note,
To Dave Cohen and other smart asses reading this:
I call dibbs on the future article title "Smoking the CERA Crackpipe"
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
cause I'll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against em
Fist in ya face, in the place
And Ill drop the style clearly
Know your enemy...know your enemy!
Granted, certain articles go into details about how the PO movement and neo-green activist are intricately linked to force Americans back to the farmlands. Others deal with the PO communities beliefs that there is no more oil to be found. But on the whole, it's a wealth of information that you probably wont find here as most of us seemed to concede that we are screwed and that no technological solutions and efficiency gains can possibly help us :P
Lol, you didn't read any of the "peak oil debunked" articles, did you. They are actually very insightful. You have problems seeing how anyone could survive your coming "apocalypse", but only because you start with assumptions that make survival impossible. If we need oil (not energy, oil) to survive, then we'll all eventually die, but that scenario is not terribly realistic.
It has the (for instance) tiny problem of explaining the existence of advanced societies long before oil was discovered, and explaining how it is that some advanced societies use vastly less oil than others. The correlation (to say nothing of causation) you're looking for (between oil and advanced society) is not immediately evident.
JD is pretty funny, but he has always been sane. I'm not saying you are wrong, I just think it needs a second opinion.
What did you think about JD's exposure of Kunstler's Y2K views? Just curious.
Put 6 billion people in those same past societies and make them dependent on fast-food or at least populated with folks incapable of growing their own food and see what happens...
Also look at the fate of many of those past advanced societies... they collapsed at some point and disappeared or were rebuilt by others on top of the wreckage. Even most of our "Ancient Cities" that still exist today changed hands via war or other mechanisms that decimated their populations (ebb and flow of civilization).
My assumptions start with our world as it is now - fully functional only with abundant oil and fully dependent on that oil. If we really did have decades to prepare maybe less of the global village would fail.
The "apocalypse" I envision does not mean the end of civilization completely, everywhere, forever. Patches will survive, and afterwards those survivors might be able to build upon the wreckage again.
Much depends on the mechanisms of collapse, how many survivors there are, how many and how much accessible resources there are, and probably a number of other variables I haven't thought of yet or have forgot already.
As REM said - "It's the end of the world as we know it". Not necessarily the end of the world period.
So we should REPLACE oil?
By WHAT?
WHEN ? (how fast)
How is the current scenario realistic?
Ah, the right questions.
Talk to any farmer and they'll laugh at you when you suggest theres not enough food to feed that same 7.5-9 billion people.
Now try to feed that same range AND power our transportation... thats certainly out of the question in my opinion.
Because we require oil for the yields of modern agriculture - and that allows us to grow enough to feed "most" of our world, not all.
"Talk to any farmer and they'll laugh at you when you suggest theres not enough food to feed that same 7.5-9 billion people."
I know few if any farmers who actually think about feeding the world's population - with or without oil. They spend their time thinking about running their farms.
Oil goes much, much deeper than "transportation."
Take some time to look into the oil needed for production (as a feed-stock and/or in the running of the infrastructure necessary for production) of farm machinary, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, medicine (veternary), plastics, tractor tires, metals for anything (wire fencing, water pumps and pipes, etc) etc, etc...
AND then of course there is the competition for oil between the farmers and the City Saps for all of their oil needs (remember, most farmer's I know worry about actually keeping their business running and that is hard enough as it in today's economy).
Oil is found in virtually every crevice of our civilization's infrastructure - not just transportation. And when supplies get tight and shortages develop and wars break out...
The farmers might get dibs when it comes to rationing but their yields will go down and there will be even less to go around and that less will be at MUCH higher prices than today.
Any other recommendations? Post them here and i'll append to the list.
Suray 9/11
I would suspect this to be most accurate as opposed to others I have read.
BTW I consider myself an agnostic.
In office till 2013
Early results show 61% of vote, no fraud claims.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301173.html
Best Hopes for Democracy :-)
Alan
BTW, isn't this what we are fighting, killing and dying for in Iraq, democracy in OPEC members ?
Sad day for Democracy :-(
This was a democratic election with a clear winner.
A GOOD DAY for democracy !! :-))
Best Hopes for Democracy,
Alan
BTW, I assume that are in his inner circle and are aware of his plans. Will he amend the Constitution per procedures ? If so, I have no objection, as long as he keeps holding elections every six years that are reasonably fair.
Another BTW, Our President thinks that democracy = supporting US Interests. Like many other things he apparently believes, it ain't necessarily so !
Currently, there ARE term limits in Venezuela, and Chavez wants to amend the constitution so that he can be elected for life in the next election, and establish a 1 party system in which there is no opposition to his socialist policies.
How can you in good conscious call that a Democracy? That's a dictatorship at best.
Something you have earned BTW.
Yes, the website "Peak Oil debunked" is a fair and balanced view (and ExxonMobil is just interested in a rational scientific debate on GW and supports research in GW instead of supporting a symphony or a food bank).
Please link to a MSM source where Chavez has asked for a one party state and no more contested elections. Otherwise, Chavez ~= FDR and Hothgor pronouncements have 0 value.
BTW, there was a long standing tradition of 2 term Presidents until FDR. When he violated that tradition, he mortified the Republicans so the tradition was codified as soon as the Rs got into power.
What FDR violated was an unwritten part of the US Constitution that was written soon after he died.
Kind of like some of the traditions Bush has violated.
If some future US (or Venezulan) President is popular enough to amend the Constitution via legal means, then so be it. Democracy in action !
Best Hopes for Democracy,
Alan
Ron Patterson
The US has many examples of this. Worst cases in the US (that I can think of), segregation and "Jim Crow" laws under democratic majority white control and Japanese internment during WW II.
BUT it was still democracy !
Alan
Hence we were set up to be a Democratic Republic, which has several mechanisms in place to prevent pure mob rule from going on a whim and doing something so sinister as "Democracies" have a tendency to do.
But then we have devolved a long way in our 200+ years as a nation, and I think ultimately this "near Democracy" we have is going to end up biting us on the backside.
Democratic Republics need some friction to slow down the will of the people (friction means difficult to amend the Constitution, offset terms for US Senators as examples). BUT the long term will of the people must prevail in the end. Six years of consistent democratic consensus to rotate the US Senate as one example.
And the people must also have a respect for the institutions of gov't. FDR got an overwhelming majority in the US House or Representatives, but he went too far when he tried to pack the Supreme Court. The people basically vetoed that !
Even in a Democratic Republic, the people do not get a better gov't than they are willing to support & defend.
Alan
Governments being run by inconsistant and emotional whims are a very dangerous and chaotic horse to try and reign in.
This is precisely my concern with Chavez. I will agree with you that to date he appears to be playing within the bounds of the rules, the thing that is scary is that he does have a desire to change the rules, and worse the mechanism to change them with little "friction".
The people of Venezuela had best be EXTREMELY careful with this man, because they may get EXACTLY what they wanted, and you know what they say about getting what you wished for.
Take out a US dime. Look at the "Heads" side. I think you are looking at the portrait of another politican that tried to reduce friction in political institutions in order to promote his "revolutionary" goals.
I fear that the Veneuzulan people will not stand up to protect their institutions like the American people did to the concept of a 15 judge Supreme Court. And I fear that Hugo Chavez's moral character and goals are less noble than FDRs.
But those are my fears, I will not impose them on another nation. Looking at our current two term President, I am not sure that we can "cast the first stone". "Judge not, least ye be judged".
And I wonder, which is worse for the people of Venezula (not the US). Hugo Chavez or those that came before him. Those that promoted the status quo and gave the US and US oil companies what they wanted (with kickbacks on the side).
Venezula had the potential for general prosperity, but only a minority (large) did well before. Who am I do decide that question ?
I know that our current President is not troubled by such issues.
Best Hopes for Democracy,
Alan
Although I am not an expert on Chavez I would recommend you watch "This revolution will not be Televised". Search for it on google video or youtube. He seems to educate the populace on their constitution. That being said I think the voting power of the people there has been shown.
He could be misleading them but it seems the people there are more than willing to participate in their democracy which would make it very difficult to do what you say.
A video to educate people about their Constitution !
Next thing you know, he might even try to teach them to read !
How utterly subversive to TPTB of Venezula !
A disgusting, madman revolutionary !
Alan
BTW, I think Hugo Chavez has WAY too much of an ego, the only politican I know with that fault.
Chavez is a bone head. The reason why he's winning is because he provides the masses with huge entitlements and rock bottom gas prices. This isn't democracy, its voter bribery. These entitlement programs are unsustainable and probably can only last a few more years since VZ production is declining. I suspect that Chevez will remove democracy placing himself and his party in "complete" charge, when is gov't is no longer able to keep funding his popular entitlement programs. I believe the majority of the VZ population is voting for his entitlement programs and not because the believe Chevez good leader.
Chevez is essentially following in the foot prints of Hitler, Mussolini, and others that rose in political power to point they siezed complete control. In the early years Hitler and Mussolini were very popular as the siezed on the population's suffering to gain complete control.
I believe the road to heavy socialism is leads to the wrong direction. Populations become dependant on socialism which permits gov't to tighten its control over the population. More regulation, more entitlements, more buracracy, etc. Entitlement programs cause the economy to spiral downward forcing the population to become even more dependant on entitlements to meet ends. Working people bare the burden of heavy taxes to support the entitlement programs. Eventually the workers give up and join those recieving entitlements causing increasing levels of imbalance. Eventually the system breaks because the entitlement programs break the bank. When the economy fails the population looks for someone that can quickly end the suffering and ususally that person rises to power with absolute control. Freedom takes a back see to putting food on the table. Even if Chevez doesn't become a dictatorship the risks of his successor becoming one increase substantially. Granting entitlements is easy, the hard part comes when you need to take them away, because the system is incapable of supporting them anymore.
I suspect that POV is the result more of your pre judgments than of objectivity fact. Many have done as much or more and democracy has survived. (Those that went further caused untold misery).
I also suspect that if you were alive when that guy portrayed on the small coin was earning his right to be there, you would have considered him the devil incarnate. And you would just as soon replace him with Ronald Reagan (whom other Americans consider the devil incarnate).
Venezula is not your nation. If the Swedes want to be uber-socialists, let them complain (in fact one does on TOD), it is NONE of our business ! Likewise for Venezula.
YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT about which direction Venezulans want their (not yours or mine) society to evolve nto.
Best Hopes for respecting national sovereignty and non-interference in other nations internal affairs#,
Alan
# An area where the United States has a truly dismal record, so TERRIBLY bad are we that we think that we can judge other nations, but no one can judge us. And we send in the US Marines if we are unhappy enough !
BTW, the US is supposed to be supporting democracy (according to current President). Here we have a fair democratic election. I hope GW Bush is pleased to see democracy working so well :-)
Is that so? Well then could you do me a favor and during the next election tell the Europeans that they have no grounds to complain about us Americans when its voting time? Or perhaps could you convince Mr Chavez himself that he should keep his trap shut when discussing our President and his social policies.
It seems the rest of the world has no qualms about criticizing those damnable Americans and their choice of elected officials, but hell and high water if Americans think they can criticize other nations.
What's good for the goose and is good for the gander so either the rest of the world best shut up during the next election, or else the rest of the world best be prepared to hear us bitching and moaning about any country whom with we disagree.
We have every right to complain about their choice of elected officials... as much right as they have to complain about ours!
I don't think Chavez designed a military coup against our country either so he might be a little upset about that.
The US has invaded (or had the CIA stage a coup):
Canada
Mexico
Haiti (MANY times)
Dominican Republic (several)
Venezula (several times)
Chile
Panama
Grenada
Guetemala
Phillipines
Japan
Vietnam
Germany
Nicaragua (several times)
El Salvador
Italy
Russia
Columbia
Ecuador (I think)
Iran
Iraq
Libya
Morocco
China
Viet Nam
cambodia
Laos
Sure I missed some.
Given your "bad habits" it is understandable, and acceptable, if other nations are more concerned about who is elected US President than who is elected President of, say, Switzerland or Brazil. WE, OTOH, HAVE ALREADY SUPPORTED A COUP AGAINST HUGO CHAVEZ, THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF VENEZULA
His "sin" was hurting US economic interests. So GW Bush's "support´ of democracy is hypocritical at best. We kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis ro give them the priceless gift of democracy, and then work to take democracy from Venezulans !
We have no standing to reject any criticism from Chavez. I am sure he did smell a lingering bit of sulfur on the UN podium.
Best Hopes for a United States that respects International Law,
Alan
e. timor
cuba
korea
somalia
kosovo (sp)
It's the nature of empire, It's why we have all the stuff. neat isn't it
Jeez you forgot Cuba :)
I think it might be easier to draw up a list of countries we have not invaded or otherwise seriously messed with.
0.)
See done.
I believe that would be OUR "bad habits". Last I heard, you were still an American.. a disgruntled one perhaps, but one all the same.
Sure we do. Just as much standing as he does to reject our criticism. I'm not advocating that criticism of each other on a global stage should cease. What I'm advocating is that everyone be fair about it.
I'm tired of this bullcrap that says everyone can criticize the US, but the US can't criticize anyone else. Its either everyone gets to or nobody gets to. I think I'm being pretty damn fair about it.
I mean by your logic, Russia, Britain, Spain, France, China, Japan, Germany, and hosts of other countries which have invaded and conquered during their long histories shouldn't be allowed to criticize either. I mean they are just vicious empires and all, right?
In the case of the US, when we are "down" on another nation, it means (most of the time) that the CIA is seeing if a coup is possible, or if a cruise missile strike will do any "good". Or maybe all we can do is float some aircraft carriers offshore.
Our criticism is often backed by force and is a prelude to the use of force.
Other nations criticizing the US may result in fewer tourists visiting us, our tourists occasionally being treated rudely, and perhaps Airbus will be favored for the contract from the flag airline.
Thus not all criticism is equal.
Given our history (criticism leads to violent interference if we judge it practical and effective) I would like to see the US pulling back from criticism, and weighing in only in cases of genocide.
Alan
I was the victim of a violent robbery that blinded me in one eye, broke bones, etc. During the sentencing, I was allowed (per LA law) to make my statement. The recently convicted felon at the bar had no standing to reject anything I said about him (I was coldly cruel in my judgment of him).
Likewise, given that the US supported (perhaps generated) a military coup against Chavez, our moral standing is not that different from the moral standing of the convicted felon.
Alan
Oh, Noooo...
It's just for "Peace" :
What does Iran stand for? Iran stands for disrupting states, disrupting peace and solving everything through the barrel of a gun.
You could not put it better, isn't it?
(except may be for the named state...)
My how civilized of you. Name calling. Gosh, and here I thought we were having good spirited conversation, not a mud flinging contest.
You're right it does. But how exactly does the prevent the right of the US to complain about other countries also?
Maybe if you would focus a little more on what I said, instead of focusing on lame insults, you might have noticed that I'm not advocating that countries shouldn't complain about the US, but rather that ALL countries should be held to the same standard... Either ALL get to complain or NONE should.
So now go back to your hole, and try not to bump your head on the low hanging ceiling.
You are correct, but issues stem that Chevez policies will only fail in the long term causing unnecessary suffering. It is far easier to prevent the rise of a dictorship than to terminate it.
>Best Hopes for respecting national sovereignty and non-interference in other nations internal affairs
I have no plans to interfere with the VZ sovereignty, and I doubt anything I can say would alter its long term policies anyway. Pretty much every idea and discussion at TOD about future global policies is meanless, and its just an academic exercise. We are a very small majority of people that are truely concerned about our future and humanity and even we can't agree on the right policies required. Unfortunately the vast majority, for the most part has blinders on, and are committed to follow the status quo until a serious crisis begin.
>An area where the United States has a truly dismal record, so TERRIBLY bad are we that we think that we can judge other nations, but no one can judge us. And we send in the US Marines if we are unhappy enough
While US military force has been deployed to benefit Americans, America's military force has largely kept the globe at relative peace. For instance, The US miltary prevented the spread of the Soviet empire and provided stability in Asia, in the process we have engineered instability as we promoted proWestern gov'ts that had caused unneccessary suffering. We have tried to be world's policemen (for better or worse) but in the end its virtual impossible to achive global democracy and ensure all our neighbors act in a law abiding way. At this point the US can no longer carry the burden (aka "Atlas Shrugged") and few nations are willing to take up any weight.
The means used by the US gov't was to support a military coup against a democratic gov't.
Echoes of We destroyed the village in order to save it
A famous US military quote from Vietnam.
Best Hopes for Rationality,
Alan
Hitler won a democratic election by popular vote. During his tenor 50+ Million people died during WW 2 (World Wide) and most of Europe was left in ruins. Did the People of Russia, Poland, France, Holland, Beligum, etc, vote for Hitler too?
Hopefully you now understand the point I am driving at.
The GREAT DEMOCRACY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is guided by such insightful geniuses that we can discern, in advance, with little error, which democratically elected Presidents will later become tyrants. So we are wise enough to know which ones are better replaced by military dictators (see Pinochet).
Those democratic Presidents that prepare videos explaining the Constitution and promote literacy are especially suspect, especially if they do not support US economic interests.
Your argument borders on a straw man argument.
Best Hopes for Rationality,
Alan
But hey what I do know about Venezuela.
While this may be true, that doesn't prove any alternative to Chavez wouldn't also bribe the voters with cheap gasoline. In fact, based on Latin American history, and usual practice within OPEC countries, it's hard to believe that any President of Venezuela would raise prices to even something like US levels.
Of course, manipulating voters with cheap gasoline could never happen in the US. It's just coincidental that gasoline prices in the US reached their low point almost exactly on election day. :)
If libertarian ideals worked well, they would be more popular.
You get "Oil CEO Post of the Day." This is actually a highly sought-after award. It is in fact very rare. It doesn't get handed-out every day. It has been more than a week since someone received one. So stand tall.
Let's just highlight some of this so people know why you are getting this ribbon.
Oh, that's fucking brilliant. Can you tell us some other shit you are not an expert in. Just so we can look you up.
Ever heard of Gil Scott-Heron?
We know what the fuck YouTube is. Do us a frickin' favor, post a link. (Oh, where the fuck is AngryChimp when I need him?)
Sincerely,
Doctor Evil
If you cut through all the media obfuscations Chavez is essentially a heavy handed thug.
- the election was manipulated and corrupt
- Under Chavez (& only under Chavez) there is no secret ballot. Therefore if you are employed (often by an entity that is ultimately controlled by the Federal government) you have been warned that you are going to lose your job if you do not vote Chavez
- Independent news outlets in Venezuela have been subjected to various forms of intimidation and now Chavez wants to ban independent TV altogether
- exit polls are not allowed
Chavez's victory or defeat does not make much of a difference to the United States. However, it makes life more difficult for millions of Venezuelans. Loss of freedom, loss of choice, loss of wages...I am not from Venezuela so it is not personal for me. Just another unfolding human tragedy.
He is supported by a majority of the people, and hence deserves respect for that (as was Huey).
Campaigning by the opposition was "inhibited" (true many times & places in our history as well), but the vote was called fair by international observers.
Few Americans realise just how flawed our own democracy has been (largely in the past) and thinks that modern democratic practices elsewhere that mimic our own history negate the democratic will of the people (which is often ugly).
IMHO, democracy is sometimes "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". But I still support it, not some idealized image of it.
Alan
We have a disagreement here. I do not think that it is resolvable (or this is even the forum to resolve it) but essentially
-- One school of thought says that the election was manipulated and not free or fair.
-- the other school of thought says that the election was free and fair.
The media will decide the winner - as always.
>>>Campaigning by the opposition was "inhibited" (true many times & places in our history as well), but the vote was called fair by international observers.<<<
--- again one school of though strongly questins the motives of the observers. We say that they are lying.
--- obviously the school of thought disagrees
Also I disagree that just because there was a wrong committed in American history it is kosher for Chavez to screw the opposition.
I question our right to effectively judge another democracy and it's results, especially given our own past.
If Huey Long had lived, and beat FDR by a landslide for election as President of the United States, what should other democracies have done ?
I suspect that the American people would have reacted EXTREMELY badly and quite harshly to any censure from abroad over OUR free and democratic elections.
Put shoe on other foot,
Alan
But of course, the current administration is pure as the driven snow. After all, they lied to the people to cover an unprovoked attack on Iraq, which attack has resulted in tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, but your'e criticizing Chavez. Please!
