DrumBeat: December 8, 2006
Posted by threadbot on December 8, 2006 - 10:40am
Earth is too crowded for Utopia
The global population is higher than the Earth can sustain, argues the Director of the British Antarctic Survey in the first of a series of environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green Room. Solving environmental problems such as climate change is going to be impossible without tackling the issue, he says.
The U.S. Government Intends to Win the War in Iraq
For the U.S. to cut and run in the age of Peak Oil would mean the death knell for the U.S. economy, and the sad truth is that Peak Oil will ultimately bring down the U.S. economy even with U.S. control of Iraqi oil and strategic petroleum distribution. But if China, Russia, India, or other nations are able to siphon ultimate control of Iraqi and Persian Gulf oil for themselves as the international competition for remaining petroleum escalates, the U.S. will not only be a very sore loser, but a very, very dangerous one.
Gasoline prices likely to go higher
A drop in prices from earlier this year appears to be propping up demand for gasoline. In the four weeks ended Dec. 1, average gasoline demand was up 1.6% from a year ago. Gas demand is up 1% in 2006 from 2005.That's "pretty incredible demand considering half the roads (in the USA) are icy," [analyst Phil] Flynn says.
Report Says Oil Royalties Go Unpaid
An eight-month investigation by the Interior Department’s chief watchdog has found pervasive problems in the government’s program for ensuring that companies pay the royalties they owe on billions of dollars of oil and gas pumped on federal land and in coastal waters.
Congress urged to close oil royalty loophole
House Democratic lawmakers on Thursday urged the Republican-controlled Congress to punish oil companies that won't renegotiate faulty drilling leases issued by the government almost a decade ago that have allowed companies to avoid paying billions in oil and gas royalties.
MMS Issues $32 Million Royalty Bill to BP
Rising sea level big concern along S.C.
The rising ocean is "going to shave off a ton of landscape along the coast," which could drown marshes that act as buffers for storm surge, raising the likelihood of major flooding when the next hurricane hits, said Jim Morris, marine studies professor at the University of South Carolina and director of its Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences.
Rising Interest in Nuclear Power Brings New Life to Uranium Mining
Review of ISA's nuclear energy balance report
Australia's review of the nuclear industry has been published in draft form for feedback. The report takes its energy balance and GHG emissions data from a report it commissioned from ISA at University of Sydney. This article looks at the ISA report.
U.S. economic forecast for 2007: cooling off but no recession
Still, oil prices are unlikely to do anything but rise in the long term as demand increases and easily pumped oilfields are drained, a phenomenon known as "Peak Oil.""Expected growth rates in emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil would indicate that oil prices should continue to rise," [JP Morgan Chase's chief investment officer Peter] Wall said. "These countries and many other emerging economies are still well below their projected peak energy consumption levels -- based on the consumption levels of developed economies -- so growth in energy demand is expected to outpace growth in supply. That doesn't mean we won't see intermittent declines in oil prices."
Memories of 1929 - Part III - "Confidence!"
A soft housing market, soft manufacturing, a falling dollar, rising inflation, recession on the way, negative savings rate, increasing debts, an aging baby boom population, peak oil and, the granddaddy of them all, global warming? Clearly, none of this matters or the Dow wouldn't be at a record high.
Security firms flock to rich, risky Mideast
MANAMA: From the makers of bullet-proof glass to counter-terrorism experts, stall-holders at a security fair in Bahrain say booming economies and growing instability have made the Middle East their biggest earner.
Ecological Violations Halt Sakhalin-2 Work
Work was stopped at Royal Dutch Shell's US$20-billion oil and gas project off Russia's Pacific coast after ecological authorities on Thursday said they had revoked 12 licenses for the project.
U.K.: North Sea Tax Exemption to Boost Oil, Gas Exploration
The UK government has exempted abandoned North Sea gas fields which have undergone redevelopment and became productive again from the petroleum revenue tax.
Weekly Offshore Rig Review: Jackups Locked In
As 2006 draws to a close, we are going to be looking forward at the prospects for the major segments of the offshore rig fleet in the coming years. We will start by examining the current level of future contracted time for the competitive jackup fleet and then comparing those numbers across the leading offshore drilling contractors' fleets.
Exxon Spends Millions to Cast Doubt on Warming
The world's largest energy company is still spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund European organisations that seek to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming and undermine support for legislation to curb emission of greenhouse gases.
U.K.: Dependence on foreign oil to rise 'eightfold' by 2030
UK Teenagers' Gadgets are Big Energy Wasters - Survey
LONDON - Teenagers in Britain who leave computer games and other gadgets on standby mode are wasting over 100 million pounds worth of energy a year, enough to power London's underground train system for 12 months, according to a survey commissioned by British Gas.
South Africa to develop biofuel
The country's Cabinet has approved a draft industrial strategy for biofuel, which will focus on using excess crop production and expanding the use of underutilized arable land, the government spokesman Themba Maseko said on Thursday.
Pakistan: With edible oil sources going in fuel tanks, what would people consume?
“The competition between supermarket and corner filling stations is increasing in the world particularly in western countries, and farms can not feed people and their vehicles at a time which ultimately make more to go hungry,” Professor Ishaq Head of Economics Department at local university said.
Canada's oil sands industry: Made in China?
This raises the convoluted possibility that, in order to satisfy China's energy needs, China plans to build oil sands extraction rigs and ship them to Canada, where they will produce oil which in turn will be sent back to China, where it will no doubt power the further expansion of China's industrial infrastructure.
Russia's East Siberia: from Gulag to oil frontier
VANKOR FIELD, Russia - Half a century ago, Josef Stalin banished his foes to labor camps in East Siberia. Now volunteers are lining up to drill the frozen wastelands for their vast reserves of oil.
Nigerian militants claim oil attack, threaten more
ABUJA (Reuters) - A Nigerian militant group, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), has claimed responsibility for a raid on an oil export terminal on Thursday in which four expatriate workers were kidnapped.MEND, which staged a series of attacks on the oil industry in February that shut down a fifth of Nigeria's production capacity, threatened to launch more attacks within days.
Oil analysts say deregulation will increase players
As China deregulates oil products and crude oil wholesaling in line with its WTO commitments, analysts foresee an accelerated opening-up of the local oil market.
John Michael Greer: Solstice 2100: Q&A
I think it was in ’59 that Bonney had all the solar engines moved to army bases and government factories, and not long after that the little bit of power we got from the dams down in Tennessee got requisitioned too. All the coal was going to the military by then, too, turned into fuel for tanks and planes, and during the Mexican war everything that could be made into fuel was requisitioned and used up. I haven’t seen coal for sale here in twenty years — not that any decent person would use it, mind you. Earth Mother deserves better from us than that.
The 12 Step Programme for Breaking Oil Dependency - a useful tool for powerdown groups
Al Gore on DVD: The Truth Will Set You Free
Can we grow our way out of an energy crisis?
OZARK - Missouri's Mark Twain popularized the phrase, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics."That is exactly what a prominent researcher says about the nation's current rush to embrace corn ethanol as an alternative fuel. And, he's not alone.
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.
Ron Patterson
Poor production and demand? I suppose some traders are saying it poor production and others are saying it is poor demand. But that doesn't make any sense. If demand were down, prices would be falling instead of rising. So I will put my money on poor production.
Ron Patterson
Based on my HL plot, the remaining recoverable North Sea C+C reserves are about 18 Gb.
Based on Deffeyes' HL plot, the remaining recoverable World (conventional) C+C reserves are about 1,000 Gb (as of 1/1/06).
So, based on the HL plots, the North Sea represents 1.8% of remaining world (conventional) URR, while it currently represents about 5.5% of world C+C production. Notice a disconnect here? This is why North Sea production is dropping rapidly.
In round numbers, the four current super giants and the North Sea account, or accounted for about 15 mpbd of production, or about 20% of current world C+C production. The only question is Ghawar. The other three super giants and the North Sea are in decline or crashing. IMO, Ghawar is in decline or crashing, given the best case that the production stream is one-third water.
IMO, it is therefore a virtual certainty that 20% of world production is in a long term, and probably rapid, terminal decline. This doesn't mean that these are the only declining fields/provinces. It means that these four super giants and the North Sea are critically important to world oil supplies--and they are dying.
Sorry WT, but I cannot agree with you here. If the Senior Vice President of ARAMCO says Ghawar is in decline then by God Ghawar is in decline. Nay, Ghawar is crashing.
Ghawar peaked in 1981 at 5,694,000 barrels per day. (Source: Oil & Gas Journal) Two years later Saudi began to dramatically cut back on production because of the Iran-Iraq war and the ensuing tanker wars. Then in 1991 Saudi began to ramp production back up again, but by 1994 could only get Ghawar production back up to 5,000,000 barrels per day. (Source SPE #57322) Now we have reports that Ghawar is producing much less.
The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that Ghawar is crashing. Why do we continue to question that obvious fact?
Ron Patterson
Because some people have Massive Delusions that depend on questioning this obvious fact?
Don't worry Darwinian, be happy.
There is plenty of time for technologies to be developed, and for changes infrastructure for alternatives to oil, and there are plenty more dollars to be printed and gullible internationals to borrow us more money...
We are in T1.
I think we just need someone to announce it on Culture Narcissist Networks to make it official.
Ron, I agree with you, but the problem is that the operators of the other three super giants have acknowledged that they are in decline or crashing, and the North Sea decline--precisely as the HL model predicts--is self-evident.
Until the Saudis specifically acknowledge, what is in IMO the decline/crash of Ghawar, I still have to slightly hedge my remarks, because I can't prove that Ghawar is in decline or crashing. (The Saudis could argue that infill wells in existing fields could offset the declines from existing wellbores.)
But I am still literally astonished that Oil Patch types are predicting rising production given the evidence that production from the Big Four and the North Sea is nose-diving.
WT,
I check in a few times just to see what you're saying due to the respect you've garnered around here. I've got one answer for you though and it's from your mouth actually.
You've always talked about how the East Texas Oil patch was being drilled like crazy following the RR Commisions decision to remove the quotas. Everyone drilled like crazy and the information verifying Hubbert was established. Less oil was produced. Aggregate world peak is no different, so the views of those in the oil patch should also be similar. I would expect the same/similar reaction as the one over 30 years ago. Ive been taking a lot of sociology and psych courses for electives. I've learned that human action is truly at the center of economics, but it took psych and sociology to connect the dots.
A little bit of a clarification. The East Texas Field was fully developed in 1972--actually way over drilled--but it did show a final (lower secondary) peak at the same time that overall Texas production peaked. East Texas is to Texas as Ghawar is to Saudi Arabia.
The Texas RRC went to a 100% allowable (with a couple of exceptions, one of them being the East Texas Field) in 1972, which allowed Texas operators to produce at 100% of the maximum efficient recovery rate.
From 1970 to 1980, oil prices went up by about 1,000%. Overall Texas drilling surged, increasing the number of producing wells by 14% from 1972 to 1982, while production dropped by about 30% over the same time period.
My understanding is that the porosity and permiability of Ghawar is relatively unique; but there must be other fieds with similar geologic structures which may have a documented production history that might be used to confirm inferences with regard to Ghawar.
I think that Ghawer is at about the same stage of depletion, as a percentage of Original Oil In Place, at which Yibal started crashing.
Ron, such hyperbole does a disservice to your namesake. Is this how Darwin made his case? Did he quote-mine his way to convincing the scientific establishment? No, he built a meticulous case. He was very careful with the evidence he presented, and he wasn't dogmatic.
As has been pointed out already, for those who click on the link, they will find that this is not what he said. That is your version of what he said, and as I argued before, your interpretation is incorrect. Here, let's look at actual statements:
Existing fields. Those decline even in countries whose overall production is increasing, since new fields tend to be brought online. Furthermore, it suggests that they have successfully been bringing on 500,000 to 1 million new bpd year after year (plus some, since production has increased in recent years). Finally, note the other comments:
So, Ghawar is crashing, yet they are going to increase production? Do you think if Ghawar was crashing, they would actually be talking about increasing production. Now, I know many here don't trust them, but even the notion of increasing production if Ghawar is crashing is a bit much even for them. Don't you think?