Thanks. A fact-finding question here: Do you have any references (or anecdotal evidence) for the manipulation of the election?
I say sitting here in the US, thousands of miles away. Do you get your information from US corporate owned media that is possibly very much influenced by the government to make Chavez look bad?
The only things I have seen are that he funds social programs with the oil wealth and that international observers say the election was fair. That doesn't sound bad to me. Certainly as good as our elections between two Yale bonesmen.
I think Alan is kidding himself if he thinks the elections in Venezuela were fair. You don't have to coerce at the polling station if the government is the primary employer and the government has already told you that you are fired if you vote against Chavez. That's coercion, just like Robert Mugabe told illiterate voters in Rhodesia that the voting machines knew all their names and would tell him who voted for whom, and that he and his Communist henchmen would kill you if you voted against him. Mugabe won 99% of the vote, getting even the vote of the other main Communist revolutionary and all of the votes for the black Catholic bishop who ran against them both. And that election was declared "fair" by Carter and people like him as well as international observers because the coercion did not occur at the polling place. Remember that the next time you see an election called "fair".
Chavez is a thug and he simply mimic'ed democratic activities in order to win typical approval from left wing socialists in the US and Europe. He appears to have succeeded. Alan appears to have swallowed the bait whole.
And how is a public ballot fair? One feature common to most democracies is the secret ballot precisely so that such kinds of coercion cannot occur.
I don't think any of us will ever know what really occurred in Venezuela. Maybe Chavez did get a real majority but no one will ever know. And praising Chavez for being the second coming of Huey Long is, to put it kindly, warped.
So comparing Chavez to Huey was not a compliment. But I am an American in Louisiana and I can make those judgments about Huey. And I recognize Huey Long as a genuine democratic leader who played VERY dirty. (machine guns in the streets of New Orleans). But I cannot contest the fact that he represented the democratically expressed desires of the people of Louisiana, fools that they were.
Hope that clears it up, a nuanced position.
Alan
As much as anything the fact that the opposition leader conceded defeat points to the smell of your remarks.
"Just another unfolding human tragedy." Why don't you just admit that it bugs you that Chavez is providing health care and education to the poor? Imagine that: using a people's resource for their benefit.
As far as the drop in oil production is concerned, whatever the cause, the effect is that future generations will enjoy some of the endowment. Though I suppose if people like you get your way, that enjoyment will be limited to a small elite.
Yup, perfectly equitably fair. Just ask Alan.
I did claim that Venezula was a democracy. I did not claim that it was a perfect democracy, or even a particularly good one. So you are erecting s straw man by misrepresnting my position.
OTOH, the US wanted a military coup to put a more compliant dictator in power (see Chile). Destroy a democracy that threatens US economic interests.
Now, exactly WHY ? are we in Iraq ?
Calling Chavez a thug shows your total detachment from reality.
Best hopes for Democracy.
Alan
Chavez seems intent on giving freebies to the poor and not improving the economy. If he wanted to make conditions there better, why would he fired over half of his oil work force? The same workforce that is enabling him to implement his socialist agenda? Most people have a term for that:
Removing the opposition.
If his methods were benign, why would he threaten to fire any government worker who voted against him? Why was he prepared to use the army to quell any possible social unrest in relation to the election? Thats a sign of a madman obsessed with holding onto power.
But I guess hes just like polio stricken FDR, right?
See Iraq for an example of this.
So no guns at anyones heads during this election. Ergo, DEMOCRACY ! Ain't it grand !
Also, same article
Sounds like FDR running for his 3rd term and his explanations for breaking 150 year tradition. If Hugo Chavez follows the proper means of amending the Constitution, and has free elections every 6 years, so be it ! Democracy (i.e the will of 61% of the people) in action.
Best Hopes for democracy,
Alan
PS: I hope to one day see a democratically elected Iraqi president and the democratically elected Chavez and the democratically elected Ahmadinejad all meeting, smiling and shaking hands at an OPEC meeting. Hopefully, not one US soldier on any of their nations.
Today there was a link today about more solar in Venezula,
BTW, Republicans got VERY few jobs under FDR and his programs. And many were removed from federal employment (Andrew Jackson started that tradition in a big way).
And FDR wanted to add more judges to the US Supreme Court in order to give his views more weight.
The oil workers went on an illegal strike and he fired them.
Think, Ronald Reagan, Air Traffic Controllers.
So Chavez = Ronald Reagan !
Who would have guessed !
Alan
Chavez isn't firing legislative employees for their political views, hes firing people who work in the Oil industry, the army, doctors, miners, etc. The dirty deed has already been done at the capital, now he is ensuring that there is no opposition amongst the general populace. Whats next? If you didn't vote for me in the election, you don't get highly subsidized oil? Medical Care? A job?
There has never been a one party system in the US. Now stop trying to compare Apples and Oranges.
LMAOROTL
You ARE ignorant of the country you live in, aren't you ?
I was RAISED in a one party state !
Do you realise tht most Southern states were one party for over 80 years ? Many did not elect ONE Republican to state wide office (and damn few to local anything) for a LIFETIME !
When I registered R, the registar politely told me (which was true) that I could not vote in the Democratic primary which was the real election. That is why R registration was 4% in Tuscaloosa County and less than 2% state wide in Alabama.
BTW, Andrew Jackson fired ALL opposition party workers that he could find in federal employment. Local postmasters were ALL party supporters who had worked for him. "To the victors belong the spoils" was his motto.
Chavez is not pretty, but neither was Huey Long (the one politican that FDR feared could take his job), Mayor Daley, Tammany Hall and MANY others in US history.
US ~= Venezula
Democracy is often ugly, that is a historical FACT !
But I like it anyway,
Alan
Who is the bigger fool on this issue? Your trying to equate Louisiana politics to the entire national government. So lets try this, Alan: When is the last time ANY party held the Presidency, all 538 seats in the Legislative branch, and appointed all 9 Supreme Court Justices?
...
I'll give you an unlimited time to some up with an instance like that in the US.
U'hmm Wrong (from memory).
In the 1950s and 1960s there were a couple of rural counties (north of Birmingham) that OCCASIONALLY elected Republicans. Kind of an oddity, like Jones County in Mississippi. But there were times when there was not ONE county commissioner, tax collector, judge etc in the entire state was Republican !
Most of the Southern States were one party states.
BTW, two times, Wasgington's first two terms and the Era of Good Feeling in the 1820s.
Alan
Think LBJ & Nixon. Did it hundreds of times.
And then there is Abraham Lincoln !
Alan
When you can point out a case, we can discuss that further.
Also, 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention was not our finest hour.
Alan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity
They are people too you know.
Its their (democratically elected) leaders that I wonder about.
Well actually, the Army ran the southern states for a decade after the Civil War, leaving such great distaste all around to the passing of the Posse Comitatus Act, which has now been considerably weakened in the last two decades with bipartisan support.
I don't care much either way for Chavez, but if he wants to continue in power and not walk away, he's not much of a small "d" democrat.
If any of the other 3 candidates had been elected, there would have been no Secession in 1860/61.
Best Hopes for a better understanding of history,
Alan
No Kidding. And he's got a college degree.
Scary huh?
From Wikipedia
There you go.
Do you ever slow down to think before you spout off with that crap? What's it like to be so certain and yet so wrong all the time?
Wikipedia was just the most convient.
Do yourself a favor and read one of those books devoted to the cause of the civil war.
Yes. In fact this is common knowledge.
Oh certainly there were many underlying reasons for the rift in the US. But the election of Lincoln was the trigger for the war.
You have obviously never studied American History. Why do you continue to post on the subject? Its getting embarrassing.
The war was about demographics, economics, politics and at the very end about Slavery. Do you know what the real event was that triggered the start of the Civil War, Rethin?
Have you ever heard of Fort Sumter?
Listen to the legislators of S. Carolina.
Read this primary document
Its a transcript of the debate held in 1860 when they were preparing a document to justify seceding from the union.
Note what Mr Gregg says:
Hothgor, it is amazingly obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Hothgor writes:
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
I guess you'll have to take that argument up with Mr Gregg. Good luck with that one!
I wasn't aware that Lincoln was elected in 1852 <chortle>
Did you even bother to read the entire document? There were DOZENS of contributing factors the led up to South Carolina seceding from the Union. To place the blame entirely on one elected man is idiotic at best.
From here
S.C. Secession Declaration Debate
(Transcribed by Ben Barnhill, Furman University from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, Dec. 22, 1860.
December 22, 1860 (Fifth Day of the State Convention.)
The Committee, to whom was committed the duty of preparing an Address to the people of the Southern States, to declare the causes which justify the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, made their report as follows:
Man, I can't believe I actually looked up a primary source to rebut this crap.
In April of 1861, Fort Sumter was running dangerously low on supplies. The north decided to send supply ships to the base, effectively running the souths embargo on the entrenched fort. This lead to the south attacking the base at 4:30 am on April the 12th of 1861. This was fully 6 months AFTER Lincoln's election, and 5 months after South Carolina seceded from the Union. This act was the start of the Civil War. Not the election of Lincoln!
So let me repeat this again:
Lincoln's election was the catalyst for the 7 states to leave the Union, but it didn't start the war.
Like I said above, take it up with Mr Gregg. I'm guessing he was just a bit more knowledgeable on the subject than either on of us.
Wait Wait, now pull the other one! Ha Ha Ha
Are you just being stupid tonight?
Lincoln's election didn't trigger the South to secede.
Nor did this secession cause the civil war.
It was the first battle of the war that caused the war.
This is actually an amazing revelation. You can apply this to all wars. From now on the cause of a war is the first battle of said war.
Hothgor you just revolutionized the study of history! You are going to go down in History as the greatest of all historians!
And to think, I thought your brilliance ended with peak oil.
I am truly humbled.
Nice strawman.
I clearly said there were many underlying reasons for the rift.
I also clearly said (and backed with a primary source) the election of Lincoln was the trigger for the southern secession (which lead directly to the Civil war starting with Fort Sumter).
But what are we arguing for? We agree the cause of the war was the first battle :P
Anyway if the best you can do is construct strawmen than this rather stupid debate is over. Not that this example will stop you from posting more BS in the future unfortunately.