Ghawar peaked in 1981 at 5,694,000 barrels per day. (Source: Oil & Gas Journal)
Of course Saudi closed the doors on scrutiny of their oil operations in 1982. So, seriously, we don't have good information on what's gone on since then. Plus, given your above misquote, I would prefer to see the original information in context. We do know that they have increased production in recent years.
Now we have reports that Ghawar is producing much less.
A interesting thing about that. I can't take credit for being the first to notice this, but if Ghawar is down some 2 million bpd as reported, that means they were able to open up the taps on 2 million bpd of additional production. I think you underestimate what they are capable of, given what they have already demonstrated.
The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that Ghawar is crashing. Why do we continue to question that obvious fact?
Because we want people to take us seriously? I mean, if the goal is to convince TOD readers that the end of the world is upon us, that's one thing. Many are here because they already believe this, so you really won't be called upon for much evidence. But that's not my goal. My goal is to convince policy makers that the time is short and we need to quickly implement measures to conserve what oil we still have. The latter requires credibility, which is earned by carefully making a sound case (as your namesake did).
I would ask you, Ron, to consider your future influence if the Saudis do increase production. Think about credibility here. You want people to listen to you, but they won't if the Saudis increase production and you keep saying they can't. You know that their oil operations are not transparent, so it would be wise to avoid dogmatic statements.
NO Robert, that is exactly what he said! He said existing fields. Ghawar is an existing field. I am astounded that you think it can be interperted in any other way. They need 500,000 to 1,000,000 million barrels per day of new production just to keep even. They recently brought on 300,000 barrels per day of new production in Haradh but that did not stem the decline. Just prior to that, 600,000 barrels per day of new production was brought on line from Shaybah and that bearley kept them even in 2005.
But they have never since reached the peak point of 1980 or even the production they reached in 1981, the year Ghawar peaked. After resting Ghawar for over a decade they were not able to get it back to its 1981 peak. And again Robert, there was no misquote on my part. And as for the original source of the data, Simmons says it comes from The Oil & Gas Journal, various issues 1950--1882. Now you I take Simmons' word for it.
I think it entirely possible that Ghawar is down below 4 million barrels per day. And I think it possible that Saudi is also inflating their current production. In fact I also have inside sources that tell me that this is exactly the case. But because that source is still employed in Saudi Arabia, I am not at liberty to comment further on that.
Robert, I am saying the same thing that Deffeyes is saying. I am saying the same thing that Simmons is saying. I am saying that we are currently at the peak. I am saying that it is highly likely that December of 2005 was likely the peak month but at any case we are at the peak of world oil production right now.
We have several other people on this list saying the very same thing. But if it is your wish Robert, that everyone on this list preach the same line, that we all pull our punches, then just say so. If this list has an official line, a line of which none of us are allowed to step over, then just say so.
I fully realize that I am putting my reputation on the line. Simmons says he is staking his career on what he wrote in Twilight and on the statements he has made since. Well, I do not have a career to lose but I think I know about as much about Saudi Arabian oil production as anyone on this list, having spent 5 years there myself and have a very close relative there now and has been there since 1991. (He is not an oilfield engineer but many of his Thursday night partying buddies are. And I know what they are telling him.) Yes, I fully realize I am staking my reputation on what I am saying about Saudi Arabia. That is just how strongly I feel about it.
I believe, with every fiber of my being, that Saudi Arabian reserves are grossely over estimated. I believe the same thing about all Middle Eastern reserves. Therein lies the greatest danger of all. Wall Street believes those estimates, the Government believes those estimates, Yergin and CERA believes those estimates and many peak oilers on this list seem to believe those estimates. It is faith in those numbers that is inhibiting governments and markets from taking any action concerning the coming oil crisis. And you wish, Robert, that I should soft-peddle this problem? I say I will not! And if you insist that I take my concerns elsewhere because you and the other editors believe that I am shouting fire in a crowded theater then so be it. Just say so and I will be gone.
Ron Patterson
I know it is not the first time you've given this signal, but I'm always encouraged to see you holding out hope for the future.
Ron, it is simple why it must be interpreted differently. If he meant it the way you think he did, we would have been seeing their production fall for quite some time now. When he says "existing fields", nobody else is interpreting that to mean "Ghawar has peaked." They did acknowledge that it was close to half depleted. They said in the same article that they estimate they have extracted 48% of recoverable reserves. But the bottom line is that he did not say "Ghawar has peaked", and he certainly didn't say that it is crashing. Those are your words and your interpretation. To spin it any other way is hyperbole.
They recently brought on 300,000 barrels per day of new production in Haradh but that did not stem the decline. Just prior to that, 600,000 barrels per day of new production was brought on line from Shaybah and that bearley kept them even in 2005.
Isn't Shaybah an existing field? Do you think every existing field is in decline? How can you bring on new production in an existing field if existing fields are crashing? That's my whole point.
After resting Ghawar for over a decade they were not able to get it back to its 1981 peak.
How do you know? You don't. You make assertions, and call that evidence.
Robert, I am saying the same thing that Deffeyes is saying.
Believe me, I know. Deffeyes of "we are going to be back in the stone age" hyperbole. Those sorts of comments set us up for ridicule. Even if you have a case, people aren't going to take you seriously with that kind of sensationalism.
It is not only what you have to say, but how you say it and what evidence you have to back you up.
I am saying the same thing that Simmons is saying.
Simmons has said that Saudi has peaked? He has said that Ghawar has peaked? Source please. Otherwise, you are not saying the same thing. He has built a pretty good case with data. But to my knowledge, his case is still that Saudi is close to peaking.
But if it is your wish Robert, that everyone on this list preach the same line, that we all pull our punches, then just say so.
My wish is that when you punch, there is substance behind that punch. Putting your own spin on quotes and calling it fact is not the way to put substance behind your punches.
It is faith in those numbers that is inhibiting governments and markets from taking any action concerning the coming oil crisis. And you wish, Robert, that I should soft-peddle this problem?
Your approach, though, will get you nowhere. You can hard-peddle all you want, but you aren't making the case that Simmons did. You certainly aren't making the kind of case that Darwin did. You aren't making the kind of case that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren made. Study those case histories, and learn from them if you want your hard-peddling to get you to your destination.
And if you insist that I take my concerns elsewhere because you and the other editors believe that I am shouting fire in a crowded theater then so be it. Just say so and I will be gone.
Could I run you off that easily? You are saying very extraordinary things. This is OK, but extra claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, your "evidence" is very ordinary. Nobody is trying to run you off. I am trying to get you to make sure your claims are well-supported.
Ask yourself: What's my objective? Then, How can I best achieve that objective? I personally disagree that the Deffeyes approach is the way to achieve it.
The quote can be interpreted either way. Robert, you say "this suggests" that they're bringing on the amount necessary for decline. Suggests, maybe. But it's ambiguous.
As such Saudi announcements tend to be.
You're both reading tea leaves, it seems to me.
No disrespect intended!
Well, then change suggest to "this means". After all, their production is not falling by a million barrels per year, which it would be if their existing fields were crashing at that rate.
My objection is that Ron is making claims like "that is exactly what he said" and "Ghawar is crashing." It was not exactly what he said, so this is hyperbole. That is just one example. I am just asking him to be careful with his claims, as hyperbole can get us stereotyped as crackpots. If we are stereotyped, we lose our ability to influence.
Isn't it TRAGIC that we can't know more with more certainty what the state of OUR MOST IMPORTANT ENERGY "SOURCE" IS? Not that the Saudi's in particular are "our" most important supplier, but that, overall, our information is so flawed.
My God man, have you read "Twilight in the Desert"? That was the main theme behind the whole book. All my figures came from that book. The 1981 figures and the 1994 figures came from that book. I quoted his sources. Simmons wrote the book in 1984 but every page in the book points to the imminent decline in Saudi oil production. And if you follow his speeches and postings since then you know he thinks that December 05 was probably the peak.
My approach is simply mine. I do not claim that Darwin would have presented his case in the same way. But if he was alive today and was looking at the evidence of Saudi and Middle East oil reserves, I really believe he would make a very similar case as I.
Robert, I believe the evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. I simply do not understand how anyone, who has examined the evidence, can believe those God-awful reserves Saudi Arabia is claiming.
Also I must point out that what one ARAMCO Vice President says about decline rates, and what another believes Saudi future production might be are two different things. They are not contradictory. Even if the first Vice President truly believed that they had 264 billion barrels of reserves, just waiting to be discovered, then they could easily ramp up to 15 billion barrels per day. Current declining fields and other untapped reserves, real or imaginary, are two different things and are not necessarily contradictory.
I am still at a loss as to how anyone can possibly disregard a senior Vice President when he says all existing fields are in decline. And worst of all, not to believe him simply because he, or someone else, thinks there are vast other fields to be found. And after all, it was the EIA who stated that 500,000 to 1,000,000 million barrels per day of new production must be found each year just to stay even. I know a lot of people at the EIA are idiots but when was the last time you saw them err on that side of the fence?
Ron Patterson
Of course I have. He is saying Saudi will peak soon. You are saying that Saudi has peaked. I am unaware that Simmons has now come out and acknowledged that Saudi has peaked. Unless you can show that he has, then no, you are not saying the same thing he is. If you think you are, show me some quotes.
I am still at a loss as to how anyone can possibly disregard a senior Vice President when he says all existing fields are in decline.
Ron, I will ask you again, since you chose not to answer. If all existing fields are in decline, how can they raise production in a existing field like Shaybah?
And you are really reaching about Shaybah. Shaybah is a new field. Though discovered in 1968, it was not put into production until 1999. But if you wish to nitpick, and obviously you do, then I will acknowledge that it is not likely that Shaybah is declining, though it might be. But the data furnished in "Twilight in the Desert" and Simmons' souces given in the book, Ghawar is clearly in decline. 5,694,000 barrels per day in 1981, which Simmons clearly labels as peak output and year and 5,000,000 in 1994 is decline by any stretch of the imigination.
Though almost 700,000 barrels per day decline in 13 years may not seem much to you, let me remind you that Saudi had cut production due to the tanker wars for over 10 years of that period. If they had continued to produce flat out, the decline would likely have been much greater during that period of time. That data is on pages 89 and 120 of the book in case you wish to check it out.
Ron Patterson
Ron, it isn't nitpicking when you make it such an emphatic point as you did:
This is the problem with sensationalistic claims. People take them seriously, when in fact the claim wasn't even correct as you now acknowledge. So, as I said, the Senior VP obviously didn't mean all existing fields. This is my point about Ghawar.
Yes you are nitpicking Robert. You should take this occasion to get real!
Ron Patterson
THe strongest evidence that sa has peaked is that production declined throughout the year even as the number of rigs has increased.
This combination of events does remind one of what happened in texas when the rrc allowed full production... as wt often reminds us. Everything is quite consistent with texan history... sa announces confidently their program to increase production, more rigs begin to drill, production declines.
Maybe sa has not peaked, nevertheless the evidence to date indicates they may well have done so. TOday they are cutting production to shore up prices... given this, how long should we give them to demonstrate that they can, indeed, increase production past 10M/d? Two years? 10?
Looking at this another way, at what price would you say the absence of sa production above 10M/d strongly suggests sa cannot produce at such a level? $80/b? $100/b? $200/b?
carrying two persons from Luzern/Switzerland to Barcelona/Spain and back. The car is a prototype, constructed by several swiss companies, including universities in Luzern und Zuerich.
It's heart is a swiss made "Zebra"-battery, developed in Germany, South Africa and England, now in production in southern Switzerland.
It has a life cycle of 200,000 - 400,000 kilometres. The ingredients are ceramics, nickel and natrium. It can be
recharged 1000 - 2000 times. The 3,000km trip to Spain trip cost 17 recharge cycles total .. Purchase includes disposal; all ingredients are recyclable.
The vehicle
Louis Palmer is a swiss adventurer who initiated this project. He is committed to fight global warming and wants to inform about GW on a global tour with an enhanced version of his electric vehicle that is to be equipped with a trailer carrying extra batteries which are recharged by solar modules during the daily trip.