Nope, you NEVER said that Lincoln was the sole cause of the Civil War. <chortle> But, I'm a bit confused here Rethin. If he had never been elected, there wouldn't have been a war, right? Doesn't that make him the sole cause by your own logic?
Your own damn article stated the numerous reasons that South Carolina felt justified in seceding from the Union. Only one man attributed it to Lincolns election, and even that was just the 'immediate cause'. Are you his great great great great grandson by chance?
By contrast, I have done my best to point out the numerous factors in the cause of the Civil War. And you in turn can only act like a dumbass. Congratulations...I guess...
Nice try.
But [Alanfrombigeasy http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/4/93746/1929#178 ] said that.
I disagree with him BTW. I believe the Civil War was inevitable. Perhaps another president could have put it off for a few more years/decades. But the election of Lincoln was the trigger.
I have said again and again there were numerous reasons S Carolina seceded, Lincoln being the trigger.
Also It's not an article. Do you have any idea how primary sources work? What exactly did you do in college?
This grows wearisome. This is my last post. Give it a rest.
Oh BTW, attributing someone else's quote as mine makes you look like an ass. I'd say it'll ruin your credibility but you obviously have none to begin with
Not that I care much about american history but given Hothgor's "cheating style" and persistent dishonesty I suspect more and more that he is just odograph under another pseudo tackling another line of propaganda.
They don't appear either to post within the same time slices.
I told you to check in. Say 'Hi.' We know you are fine. Check in next month.
We can possiby arrange some different terms, but you've gotta be nice to odo.
You have some new information for us, maybe?
???
What for?
He should give up cycling anyway, real bad for the "growth" of the economy.
I'll accept that.
I have always wanted to make peace. I will accept that. Odo does too.
We will sign a peace treaty. Right here, right now.
You have 30 minutes. After that my claim on Odo's thoughts dissappear. Until then, you have my guarranttee that we would like this to happen.
We can all be friends,
Robert Mugabe
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2006/12/copernicus-darwin-and-cure-for.html#comments
I don't find anything even remotely threatening about odograph, from everything I've seen nobody else does either, yet you hunt him like the last elephant on earth for its tusks.
That's why I have to take a second look at you and ask what's up?
Perhaps we can meet up at the new American embassy in Tehran.
Ditto.
My reply wasn't to you but to the bastard himself.
Including my friend odograph.
You should be much more careful about the friends you choose.
I don't find anything even remotely threatening about odograph,
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain :
ALL of odograph comments rehash the same refrain again and again just in various flavors, colors and declensions :
Don't worry be happy, even with ressources depletion of ALL KINDS, the GROWTH of the "economy" will make it, for the greater good of everyone.
This is a preposterous SCAM which net effect (and very likely INTENDED effect) is to dissuade people to search for EFFECTIVE MITIGATION of ressources depletion.
This in spite of odograph claims to the contrary, he is an expert in Doublespeak.
This is "good policy" to him because if he acknowledged ANY intelligence of the subject he would have to argue on the substance not just hand waving and asking OTHERS for the burden of the proof while happily dispensing himself of any evidence.
If any of the other 3 candidates had been elected, there would have been no Secession in 1860/61
If there had been no secession, then no war in 1861. What would have happened later is a matter of speculation. Secession without war, a war in the 1870s or 1880s, a Grand Compromise, economic evolution, or ????
Alan
In 1932 World War I veterans seeking a bonus promised by Congress were attacked and driven out of Washington, D.C., by troops of the U.S. Army under the command of Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower and George Patton.
RIIIIIIIIGHT...
...
Stupid comments like the one elwoodelmore just made ruin the credibility of this place.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Hothgor complaining about stupid comments ruining the credibility of TOD!
Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning.
Oil CEO = Dick Cheney
My theory at least....
Oil CEO = Dick Cheney, because of his bouts of drunken blathering.
You almost got it right.Ask me. I won't even have to give away my friends. We can hang out. Harvard Square tomorrow. I don't care. You won't even peg me. I don't get made. Lose me. What the fuck were were you thinking. My girlies are smart, not models. Back off.
Which fighting, killing and dying ?
It is just about having fun!
If some low-IQ moron who helps out at the local sheltered workshop three days a week chooses to believe MSM USAn bullshite, well, what can you expect. But most of you are engineers. You're supposed to be intelligent people.
No wonder technocracy doesn't work. If it isn't about graphs and numbers, you're as clueless as the next blockhead - only you're more culpable for it, because you're supposed to be intelligent human beings, FFS!
Now shut up about a country you all know next to nothing about. It's disgraceful and a blot on the site.
Or if you won't all shut up, at least restrict yourselves to bleating like the sheep you are in such matters. 'Chavez! Thug! Baaa-baaaa!'
Then he said:
I am just reading newscientists article on irrigation called The Parched Planet which seriously considers global starvation. It states:
Irrigation, together with urbanisation, are two great factors that shaped today's world apart from mass use of natural resources. Good to be reminded of that.
My dad, an agronomist who specializes in international agriculture, likes to say, "Malthus was wrong only in the timing."
Whatever the reasons, failling fertility rates do seem to accompany not only industrialization, but giving women (economic) independence.
Whether this fairly new trend of actually treating women as equal to men will continue is certainly open to discussion - the attempt to restore 'society's/nature's normal balance' is a real characteristic of a number of male dominated institutions, particularly the more conservatively religious.
Or as witnessed in America, where effective birth control for women is becoming ever more difficult to obtain in many areas.
But still, I don't think Malthus considered the role of women in the process as being anything but pre-ordained, and it seems that in societies where women have legal rights and economic opportunity (Japan is a fine example of these being granted to women in one fell swoop after WWII), fertility rates go down dramatically.
Which, according to many media sources, is the biggest problem in the whole world - a baby shortage is looming!
Some people want to show just how correct Malthus was, it seems, which is always one reason not to bet against him.
Post oil, the pill may be difficult to make, as will condoms.
Fossil water, like oil, is a limited resource. The key questions are how widely agriculture is dependent on that resource, and what alternatives are available.
For what it's worth, the New Yorker article The Last Drop covered this same territory and ended on a positive note:
But you know, it's kind of basic that not all h20 on the planet is tied up in aquifers or glaciers.
Before we declare "diminishing returns" we might actually try to figure what the annual, sustainable, water budge it, and how we can live within it.
I just don't find that remotely realistic. We aren't going to ship water over via tanker to places where it's scarce...especially if the people without are poor. Even within the U.S., water is scarce in some places, plentiful in others. Northeasterners lavish gallons and gallons of water on their lawns while southwesterners face drought.
Then there's Israel's occupied territories. The Israeli settlers water their lawns and splash in their backyward pools, while their Palestinian neighbors don't have enough water for their crops, and barely have enough to drink.
He's the one, not I the layperson, who said:
"This is really good news, you know. Because it means we can do better. We don't need to run out of water. We just need to think more seriously about how we can avoid using it."
Total
Year (billion gallons)
WITHDRAWALS
1940 140
1950 180
1955 240
1960 270
1965 310
1970 370
1975 420
1980 440
1985 399
1990 408
1995 402
2000 408
Consumptive Use
1960 61
1965 77
1970 87
1975 96
1980 100
1985 92
1990 94
1995 100
2000 (NA)
This data is from the The 2006 Statistical Abstract published by the US Census Bureau, specifically the link marked as U.S. Water Withdrawals and Consumption Use Per Day by End-Use: 1940 to 2000. What it tells us is that overall withdrawals are down. That doesn't tell us why. It does tell us that consumption peaked in 1980, then went flat til 2000 where it matched its old peak. I have not found more current data on water consumption for the US, hence my interest in seeing your sources, Odograph. The US Census Bureau says consumption is up, not down. Withdrawals are down but that may be due to known aquifer problems. Per capita consumption is down (from that same document) but since population overall is up, that is a wash.
That article does cover a lot of territory, but I think it is worth reading in detail:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061023fa_fact1
The fresh water situation in Sweden is overall very good. The only problem areas are mostly private wells close to the sea who can draw in saline water if they are overused. There is an old goal that all major water works should be fully redundant but that is moving forward as fast as a snail and will probably not be reached. Almost all water is "soft" and of good bottled water quality but people still buy more bottled water every year. The chlorination is most often small and some water works dont need it at all.
The only expectation about fresh water problems due to global warming is if lakes used as fresh water sources would overflow due to much larger rainfall and flood old contaminated areas and low lying sewage plants or sewage systems overflows. There are some official investigations of these risks included in the same studies investigating the risk for flooding. I expect that the problem areas slowly will be rebuilt over 10-20 years if nothing happens, faster we do get flooding.
A neighbouring small town Motala has had a fairly large reduction in water use but the cost for running the water works is nor sensitive to the flow giving a continous rise of the fees. This is probably the same thing as observed in Finland.
The cost for water in my own municipiality Linköping is about $0.7 per m3 of water and about $0.9 per m3 of waste water/sewage giving a cost for normal housholds of about $1.6 per m3 plus a fixed fee, $321 for a single house including drainage water from rainfall.
The only influence I expect from peak oil for the local water situation is declining bottled water sales and if we have a serious depression a decade long hiatus of water system maintainance. Practical exampels from seriously mismanaged municipialities is that these systems can limp along with almost no maintainance for 10-20 years withouth noticable change in water quality when the water source is a good one. They are thus sensitive to silent budget cuts but they are usualy not financed by taxation but run as municipiality owned monopolies making this less tempting.
We ship water all over the world everyday. Just not in tankers. Its in the form of wheat.
It takes something ridiculous like 100 tons of water to make 1 ton of wheat.
I am very sad to report that lots of homeowners in the Asphalt Wonderland suffer from severe lawn-mowing neurosis. With the proper application of fertilizers and winter grass seed-- the now dormant summer lawn can be overseeded with a fast-growing, water-gobbling winter rye grass specie that requires much weekly mowing labor to maintain the highly desired
uniform green carpet appearance. Of course, our area golf courses seek the maximumgreen tarmac optimality by mowing daily. I would guess upwards of 50,000 Mexican immigrants are employed year round by our two full seasons of lawn harvesting with the proceeds headed immediately to the landfill.Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Before, before... we need a "good model" eh?
Just like more climate "studies", as long as there is no "math" no need to worry!