Louis web site is currently not translated into English, so I thought I might summarize some of the content here.
Louis and his co-driver Heinz especially pointed out the joy of gliding through the landscape without noise or exhausts, listening to singing birds ..
Even if you can't read German you might enjoy a look at the fotos (see first link above).
Sure, it just need to be "beefed up" a little bit :
Cost? Lifecycle? Required road conditions? When the bridges are out, can it ford the stream? Ample room to wear a parka in winter?
Sure they did. The vehicle has a sort of trunk, described as "two suitcases" or a space of two suitcases size.
Road conditions - I don't know. Some pictures show the vehicle on french and spanish highways. One can easily see that it is not made for off road driving.
Ulrich Nehls
Now where are those large ultrafast-charge batteries when you need them? Oh, I was forgetting, they only "almost" exist. Maybe next year. Or the year after.
BTW as with any low-impedance lithium batteries, I would strongly advise any 'hobbyist' mucking about with these to be very careful about how you connect them up, especially in large numbers, and be very sure to take proper physical and circuit safety precautions, lest you burn down your garage, or worse. This is so even if they are as safe as the data sheet claims, due both to the large pulse current that's available, and to the conceivable possibility that they may become less safe if they are not used 'properly', e.g. charged at the correct temperature, never falling too low or reversing during discharge if they are in series, and so forth. On the Nuts and Volts fuzzy scale (sorry I find no direct link, but each project rates a number of "fuzzies"), they should earn at least a five on the scale of (IIRC) one to four.
I would expect to see some expansion of local rental offerings, hopefully of such electrics as these, and a reinvigorated bus and even train system. The current mindsets may not seem amenable to this, but I'd guess this both can and will change as it is forced to. My mother in Law, in SilverSprings MD has an 'hourly' car rental place at the METRO station, which she uses for her shopping needs. She doesn't own a car otherwise.
I just learned that you can take a 'Chinatown' bus from NYC to Boston for $15.. You can also get into a van, out at the end of the Subways in Jamaica, Long Island.. and for a dollar get into the less-walkable reaches of Queens. There are a lot of ways to get around that will be getting explored by ambitious people.
I had a recent Kafkaesque travel experience myself.
Yes, last year I had to go from Ohio to a conference in NYC. It's a 9 to 10 hour drive. I chose to fly, thinking it would be faster. It took me 10.5 hours to get there and 12 hours to get back with the check-in time, delays, etc.
To all the people who believe in "progress" and "technology", I offer travel as a counter example via this analogy:
If I had tried to go from Ohio to NYC 200 years ago, I would have had to travel by foot or on horseback. It would have taken weeks and I would have had a significant chance of serious injury or death along the way.
If I had travelled from Ohio to NYC 100 years ago by train it would have taken roughly a day- an improvement of at least 90%. My chances of death or injury would also be dramatically less.
If I had travelled from Ohio to NYC 40 years ago by car it would have taken me about 10 hours. This is about a 50% improvement over the train. My chances of death or serious injury would actually have been substantially worse than travel by train.
If I had travelled from Ohio to NYC 40 years ago by plane, it would have taken a few hours. I would have had a comfortable flight and a nice meal. My odds of death or serious injury would be very minimal, but not nearly as good as my risk on a train.
If I travel from Ohio to NYC today by car, I cannot get there any faster than in 1966. Odds are it will actually take longer given traffic congestion. My risk of death or dying is a little better than it had been 40 years ago, but it is still many times higher than it had been by the 100+ year old train technology.
If I travel from Ohio to NYC today by plane, it will definitely take me substantially longer than it would have in '66 and the flight will not be nearly as pleasant- more affordable yes but from door-to-door it will take much longer (due to check-in, delays) and be much less comfortable than the '66 flight. My odds of death or injury are very low, but are still greater than by train.
if you were to go to NYC from Ohio BY TRAIN today (I'm well-versed in the travails of "Animal-trak"), you could look forward to:
Delays
Frequent stops (delays)
Rude service (unless you can afford your own room + dining car)
Plastic food in "cafe" car
Iced-up plumbing (in winter)
Toilets (glorified outhouses) that clog, freeze and/or overflow
And smell
And further delays.
You'll have to get off in some other town because the train has been shut down
Then they shuttle you by bus to your "final destination."
And so it goes.
In case you can read German, see here (PDF, 4 pages, english literature on the last page)
What do the batteries cost and what is their power density?
I provided the link about that in my first post: http://www.solartaxi.com/zebra.htm
When you say the car has a movable steering wheel, does that mean that it can be swung from left to right, allowing for both left and right hand drive in one design?
Yes. The company is looking for test drivers, BTW, on their global tour. See http://www.solartaxi.com/join.htm (all still only in German - unfortunately ..)
Ulrich Nehls, Erlangen/Germany
I'm sorry to forget. The price is given as 12,000 Swiss Franks, which currently is roughly $10,000
One might also use Babel Fish to translate...it's rough, but you get the point... http://babelfish.altavista.com/
Ulrich Nehls
I don't have an "economic prediction" for many of the same reasons I don't have a post-peak oil prediction .... but the economic issue is a little more short term and easy to watch.
Personally, I watch employment, and would look for trouble if/when it falters. As Econbrowser shows though, even that seemingly simple measure is questioned:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/11/using_those_emp.html
Maybe you (or anybody else) can answer a question that I have had for a long time.
Where does the drop of jobs show up in the stats for the hurricanes from last year? Thousands and thousands lost their jobs, but nothing shows up.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=CES0000000001&data_tool=%22EaG%22& amp;output_view=net_1mth
Thanks in advance,
Rick
I'm watching for a dip below zero to really reinforce the housing "pop" ... be nice if we can avoid that.
The employment numbers are all based on a statistical sampling. Basically they call companies and ask for numbers. If your office was wiped out because of a Hurricane, you obviously wouldn't be answering your phone - so you don't get counted, and they move on to the next company.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_DC_WvCGCWQ8/RXiO7_ZzaZI/AAAAAAAAADc/W82WsK-le9s/s1600-h/1207-%24vix.jpg
The fear guage is poppin back up and the blood is entering the market. Keep in mind futures expire a week from today and the last two weeks of the year will need to be protected ie. "hedged." I've gained a new level of undestanding in terms of risk management and in this environment it's going to be disinflationary before it becomes flat out inflation. I think the FED knows the only real export we have is "high powered" money. Foreigners are still buying our debt (witnessed by the demand at this weeks T Bill auction) and if we do not support our dollar in the short term, it falls below 80 and BLOWS OUT! I've got to think program trades are set up at stops of 80 to protect the downside. Who knows, but one wonders. In order to maintain the influx of cash, we need to at least appear to be fighting [fill in the blank today].
Rates stay firm and push this economy into full on recession which is badly needed to reallocate assets out of equities. Wish I could buy more gold, although I've asked everyone who wants to get me a gift to buy me hard, real silver. I've got more expectations for that shiny metal.
Remember what happened to the markets in 1987?
WOW! This is incredible. Surreal. And the Saps have no idea what is about to hit them...
Take that however you wish, but it seems like our executives know something others don't.
reducing inventory, labor hours, delaying capitol expenditures etc.
The demand by the clueless Saps is still there, so capitalism is simply milking them while it can.
I hope people here have been taking west texas's advice about preparations.
That's not to say the economy may become weaker next year, just that insider sales are not a good indicator.
They compete in consumption with their peers. Bigger yacht, newer Ferrari.
U.S. November Payrolls Increase More Than Forecast
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDy16NrPejl8&refer=home
[snip]
[snip]
So, what we have is a swelling of the Service industries, but huge losses in housing and manufacturing. Is this a healthy way to run our economy?
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/12/convergence_del.html
I'd say it is not all roses.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/12/november-employment-report.html
Jobs move across borders pretty easily these days. Manufacturing jobs paid well when the US was the leading manufacturing locale. Current manufacturing jobs pay well in the locales in which they currently are created. But they wouldn't provide a "middle class" american income. The truth is that most manufacturing jobs are not high skill jobs and pretty much anyone with an ability to follow instructions can do them. So those who own the companies (and that's even more important than owning the factories and equipment) will hire whoever will work for the least. That's not Americans.
Housing is a little different because it is locale specific, but the construction laborers are only one small portion of the entire construction industry. If I'm shipping lumber, or tar paper or other construction supplies, there are plenty of markets to sell into.
These national statistics really are not much more than talking points for politicians. Regional variations within the U.S. can be greater than between the U.S. and other nations. Even areas within regions can differ. For example, one of the hardest hit metro areas in the housing free fall has been Tampa-St. Pete Fl., but here in the Orlando area, some 70 miles across I-4, we continue to see solid, though not spectacular, growth.
We seem to get that here, that exported jobs hide energy and pollution effects as well.
Nonetheless, the process has backing:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/consensus-of-economists.html
In a poll of economists:
"87.5 percent agree that 'the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade.'"
and
"90.1 percent disagree with the position that 'the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries.'"
The problem comes in that the values of these people and this system are such that the environment is screwed, our spiritual life is screwed and the whole set up is screwed when the fallacy of infinite growth is exposed by resource limitations.
Buddhist growth ;-)
Of course, if you change the definitions, you change the game.
Now, if only we could define ourselves into a new way of being in the world.
(Side note - I consider myself a buddhist and as such understand that "growth" is just another source of "duhkka").
I bring it up because I think we live in a too materialistic society, but notice other critics of materialism buying into those measures of growth. The only reason someone should use GDP as a measure of human progress is if they believe it is a measure of human progress. I don't.
So sure, material growth will run its course as a function of resources an population. That is a given.
The open question is what kind of growth people a century hence will experience, and how they will define it.
This is often demonstrated by the obeservation that 6 of the 7 deadly sins are now considered positive virtues. Because of our currency bias (and I don't mean money) we forget that it works in the opposite direction as well. If I suggest you are an "alchemist" today it is considered an insult. 600 years ago an "alchemist" was one of the smartest people you were going to find.
So it may just be that a century from now "growth" will be a dirty word, dirty concept.
And their economic model would be.... ?
I'm writing something about peak oil, and I'm trying to figure out when the actual U.S. peak was. I keep reading that it happened in 1971, but when I run the EIA data myself, I get November, 1970 as the peak at 10 million bpd, (monthly) or 1970 at 9.6 million bpd (annual). Am I missing/misunderstanding something? Also, when someone talks about "the peak" are they talking about the peak month, or peak year?
I understand, of course, that it matters little in the big scheme of things, but I'm trying to get my facts exactly right (hope to publish this eventually).
Much appreciated,
Lakis Polycarpou
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/12/5/144125/842/10#10
You are asking for the US Peak...I sent you to a link on the World Peak.
Sorry about that,
Rick
I glanced at it though, and wondered if my confusion about the U.S. peak had to do with the same issue - the question of what defines oil, "all liquids" etc. Or maybe it's just people using different data sources? Or maybe I'm making some more fundamental mistake.
Wikipedia says the peak was in 1971 . . .
70... 9,637
71... 9,463
72... 9,444
73... 9,208
74... 8,774
75... 8,375
76... 8,123
Then Prudhoe Bay began to produce and US production rose for a few years before it began its steady drop in 1986:
77... 8,245
78... 8,707
79... 8,552
80... 8,597
81... 8,572
82... 8,649
83... 8,688
84... 8,879
85... 8,971
86... 8,680
And through the first nine months of 2006... 5,105
Ron Patterson
The U.S. Government Intends to Win the War in Iraq
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/38545
...these words, unfortunately, are probably accurate:
It's finished. They can't win, ever. This is the end of US military power, and it goes out with a whimper. Unless the stupid plan to attack Iran is still on, in which case it goes out with a bang.
It is a great pity that few in the US ever learned that (a) force is massively over-rated anyway and (b) the US is not a militarily competent nation.
Much suffering could have been averted if these simple facts were recognized. Ah! Perhaps if cinema had continued to develop in Germany rather than in Hollywood... how different it might all have been...