Still spitting your usual garbage.
P.S. Thanks for only rehashing the same crap again and again, that spares me the effort to rewrite my responses and remove any doubt about your real purposes.
How difficult is the "model" of subtracting from a finite quantity?
It is the faith in phantom ressources which is irrational, you criminal cretin!
Basically the "finite quantity" stuff is what supports a sort of irrational "peak everything" worldview.
(We may be at peak-somethings, but for goodness sakes, figure out what those things are and address them rationally.)
It is now! (just kidding)
Irrigation is expensive, even if subsidized, and this fact is never lost on growers. It is used to boost farm income by watering high value crops. The majority of US grains traded on the world market to combat starvation are the grains, and these crops, with the exception of rice, are dryland farmed. In most cases, grain prices cannot support irrigation, and where they do, a simple increase in irrigation costs will shift that production back to a less water intensive crop-usually a wheat for corn substitution.
IMO, the crucial determinate will be fertilizer prices. Grain prices will have to match fertilizer costs to maintain production. Food prices must rise. Starvation, as in so much of the recent past, becomes a societal issue, not a production issue.
At the current rate of consumption, we are rapidly moving into dangerous territory. If the current overconsumption rate continues, in 7 years or less we'll have zero extra supply which means that any drought anywhere could be catastrophic for a large number of human beings.
I am looking for a chart of Prudhoe Bay production. I have, in the past, seen it on the web, perhaps several times. But at the time I never thought to save the URL. If anyone knows where I can find such a chart I will forever be in your debt. (I promise to save it this time.)
Thanks,
Ron Patterson
Once, East Texas was where Ghawar, et al, are now (producing mostly oil).
Soon Ghawar, et al, will be where East Texas is now (99% water).
As I recall, a chart of Prudhoe Bay production displays a near perfect inverted bathtub curve. That is, when the field first comes on line, there is a sharp runup in production rate. Then due to pipeline constriction, there is a long plateau of several years when production is flat. Then eventually decline will begin, and as in the case of Prudhoe bay, the decline will begin well after the 50% production point has past.
Ron Patterson
- Production well potential (of all phases)
- Oil processing or export capacity
- Gas processing, export or disposal capacity
- Water processing or disposal capacity
- Disposal above can include reinjection
Injection capacity is never an immediate constraint on production in an oilfield of any size unless you are relying on your injection wells to dispose of produced gas or water (i.e. you have to cut back on production because you can't put it back underground fast enough, you don't have an export system or market for gas, and the regulator won't let you dump water or flare gas). Of course if you don't replace voidage you'll eventually lose reservoir pressure and hence well potential; the same applies if you get gross water breakthrough, which always happens eventually. But that's a longer-term effect (months or years rather than days or weeks).It's a good idea to plot oil, gas and water production rate for the field against time, if you have the data available. It's also interesting to plot the liquid rate (oil + water). I'm assuming you know enough to calculate water rate given an oil rate and a water cut. If one of the phase flowrates is flat in the recent past, it is the binding capacity constraint. If they are all changing smoothly (and oil rate is declining) then you've got general field decline due to increasing watercut or falling reservoir pressure.
The reason for the existence of a plateau is simply that when there is a bottleneck early in field life at a level below well capacity (the bottleneck usually being oil or gas capacity, before GOR or watercut start to climb), it will act to constrain the oil rate to a constant value. You usually aim to keep about 1 well's worth of excess production potential on fields with high well rates, so you can keep the plant full while one well is being serviced or tested, or if you get a downhole mechanical failure. A rule often observed in the breach, as in "Why can't we get ahead of the plant in this damn field?"
I've seen fields come off plateau because of all the constraints described above. A good field operations manager always knows what is limiting production at any moment in time; drilling more wells isn't always the solution.
Anyone care to guess what the active constraint is on Cantarell (i.e. what is staying constant) now it is declining?
Soon Ghawar, et al, will be where East Texas is now (99% water).
Not for at least 30 years. Ghawar is 20 times bigger than East Texas, is being operated at only 5 times the rate (close enough), and is being managed far more professionally than what was the norm in Da Awl Binness a hundred years ago. Plus Ghawar has a basal tarmat whereas East Texas is an updip corner of one of the biggest active aquifers in the world (the Woodbine Formation IIRC).
PUD
No charge. We have enough debt as it is :)
Regards.
One of the most promising medications in years will never come to market because clinical trials showed that it increased heart disease and death. Torcetrapib increases HDL (the "good cholesterol") and was touted as evidence of continued progress in medicine. Despite the fact that it really did increase the good cholesterol, it did not translate into reduced heart attacks or prolonged life. Here's the article from NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/health/04pfizer.html?hp&ex=1165294800&en=baa6c221044dead6& amp;ei=5094&partner=homepage
What does this have to do with PO?
Just asking, because I honestly don't know whether this 30% claim is valid.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=57224
In broader studies of persons of lower risk, a 15 to 30% number is probably more accurate. Here's a large study indicating a 16 to 18% reduction:
http://clinical.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/133
But you raise an excellent point. Billions of dollars of research and 10's of billions of dollars in prescription costs for what probably amounts to a 15% or so reduction in heart attack rate. Not a lot of bang for our buck.
Phineas Gage, MD
I'll agree that the low hanging fruit in biological advances has been picked, based upon the knowledge base we currently have. The problem is Biology is in my opinion a much more immature science than Geology.
And this has more to do with the "problem set" that each discipline deals with.
Geology is by comparison to biology a much simpler set of mechanisms to understand. Our knowledge of Geology is more complete, our models more accurate and our applications of science (technology) more easily understood. The biological community admits to itself that is has a long way to go before it has the same level knowledge as other disciplines. And this is not a throw down on biology, rather it is a recognition that the problem set in biology is FAR more complex than other disciplines. And I think alot of this has to do with the sheer number of variables in a biological problem.
A major break through in the understanding of a biological mechanism often has massive reprecussions in medical advancement. For instance the studies on how viruses reproduce are making huge waves in pharmiceutical(sp?) circles, because they are finding out that viruses do things they never conceived of before.
You won't have those kinds of breakthroughs in geology however. We've got the physics of geology pretty well understood (by comparison to biology).
I think the clearest source of evidence supporting this is the nature of work each of these disciplines perform. Almost every geologist I've dealt with doesn't go into Geology to work on theoretical work, they go into Geology to take their science and allow them to use that knowledge to more practically apply technology to Geologic problems.
Whereas in Biology, you have a range of people from those who are looking to become technology applications experts (like Geologists) such as Doctors, Nurses, Vets, and Medical Technologists of various types, to plain biology researchers, such as those who are studying the effects of various stimuli on biological mechanisms or even more simply observing and recording how organisms perform certain functions.
Biology has a much larger theoretical field because the knowledge base of biology is, from a percentage standpoint less known, than theoretical Geology.
Hence there may still be "low hanging fruit" in biological advancements of medicine, once we understand more fully how certain biological mechanisms work.
Also keep in mind that the expenses you see relating to new medicines making it through the FDA to market are often due to more rigorous "standards" regarding medication. There are many medicines that are disallowed in the US, but are used many other places in the world, because some subset of people had bad reactions to the medicine.
The FDA and the US as a whole is going to have to learn that not all solutions will work for all people. But we should not disallowed treatments for those individuals who could survive it, just because someone else didn't.
It really burns me up when I hear about new cancer treatments being denied to dying people because its not approved by the FDA for being too risky. Hello cancer without treatment is 100% death rate. Even if the meds only gave me a 10% chance, I'd hinge my chances on that rather than certain death any day of the week.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that biology & medicine are far more complex than oil & geology and that as a percentage of the potential knowledge base, they are much less mature. Even so, I believe we are reaching a point of diminishing returns in medicine. I am not convinced that understanding biological mechanisms a lot better is going to translate into better medicine. Why doesn't raising HDL decrease cardiac events? This med did increase BP by 4 mmHg, but I find it hard to believe that that alone accounts for the problem. Lipid metabolism is one biological area that we understand about as well as any biological process but perhaps lipid metabolism is far more complicated than we had imagined.
It is true that rapid advances have been made in anti-virals, but I would say this is a case of low-hanging fruit. Before the early 80's (and AIDS), there were only a handful of anti-virals on the market.
Also keep in mind that the expenses you see relating to new medicines making it through the FDA to market are often due to more rigorous "standards" regarding medication. There are many medicines that are disallowed in the US, but are used many other places in the world, because some subset of people had bad reactions to the medicine.
True, but even with this, Vioxx was on the market for years before the problem became evident. There are other examples of medications that made it through the FDA's rigorous criteria and still had to pulled of the market once the med went into widespread use. In a thread a few weeks ago, I mentioned hormone replacement therapy which was prescribed in part bc/ we thought it protected the heart. We prescribed HRT like this for decades and it took an enormously expensive study of over 17,000 subjects to finally realize we were killing women with HRT!
A chronic increase in blood pressure of only 2-3 mmHg will substantially increase risk of cardiovascular events. Torcetrapib produced a mean increase of 2-4 mmHg, which is bad enough, but some patients experienced much higher BP increases. In any event, the overall mortality rate observed in Pfizer's study is a composite of the negative BP effect and the possible positive effect of HDL increase. Only if/when Pfizer releases further information about their atherosclerosis imaging trials will we be able to separate out the possible benefits of the lipid effects versus the negative BP effect.
However, I do agree that development of new therapeutic drugs is getting more difficult.
I think your comparison is flawed. Biology is a more immature science? The structure and understanding of DNA predates plate techtonics.
Geology as a science suffers from the problem that one cannot readily design a repeatable experiment to test theories. One is forced to make inferences on what happened long ago based on what exists today--or wait for the next earthquake/volcanic eruption and collect data like mad. Our understanding of the inner-most earth is also rather shaky. Furthermore, the geology of most interest (oil, carbon cycles) is fundamentally bound up with biology. Remember that complexity exists on many scales.
Medical science is made problematic by individual differences between people. Heck, even genetically identical mice vary in their response to treatment. I believe that "individualized medicine", while theoretically possible, is likely to be impractical due to the dilemma of diminishing sample size. As you narrow the target group by genetic similarity enough to focus the treatment, you no longer have enough diseased subjects to get a statistically meaningful (or affordable) result.