If you are going to invade a country and topple its government, you have two choices that lead to "success." The first is to crush the regime and then get out, leaving the nation and people to figure out for themselves what to do. It is a brutal and nasty approach, but quite good in making sure that nation is not a threat for at least a number of years. The second choice is to invade and occupy. To occupy effectively you must be brutal and nasty, using large numbers of troops to essentially beat the population into submission. This does not mean there will be no opposition of insurgency, but if you are strong enough and brutal enough, these can be marginalized. But, for occupation to work you must, absolutely must control the political structures of the country (there are different models for this). There can be no doubt in the minds of the populus that you "own" their country.
Much of our problem in Iraq has been that we tried to steer some middle road between the two options. We did this primarily because our leaders don't think of us an empire that conquers others, but they want all the advantages of being an empire. So, they create all these "reasons" that we invaded Iraq when there really was (and can be) only one reason - we want to control Iraq (as nation and territory).
That said, I'm not sure I agree that the US effort to crush and leave has been a complete failure. The failure seems to have come in the efforts to "rebuild" something that wasn't there in the first place.
I'm not saying I support these goals. Only suggesting that it is our leaders specific values and goals that don't align well with what they were attempting to do. This caused the problems we are having in both places.
The "crush/leave" strategy has worked historically. If you don't doubt that, go ask a few Carthaginians. Oh wait, you can't. The Romans killed them all, tore down every structure, and salted the ground on which their city stood. The remnants of Rome are still with us 2000 years later. Carthage is not. I assure you that a true "crush" strategy will work but the US cannot execute such a strategy out of moral concerns.
Note: I am not personally arguing for the US to use such a strategy precisely because it violates our collective view of human rights. Rather, I am saying that such a strategy can work if some nation were so ruthless as to execute it. It's abhorrent but it would work. Personally, I still adhere to the advice of the US founding fathers - keep our noses out of other people's business - but alas, that advice went by the wayside a century ago.
One could of course use nukes, but again, only a fantasist thinks this is actually a practical option. Taking the gloves off on nukes against non-nuke opponents ensures your own destruction by such weapons sooner or later as a desperate world realizes you must be destroyed at whatever cost.
The US is not holding back in Iraq. It's doing it's best with the world's most expensive (and overrated) military machinery, and it is being comprehensively defeated as we speak. If you don't get out soon, you may face some kind of undeniable disaster from which you will never regain credibility. Even the dumbest redneck will by crying into his beer and saying 'Jesus, we actually lost!'
But then, the Romans never attempted to destroy any of those things.
There is a widespread notion that the Carthaginian farmland was salted to ensure that no crops could be grown there, but the veracity of this is disputed. At the time, the salt was very expensive, and it would have been difficult purely as a matter of logistics to accomplish this. Besides, the site was too well chosen to waste.
When Carthage fell, its nearby rival Utica, a Roman ally, was made capital of the region and replaced Carthage as the leading center of Punic trade and leadership. It had the advantageous position of being situated on the Lake of Tunis and the outlet of the Majardah River, Tunisia's only river that flowed all year long. However, grain cultivation in the Tunisian mountains caused large amounts of silt to erode into the river. This silt was accumulated in the harbor until it was made useless, and Rome was forced to rebuild Carthage.
A new city of Carthage was built on the same land, and by the 1st century it had grown to the second largest city in the western half of the Roman empire, with a peak population of 500,000. It was the center of the Roman province of Africa, which was a major "breadbasket" of the empire. Carthage briefly became the capital of an usurper, Domitius Alexander, in 308-311.'
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage#Roman_Carthage
I may add, Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in business too. (Though a full out nuclear exchange involving thousands of warheads will show that quantity does have its own quality.)
Americans are far too entranced with destruction as a measure of military prowess, which is what started this thread.
The power to destroy isn't really worth very much, but it is one of the major things the U.S. invested in for the last two generations, along with suburbia (which also involved massive destruction of farmland/forests/watersheds).
In reply to your (B) I would disagree to the extent that I believe we can be an incredibly competant military power - IF the will of the public is behind the force.
These borderline police actions are an entirely different matter however.
Garth
And its failure is a glaring highlight of what America is and is not capable of in a world where the American Dream is seeming to be more and more part of the problem.
Vietnam was a true war of choice, and the reasons America lost where not directly connected to military weaknesses - nobody observing that war felt that America would be a fairly weak military opponent, with glaring weaknesses across the board.
But watching Iraq, I am very certain that the same people who seemed to have enabled Hezbollah to beat the Israelis for a second time in a decade are taking notes while ramping up their 'peaceful' use of nuclear energy to ensure that the last (and essentially unplayable) military card America truly possesses will be take off the table. (Though sad as it sounds, I wouldn't put it past Bush's incompetence to nuke a few Iranian targets, and not wonder if the Iranians will then only be able to detonate one or two devices in an American city or two to show their strength - as long as the American city isn't Houston, which would trouble his mother's beautiful mind, he seems to be the type that could live with such evil doing.)
Americans have absolutely no concept of how the rest of the world is reacting to America's behavior since 2001. This is Realpolitik, and quite honestly, that has never been a game where America has shown much skill. Just look at the fairly second rate players like Chavez, who seem to be able to outplay the world's greatest superpower in front of a global audience.
Most of the world thought that referring to a certain sulphur smell Bush left behind at the U.N. podium was just clever - apart from some Americans, nobody in the rest of the world does anything but laugh when Bush is insulted. That is, those who aren't calling for his death as an infidel crusader, or those who want to see justice done, and another war criminal put behind bars. After all, Pinochet just managed to slip out of the hands of justice in Europe for his actions, but this doesn't cause people to start screaming that the EU is 'anti-Chilean.'
Some oil is still coming from Iraq. Just who is the vendor? Is it the Maliki "government"? What sort of arrangements are being made?
Ongoing security for the 1.6 to 2 mbpd supposedly being shipped has to be questionable. I would almost imagine unique arrangements for each tranche of oil leaving the country.
So fast forward to pre-Iraq invasion and look at statements from Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, etc., about WMDs and Iraq. They wanted this invasion too. Why? If Bush lied to the nation then they did too because they saw the same intelligence info. What really happened was that George Tenet was the CIA director for both Clinton and Bush. The point of failure was Tenet and his agency, otherwise why would so many Democrats have made statements about Saddam's WMDs and needing to remove him?