My reference to immature is not a reference to time, but rather "wholeness" of knowledge. We know a lot less about biology in terms of the total body of potential knowledge out there, compared to Geology. This has to do with the fact that biology I believe has more potential variables and conditions that impact the results than geological problems.
An analogy:
Biology is a 1000 piece puzzle and Geology is a 100 piece puzzle. Even if Biology had 300 pieces in place, if Geology has 80 pieces in place, Geology is from a percentage stand point more complete.
Granted its hard to say how big the respective puzzles are when talking about bodies of knowledge, but I think our picture(completed puzzle) is more in focus when discussing geology than compared to biology.
I disagree with this also. HL method would be a prime example why. We observe several geological events, and then built a model to discribe those events and then used this model to try and predict the results of other similar geological events. The HL model appears to be holding based upon what I've read (though I won't claim to be an expert by any stretch). Can we in a 100% controlled lab experiment duplicate geological events? No, but even with our "imperfectly" controlled real world labs, we have managed to build models which accurately (within the range of geologic timescales) predict earthquakes, and their severity, oil deposits and their rate of extraction, gas deposits and their rate of extraction, water tables etc etc. We have in my opinion many more working and accurate models of Geologic events than we do of biologic ones.
Hence while computerized testing of biologic mechanisms are used, biologist refuse to rely solely on those and continue to do animal and human testing of various toxins, medicines, stimuli.
You didn't like it the first time, so I'll say it again.
Notice that I said "repeatable"? Do you really think oil formation is well understood? How is kerogen formed? There are lots of ideas, but try designing an experiment to disprove one of them. Nope, we're stuck with what scant evidence is out there, and we do the best we can.We rely on "Geological Models" because we can't do the experiments, not because they have been proven correct. Tell me, in advance please, when the next big earthquake will hit Seattle. Or the next eruption of Mt. Rainier. Last time I checked, biology and geology use the same periodic table of the elements--although geology seems to involve more of the elements and processes than biology (fission, for example).
Biology is very interesting, and it attracts a lot of research $$$ because people really don't want to get sick and die. But it turns out that our survival might depend more on understanding the bigger picture--geology and earth science. If we don't come to grips with the limits imposed by these, then ending all human suffering by curing all diseases will, ironically, cause massive human suffering.
umm isn't that the goal of science? To observe and refine our models/hypothesis until we can with empirical precision use those models to predict future occurances? The physical parameters that impact our extraction techniques are the very heart and soul of HL's method. We know that we can extract so much viscous stuff at a given rate over a period of time due to our understanding of oil deposits. Part of that understanding is by observing previous attempts at extraction. We were observing PHYSICAL limitations to well production and Hubbert built a model around those observations.
To what degree of accuracy? Eon? Century? Decade? Year? Month? Week? Day? Hour? Minute? Second?
The fact remains however that geologists do have working models which can predict major geological events to within a decade, and some models are being proven to within a year. Given the sheer vastness of geologic time, a decade is getting pretty specific. To me that shows we have a good understanding of geologic events (at least as deep as the crust).
But take an infection say like AIDS which has been studied to death, and we still can't figure out why some people who are exposed to it don't develop symptoms or don't progress in symptoms at the same rate as others. Our models for predicting viral progression are too crude still to account for the many many variables which impact viral progression.
In my opinion, we are much more capable of applying our knowledge of geology more consistantly and accurately than we are in our applying of biology.
In every field, things seem simple until you start asking difficult questions, and then you reach new levels of complexity. We've been asking more questions about biology because we've cared more about the answers and also because of the fact that we can't do much about the geology problems except get out of Dodge.
Oh, and send me an email about the Seattle quake with 24 hrs notice please.
It is my understanding that some cancers (breast ?) look for specific markers in the DNA of the biopsy and adjust treatment to that today.
Alan
That's somewhat different in that it resulted from the observation that a particular tumor type didn't respond to a given drug but others did.
It gets back to the "low hanging fruit" analogy. Diseases caused by flaws in a single gene are easiest to unravel and sometimes treat. Most diseases are not like that, though. And understanding is the easier part of the challenge. Introducing a new chemical into the body as treatment always has effects beyond those intended, and those effects vary with the individual. Multiplying the number of tools in the toolchest makes for a much more expensive toolchest--and we cannot afford the one that we have.
However, we can always buy these new drugs from Canada-- another benefit of the new Democratic Congress.
Look at the previous comments that observed that grain usage doubled but irrigation requirements tripled to produce that doubling. You can't do that very many times before you have no fresh water at all.
Homo sapiens are generally innumerate, which is why we have people still denying that we are in overshoot.
Exactly. Classic "declining marginal returns."
"Today the world grows twice as much food as it did a generation ago, but it uses three times as much water to grow it."
The original statement consists of two facts, but their interpretation is skewed. Food production has doubled, water use tripled, but water use to combat starvation has not doubled. We don't ship brocoli, or carrots or christmas trees to starving people. Most of the irrigation water is used for high dollar crops, not calories. The big component on a worldwide basis of the "green" revolution for calorie crops, save rice, is fertilizer and breeds which respond to this and other new ag practices- ie herbicides. Which present their own set of problems. But we must identify the actual problems and constraints, not use the statistic to support misleading conclusions.
I don't see how that changes anything.
We had an interesting discussion awhile back about water use and crops. Someone from Texas said that they used to flood-irrigate fields. Now they have center-pivot irrigation systems, which are a helluva lot more efficient in water use.
So are they using less water, or growing more crops? No. Instead, they are growing corn, which needs irrigation, instead of wheat, which doesn't.
And to irrigation systems and grains. Irrigated land does not water very much grain, as a portion of US and/or world production. Remove that production, and the overall effect won't be that great. And that land is still available for dryland production.
I am not defending modern irrigation practices, but would like to see an accurate portrait. I don't believe sage range land should grow corn, but that is a quirk in time. I think our national mistake of corn to liquid fuel will be shortlived. Normal corn prices do not support irrigation with increasing energy costs. Unfortunate for many growers who have put their savings in irrigation systems and ethanol plants.
I just made the mistake to listen to Bartlett's speech and although I use interest calculations, I never used it myself to test some of the data offered here (a site and a idea I stumbled on nearly innocent while researching my energy investment ideas). This speech made me just check on the world coal supply and usage
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188
using the 1995-2005 yearly increase of a bit more than 3.1%
it takes less than 60 years (2066) to finish all the nearly 1.000.000 million tons of proved coal reserves.
But using the 7.4% 2004 to 2005 increase as constant usage growth rate (probably too low if oil should peak) it takes about 37 years, i.e. in 2044 it's all gone, too.
Can someone tell me I am totally wrong, please !
Michael
I think this depends more on the intention of a given technology than the fact of an evolving and complex technology in and of itself. As it relates to Cholesterol and other Dietary Medicines, we seem to be creating drugs the way we want to create Ethanol, so we can continue an unhealthy habit, a poor diet or an excessive commute.. instead of facing the changes that have to be made further upstream, where we actually have to DO something.
It was appropriate that the earlier Pharma discoveries were called 'The Low Hanging Fruit', in your first bullet-point, since fruit is one of the best ways to help reduce your Cholesterol imbalances.
Some High Tech is great and appropriate (when appropriately used), and some reflects an elaborate program of denial and refusal to do the 'Chores' required to live in a healthy and really productive way, without a lot of hidden 'externalities'..
I hate to be cynical about lifestyle choices, these people (especially Americans!) ought to exercise and eat better regardless, but no person on earth can exercise and eat their way to a lower cholesterol level than lipitor or zocor could get for them.
I appreciate your expertise. So, a Q, if I can articulate it properly: Would the lipitor/zocor outcome be the case under the condition that the high cholesterol level was a result of a less-than-optimal history in regard to exercise/diet? (If this makes sense.) In other words, to what extent (or do we know) does the history of the condition and/or the contributing factors that go into making up the condition contribute to it's irreversibility, so to speak? (Hmnn...what am I trying to say.) Can someone not exercise and overeat their way to a condition that cannot reverse via exercise, etc.? Perhaps this is another way of talking about prevention, and to what extent a lack of prevention requires higher tech (so to speak) intervention?
re: "It is illustrative of the fact technology will not save us."
Thanks, I'm glad you brought up "intention". Last week I made an attempt (perhaps too late in the evening), to talk about the dichotomy of "techno-fix" vs. those factors that appear to inevitably overwhelm engineering. The discussion (and our TOD discussion in response to "Engineer Poet" is a good example)seems usually to take the form of an "either/or" or "yes/but" conversation, so that we're left (perhaps, by implication)(serious as the implication is): "therefore nothing" will save us.
To try to state it succintly: On the one hand, we have work such as that done by Engineer Poet, on technology and "technology plus greater system design", which looks quite nice. (Nov. 29)
On the other hand - (or, perhaps better put)- at the same time, we have Jeavons (if I understand it properly), namely, efficiency gains overwhelmed by greater use. And, at the same time, we have human population growth, as outlined by Bartlett and others. This would be on one level.
So, my question is: Can we figure out a way to address these issues in tandem when we try to look toward mitigation and/or solutions? ("Solutions" almost is too narrow a word - "paths" might do it.)... As opposed to immediately holding them in opposition. Yes, they come to us, in a sense, as "opposites".
Must they remain so when we look at what we (humanity) faces in terms of the (general) prospect of declining energy inputs from the physical world?
I started off asking in a kind of theoretical way.
Another way to say it might be to paraphrase "No taxation without representation". We would have: "No technological innovation without energy conservation" or "No technological innovation without population mitigation".
From here, perhaps we could talk more specifically.
Looking back, I notice Roger Arnold said something along the same lines, (however, referring to the "rabid anti-tech" folks, which really, I would say is somewhat of a generalization when referring to TOD posters - my take on it, is the sheer horror one can envision, not that one is anti-tech...) In any case, I would like to quote Roger,
"Any proposal that aims to avoid collapse and catastrophic die-off will necessarily involve quite a bit of enlightened technology".
Perhaps a different way of thinking, as well.
I would say AND not "or".
Unfortunately realistic approaches are not "sexy" and it seems much too late to "avoid collapse and catastrophic die-off", only mitigation can be hoped for.
- In the long term, we have to turn to the sun as our only better-than-break-even fusion furnace that actually works.
- In the short term, we have the problem of the emotional, irrational human brain and how it has been programmed over history to be what it is today.
IMHO we can't get to step one until we first fix part two.That's a captivating thought.. 'No tech innovation without conservation (mitigation)'.. I am looking at it as less of a legislative proposition than as a restating of EROEI. Just as StepBack described the already obvious advantages of using Solar Energy's already-functional Fusion Source, we look at all the tinkering and investing we are doing (and I have stated that I encourage research in Fusion) to get 'our own supply' of that power source. It just reminds me that this research will get more and more costly as energy costs rise, and will affect our willingness to 'chase horses that we may never catch'.
Bob
Of course, the other reasons also apply: all the low-hanging fruit has been picked etc.
They're not "side effects". They're effects. They are effects other than the one you are after, the one you are selling, but they are very real and potent. Nothing "side" about it.
Just another debasement of the language.
- sgage
All medications do have side effects, but you have to balance the risks with the benefits.
The regulations involved in a medical study, insurance, ethics commitees ans such are what have driven up the costs.
Also drug companies fudge numbers a little to make themselves look less profitable. Saves on taxes. No source, just conversations I've had with MD's and drug reps.
Seriously though our chemistry and genetics advances are making things that were impossible a decade ago look simple.
matt
What genetic advances are you speaking of? When I was in medical school in the mid 90's, I worked my butt off studying all the molecular genetic stuff bc/ we were told in 5 to 10 years we'd all be using molecular genetics on a regular basis. In the mid 1990's there were a total of two young girls with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome (SCIDS) that had been successfully treated with "gene therapy". Today those two are still the only two people successfully treated in this way. We know a lot more about the genetic links of diseases but I'm skeptical that it's had much of an impact on the success of disease treatment.
Gene therapy is one sliver of the use of genetics in medicine.
If we can tell couple their potential children are at risk for X disease and they should adopt or screen their fetus that is a genetic success.
We identified the virus that causes cervical cancer and made a vaccine.
New complex crap hits the ED's and ambulances every week and I assume from that the rest of the medical community also. Less people can afford good health care but our tech and science is progressing at a good pace.
What kind of medicine do you practice?
matt
I'd say the two biggest advances in my field in the last couple decades are botox for spasticity after stroke, spinal cord injury, MS, etc. and computer-controlled prosthetic joints.
Botox is incredibly expensive, can only be used for a small area or specific problem, is potentially fatal if dosed improperly and probably isn't much more effective than tried and true methods such as physical therapy, ultrasound, serial casting and phenol motor point denervation. Botox certainly has its advantages in some ways bc/ it acts much quicker than therapy and modalities and unlike phenol, it is reversible. It also seems to have the additional benefit of reducing pain. But the end result is probably only a marginal improvement over the old methods with the added twist of the possibility of an accidental, fatal overdose and at much greater cost- botox is hundreds of dollars per dose, phenol pennies per dose.
Computer controlled joints (so far only available for knee joints) are indeed a dramatic improvement for very high functioning, young amputees but they usually cannot be used by the majority of amputees in the US- diabetics and the elderly. Again, consider the cost- $10,000 for what had previously been the best on the market vs. $40,000.
These two cases, sadly, are probably the two biggest breakthroughs in my field in the last 20 years. That's the best we have to offer.
We also have to consider more fully the point you alluded to. Fewer and fewer people can afford health care. So we've got these incredibly expensive new treatments that are only marginally better than the previous methods but are so expensive that they help to price more and more people out of health care. It's the law of diminishing returns coupled with the law of unintended consequences.
Pearl GTL - Shell's planned GTL plant in Ras Laffan, Qatar
Bloomberg reported that the estimated capital cost of this plant has tripled to $18 billion, or about $130,000 per bpd of liquids production, not counting operating costs and not counting the cost (however it is allocated) of acquiring the natural gas feedstock.
If memory serves, Shell is looking at $100,000 plus per bpd capital costs for their Canadian tar sand project.
These examples again illustrate the exploding cost of "Going to the Endpoints" in search of Liquid Transportation Fuels (LTF's).
Fossil fuels can be viewed as a continuum, from natural gas to NGL's, condenate, light/sweet crude, heavy/sour crude, bitumen and coal.
In regard to obtaining LTF's, we get the most bang for the buck--maximum LTF's and least capital and energy cost--from light/sweet crude. The capital and energy cost goes up as we move toward the "Endpoints." A key point to keep in mind is that we are just talking about increasing our rate of consumption of finite fossil fuels, in an attempt to keep the supply of LTF's growing.
$100,000 per BPD??!?!?!
I have no idea the actual numbers, but if we assume $30 in actual costs (mining the coal, processing it, etc..) and a sale price of $60, that would give us $30 profit.
$100,000/$30 = 3,334 days till payoff. That's 9.1 years.
That's crazy!!
$18 billion?!?! The Big Dig in Boston only cost 14.6 billion.
Garth
Wooops!
My mistake.
I couldn't find the article on the Shell website, but I wonder how long they are anticipating it will take to build the project? These things always seem to take longer and cost more then expected.
It's definitly indicative of the increasing complexity required to keep producing Oil.
All for 140,000 bpd.
Garth
The term Perfect Storm is overused, but that is what we are headed for, especially on the personnel side, as we try (literally) everything under the sun in a desperate attempt to keep the cars driving to and from suburban mortgages.
Alan Drake's solution: http://www.familyoldphotos.com/tx/2c/chadbourne_street_trolley_san_an.htm
Best line of the day! My brother-in-law is in the mortage business, and he has clients who refinance their homes to draw out equity, spend it all, then refinance again, MULTIPLE times! It's still going on, but at a much lower pace due to the collapse of housing prices.
-- Dave
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=qatar&FC3=/qatar/html/iwgen/qatar_shell_gtl_project/q atar_shell_gtl_project_22092003_1430.html&FC2=/qatar/html/iwgen/leftnavs/zzz_lhn4_0_0.html
The $18 billlion number was from this article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aFO7SoR7s3w0&refer=latin_america
(Malaysian) Govt launches solar energy panel programme for homes
The more thing change the more they stay the same.
The Dumbocrats are pissing all over themselves on the energy issue so far. They are already ruling out nukes, offshore, Anwar, and stomping on the ethanol acccelerator. Nitwit Reid wants to decomission Yucca. I realize its not perfect but where is? Have you ever been out by Yucca there is nothing there!
But don't worry I see ethanol plants from coast to coast with 2-3 times the processing capacity compared to the grain available. A total cluster#### of wasted investment.....but I know I'm wrong because all our problems have really gone away now that the Dems are going to be in control! We trade the sneaky Repubs for the mentally impaired Dems. How is it possible to be going backwards on energy evolution and preparedness?
It surely is their game to lose, at this point, but at least there is a CHANCE that they will listen to public opinions regarding the alternatives that do and don't look workable.
As with the Repub's, I think the Dem's are also almost completely paralyzed by the motto about 'People not being able to hear anything that is contradictory to their paycheck', as in the Corporate influence in all branches of Gov't now. (Which, intended or not, is of course, Fascism)
I am hopeful that we can paint a picture for them that shows how much job-growth and economic/energy security could be had with a buildout of RE businesses in the US. I would also look at ways to get federal attention onto RE investments in a 'Silver BB's' way, with programs in diverse Gov't departments (FEMA, Nat'l Guard) that can improve their own budget outlooks by improving their energy profiles (efficiency, alt sources, etc).. It was great to hear about Mil Bases in Iraq that are installing wind-turbines for supplemental power. The boots on the ground HAVE to be practical, and word of that is going to get around. WIND power for the ARMY in IRAQ! There's a silver BB for you!
signed, Disgusted, but Hopeful..
Bob Fiske
My prediction from years ago: Yucca Mountain is a taxpayer-funded ultimate shelter and storage facility for some elites in the ensuing postPeak chaos. From WIKI:
--------------------------
On July 18, 2006 the DOE agreed upon March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste.
--------------------------
What a load of doo-doo!
We will be far past Peakoil by this time, but if not, TPTB will delay the waste acceptance schedule accordingly. Time will tell.
BTW, I am all in favor of it if Yucca will truly hold the accumulated knowledge of mankind, irreplacable tools, and heirloom seeds with a monastery-like social order to protect these essentials at all costs.
But I think it is more likely that eventually the seeds will be eaten, and the books burned. Such is life.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob,
Have you been reading 'A Canticle for Leibowitz'?
Garth
I am thinking further ahead than that due to my 'dark mood' today [Leanan's Drumbeat links didn't help brighten my mood]: Hopefully, future advanced cockroach miners/archeologists will make great use of what tooling is left inside Yucca.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
First of all, the facility doesn't even exist. Iogen has been talking about building a facility in Idaho, but none exists. Furthermore, what Iogen has actually demonstrated is that they get 70 gallons per ton.
Finally, let's run some numbers. Wheat straw has an energy content of about 21 MMBTU/ton. 524 gallons of ethanol has an energy content of 524 (76,000) = 39.8 MMBTU. So, Salazar definitely doesn't know what he is talking about. If you had a magical machine that converted 100% of the wheat straw's energy content into ethanol with no energy inputs whatsoever, the best you could possibly get is 276 gallons. But since we know there are huge energy inputs, and we also know that cellulose is not the major component in biomass, the actual yields are much lower. Again, Iogen gets 70 gallons per ton.
Do you have a source for Salazar's comments?
The Federal Aviation Administration defines gasoline as 6lbs per gallon, Jet Fuel as 6.7lbs per gallon Diesel fuel as 9.24 lbs per gal. Water is 8.3lbs per gallon
so if ethanol is most like gasoline:
2,000 pounds of wheatstraw produces (524*6) or 3,144 pounds of gasoline???
Fascinating.
WHAAAAAT?
Beware, the "fuel" you seem to be using just behaves the opposite way: it is stronger if you don't add water!
Bush May End Drilling Ban in Alaskan Bay
Alan
Producers strain to supply growing wind power market
STOCKHOLM - There is an inexhaustible supply of wind to drive their blades, but materials needed to make wind turbines are limited and the industry fears it will fail to keep pace with growing demand for the clean energy source..."
And Silicon prices up 500% this past year...
(you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking...)
Wonderful... maybe the world should boycott Iranian energy until the Iranians get rid of the Koresh-like Cult running their country....
And maybe Santa will fly outta my arse this december 25th.
Oh wait, the crack addict is an addict and can't help himself. Unfortunately, there is no Betty Ford clinic for oil addicted societies.
"Unfortunately, there is no Betty Ford clinic for oil addicted societies. "
And too bad it's too late to try to wean the addicts off their Oil habit.
The alternative infrastructure is already bursting at the seams and we've just barely started to tap alternatives (see solar and wind industry bottlenecks).
It looks like the only alternative will be cold-turkey - but only AFTER we finish selling our souls to the crack dealers.
But how will he get the gas to the EU? Will he pipe it to russia and use their pipes from there on, or will they ship it as LNG.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I agree. Not only are they playng the EU against the US, but also against Russia by offering Iranian gas as an alternative to gas supplied by a growling Russian bear.
The question is how desperate is the EU?
If only Iran behaved like (predominately muslim) kazakhstan. Imagine the potential of an Iran run by peaceful leaders instead of religious zealots on a apocalyptic mission.
"We Americans have grown to depend on winter crops from California and Florida," Coleman told me over a bowl of Damrosch's hot, creamy butternut squash soup. "We've built highways and transport systems to get them to market; we even subsidize the water for irrigation. And it's our taxes that are paying."
Alarmed at the explosion of industrially produced food that is being labeled organic, Coleman says, "If you know the first name of your farmer, then the food you buy can be labeled organic--and authentic."
http://www.chelseagreen.com/1992/items/fourseasonharvest/AssociatedArticles
I had mentioned seeing some Maine Gardener commenting on how he was Growing enough produce in Fall Winter and Spring to take his Summers off. I don't know if Eliot Coleman takes summers off or not, but these articles provide some positive directions on how to keep eating well throughout the year.
This site has some great photography of the industrialized world by Edward Burtynsky.
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/
He also has a documentary on how the rapid industrialization in China has altered their landscape.
To the left of the screen under "WORKS" are some of his still photography. Even a section on Oil.
Maybe not pleasant views, but thought provoking...
Greg in MO
Big thxs for this link--the black tailings dump photos with the blood-red streams make the apocolyptic scenes in the the Cal Gov. "Terminator' movies look pretty lush and verdant in comparison!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/implications_fo.php
"John T. James of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, and his colleagues squirted nano-particles into the respiratory tracts of mice and then examined the rodents after 1 week and after 3 months. Although soot-like carbon nano-spheres caused no harm, an equal mass of commercially available carbon nano-tubes wreaked significant lung damage, even killing a few animals. In one especially graphic effect, immune system cells called macrophages trapped nano-tubes but then died. The ensuing inflammation scarred lung tissue by creating patches, called granulomas, that entombed the nano-tubes".
Un the late 40's research showed damage to apes, and buckyballs + fish don't work out well for the fish.
(and remember the data showing the effects on smoke (a nanoparticle) on human health.
Lots of natural and comercial dusts are horrible for our lungs. We have little hairlike cilia that operate a mucous escalator up our respiratory tracks and then we swallow or cough it up. Too much and the lungs ability to clean itself are overcome. Don't smoke..... wear a respirtator.
I like to eat cottage cheese but if you squirt it in your respiratory tract its bad. (no test, but I am guessing)
matt
I am "guessing" that cottage cheese doesn't turn easily to nano-particles which can be breathed in unknowlingly like asbestos.
I am also "guessing" that if the "little hairlike cilia that operate a mucous escalator" could not get rid of the nano-particles in the respiratory tracts of mice it's because they are not effective at the scale of nano-particles just like they failed to clean up asbestos.
Asbestos is bad because it puntures the alveoli (sac-like structures at the most distant portion of your lung) and damages the mesothelium (lining of your chestwall) hence asbestos causes mesothelioma.
You can't perform a scientific test on a product through extrapolation. The mice or chimps should be exposed to realistic amounts of a product for an extended period of time then examined. A simple high dose approach may provide better or worse results and the data has little value.
However, as much as we know about other dust exposure it is easy to say wear a NIOSH HEPA respirator.
matt
When nanotech products will be all over the place, that will be nice to see everybody with a respirator, instead of just some Japanese.
Plus that will be VERY GOOD for the economy, tremendously expanding the market for respirators.
And this will be HIGH TECH respirators, able to filter nano-particles, what a wonderful world!
Time to invest...
I don't know what you do for a living but I work in industrial safety and have some grasp on this topic.
Do you realize how bad air quality is right now in most cities and workplaces?
Protesting nanoparticles is like worrying about rollerblading accidents in Darfur. Yes children could fall and bust their skulls but there are much more pressing threats.
NO!
There is a big difference, once done it will be an IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE, like so many we have already committed.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I knife is a great tool but it is sharp and can cut you. When we make things that are (sharp, radioactive, caustic,acidic, etc) we just need to be aware of this property and treat the item accordingly.
What a clever argument!
Will your own death be "reversible"?
CRETIN!
Energy quality degradation known as entropy increase is in ALL CASES irreversible.
So whenever anyone speaks of reversibility it ALWAYS means reversibility of SOME CONDITION, not EVERY condition or state involved in the process of interest.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Sorry to contradict an "expert", since you are one may be you have some idea about how to REVERSE such pollution : Plastics 'poisoning world's seas'?
The case of nanoparticles is just similar except WORSE, it will be even more difficult to deal with by some mitigation, never to be reversed.
And it will impact, directly or indirectly, EVERYONE on earth including Darfur survivors.
I knife is a great tool but it is sharp and can cut you. When we make things that are (sharp, radioactive, caustic,acidic, etc) we just need to be aware of this property and treat the item accordingly.
Yeah! Easily done, just dont let a flood spill the garbage all around like it happened in New-Orleans, or moronic technology spout radioactive detritus thousand miles away like in Chernobyl, or avoid careless uses of non biodegradable drugs.
The last case may appear silly but vultures used to provide COSTLESS garbage removal, and may be "cost" arguments are the only ones that morons like you can grasp.
So not only are we running short of ressources but we are also choking in our own excrements.
People who keep cheering on our senseless "spread" all over each and every inch of "livable" space are just DESPICABLE SHIT.
They will drown in the shit as well as everyone else but that is no solace.
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_ent.html?id=c373e9fbc903d2e08f6a4fd8fe800100
Alas, I could nnot find the page that claimed monkey research showed nanoparticle travel from nerve ending into the brain done in the 1940's.
Cottage cheese has a demonstrated history of breakdown in bodies. Nanoparticles do not. The substance can be dangerpous like Beryllium, thus actual research into the effect should continue VS claiming its like cottage cheese.
yes research is great, but realistic research. My cottage cheese point is if you inject it in someones lungs they will aspirate and get pnuemonia. This does not mean cottage cheese is bad. Lungs are for oxygen intake at normal atmosphere everything else is a pollutant. Most drugs that work well this route are treating the reusults of other pollutants.
My advice...wear a respirator when working with dust.
matt
I have actually attended permaculture workshops, think it's great, etc. But on the above I Call B.S!
https:/www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html
Oil Consumption: 205,000 bbl/day (2003 est.)
Nat. Gas Consumption: 704 million cu m (2004)
The real (moving towards) sustainable country is North Korea!
https:
/www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.htmlOil Consumption: 25,000 bbl/day (2003)
Nat. Gas Consumption: 0 cu m (2003 est.)
Just has to shave 30%-40% more of the population off and they'll be there. A lot of happy talkers on this board think that the peak oil enviro-paradise world will be a nice place full of happy politically correct people, tasty organic food, solar panels, and no republicans :). I think the North Korea example is about as close as it gets currently to a real world example of what the peak oil future holds, mainly because they consume almost no oil.
They bought used trams from Switzerland at their end of life (by Swiss standards) and installed track by hand. Ultra primitive installation (soldiers using hand files to smoothly fit rail to rail due to slack production tolerances).
But it works,
Best Hopes for not becoming too much like the People's Republic of Korea.
Switzerland used 27,000 tonnes of oil in 1945, almost exactly PRK use, but for 4.5 million people. I MUCH prefer the Swiss model for deep post-Peak Oil !
Best Hopes,
Alan
Who is saying it will be a paradise? Politically Correct? Republican-Free? You add that on to Solar and Organic as if the fringe-left has claimed them for their own, like the Right decided it was the definitively Patriotic and Morally Upright 'side' of the country.
Who took Carter's panels off the White House, anyway? (I think they ended up in Maine!)
Ok, maybe you're right.
Without oil?
Bah. Long before 'we' are 'out of oil' the effects on fiat economies without the energy input of cheap oil and the reactions of a few to the end of $3.00 gasoline will be the issue.
(it only takes 'one person reacting 'badly' to the result in you being shot over your wallet or being out of line in the gas queue.)
You forgot 'Humbug'..
I was not saying there would BE no oil, just that you can live without having to buy it, and can grow food, have communities without oil inputs. Not saying it's easy, per se, and it is meant to allude to people around the world who have long-since lived without ready access to an oil infrastructure, and have managed to continue on..
But do you have any other direction you might take this other than the 'inevitable descent into gunslinging'? Some of this happens and will continue to happen, but this gun's-a-blazing fear fantasy is a squeaky wheel that gets way too much attention, and affects your ability to either imagine or set up the conditions for other outcomes to be possible.
Millions of N. Koreans have died from starvation from Soviet withdrawl of oil and fertilizers. They had severe storms which destroyed crops. It got so bad N. Korean citizens fled to the chinese border area and lived in basements so they could get some rice. The result is they are shorter, less inteligent and generally "stunted" due to the low calorie and nutrient intake.
Now on to Cuba. The Soviet collapse led to the same sort of problems for cuban agriculture. In the first years people were losing weight, the cuban collectives that were somewhat productive with imported oil and fertilizers became marginal at best after the withdrawl of fuel and fertilizer. The government, realizing that more food needed to be grown outside of the collectives,allowed people to farm land near the city. Small privately rented(cheap)parcels of land began to out produce the state collectives. However, the Cubans only produce 70% of the food they consume, the other 30% is from american grains, wheat, rice, etc. Even with the drastic remodeling of their agricultural practive to permaculture they are still deficient!