And I am not making these up. Let's look at a few of the actual references so you can see the pattern.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
Note: I do not reference the Kerry speeches because he "redesigned" his website and conveniently deleted all speeches before 2005. But trust me, he also said similar things. Here's an example (of which the original source Kerry has removed from the web):
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
People who exclusively blame BCR fail to understand that the intelligence failure around Iraq was systemic, and that it permeated both political parties. And that is why many people do not expect significantly different behavior from the Democrats. Kerry, while campaigning for president on his stop at the Grand Canyon was asked what he would have done differently with Iraq. He hemmed and hawed but basically said he would have done exactly the same things Bush had done to that point.
So yes, would some Democrats have started that war in Iraq? Almost certainly. Carter might not have done so because even when I disagree with old Jimmy I think he tries to stand on his principles. But the rest of the Democratic machine? Yeah, I think they would have attacked Iraq too. And this is one of those things that makes me very pessimistic about our future. I do not see any sign of serious leadership in the US, in Russia, in China, or really in any other leading nation that intends to do anything substantial about peak oil or any of the other resource constraint issues that are arising.
We don't know what the Democrats would have done had they been elected and then 9/11 occurred. Would they have done the same thing? Something better? Something worse? It's all speculation. But you cannot ignore the historical truth that they were supporting these actions themselves, indeed even calling for these same actions BEFORE the Republicans did. GWB didn't call for attacking Iraq until after 9/11. The Democrats wanted to attack him before that with even less provocation. Remember that.
The problem is that people are acting surprised now that after the elections the Democrats are already talking like the flip side of the GWB White House and they've not even been sworn in yet. People are surprised because the Democrats ran on hot air this election, implying (but never really making) promises about troops and the war and now they are steadily backing away from those implied promises right into the flip side of the Iraq war. Consequently nothing major will change and the 2006 election is simply a new set of demagogues replacing the older set. This is true about Iraq and it's going to be true about energy policy and numerous other issues as well.
Well, in this country, I think politicians need to at least "act" like they are really solving problems or the masses might get out of hand. This was BushCo's folly. They forgot to even act like they wanted to solve problems. They just said, "We have the power so do not bother us with your problems." People will elect politicians that give a warm, fuzzy lie to hug and hold.
well said! I think there is alot of truth in that statement! They are self serving and I encourage anyone to vote for the politician whose ideals match yours. and not the straight party ticket!
It is well known that plans for a second Iraq invasion date back from Bush I-st. Regular air strikes were conducted all through that period. Was the intelligence "failing" ever since 1991? Only 1 year after we had actually invaded the country and almost reached Baghdad?
The Iranians have signed a mostly fixed price contract with the Chinese to supply natural gas to them for 25 years. You can get the exact price from them through google, etc.
http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8509050241
The contract for 25 years for NG is in dollars. Not Euros, Not Yuan, Not the Iranian currency. The NG price is also pretty low (~50% of current Henry Hub price).
ARE NOT THE IRANIANS WORRIED ABOUT DOLLAR DEVALUATION OVER 25 YEARS!!!!!!
APPARENTLY NOT
And then there is always the re-negotiation route:
India agrees to renegotiate gas price with Iran
www.chinaview.cn 2006-11-17 20:23:21
NEW DELHI, Nov. 17 (Xinhua) -- India agreed Friday to renegotiate the price of liquefied natural gas with Iran who wants a higher price in the deal to supply 5 million tons of gas to India.
Indian Petroleum Minister Murli Deora was quoted by Indo-Asian News Service as saying that Indian and Iran will be renegotiating the gas price.
...
India required more gas supplies in a bid to meet the requirement of the power and fertilizer sectors, Deora said.
India agrees to renegotiate with Iran as the gas price in global market remained high, he said.
The two countries reached a deal of supplying 5 million tons of gas from 2009 in 2005.
"We have had useful negotiations. We see the need for the negotiations with a specific formula for finalizing the issue," said Motakki.
...
Of course, this is particularly interesting understanding that the majors are being shut-off across the globe in the most of the remaining reserves. Since the price is all about supply and demand as the oil companies are so fond of saying, we should at least ring the military costs up at the gas pump.
I love this series he is doing. But I think he is being optimistic in terms of the timing - especially in terms of the military commandeering energy supplies.
In the Army Corp of Engineers' study they say "We must act now to develop the technology and infrastructure necessary to transition to other energy sources."
Sudden and severe oil-shocks due to wars in the Oil Patches (see Iraqi Oil Production...) will make the transition to "Other Energy Sources" chaotic if not impossible. Rationing what is not commandeered might make a HUGE dent in Stuart's "Miles Driven" graphs in the very near future.
The experience of the US in WWII may be a best case scenario starting much, much sooner than we complacent Saps think.
There is certainly no reason to compare fictional scenario to fictional scenario, but there a couple of striking lacks in to my eyes -
- What happened to all the nukes, both the traditional exploding ones and the generating type? Any future with that sort of collapse will not involve the waving of a magic wand to get rid of such events/problems.
- His 'military' is a bugaboo - it explains much, without actually being all that realistic. The 'military' is generally not an autonomous part of any society, even in a civil war - and even the most brutal military machines have their limits. Soldiers are at least as likely to remain loyal to kin or locality as they are to any commanding officer - that too is a lesson of civil wars. Not to mention basic 'corruption' - the soldiers are likely to be as involved in any black market as civilians.
- Where is the rest of the world (especially since no nuclear war seems to have happened)? This viewing things in isolation just seems wrong.
This doesn't mean his writing is somehow wrong - how could it be be? - just that much seems constructed around certain premises, which may themselves not be all that correct.The discussion is always worthwhile, though.
Quite honestly, I think most of these collapse scenarios don't even come close to how horrific the breakdown of industrial civilization is likely to be in detail.
To give the tiniest of examples - in the world of 2100 AD, where knowledge has slipped to such a point that a plastic slide rule is an almost magical totem (though they have been around for about 3 centuries at this point, generally made out of wood), who cleaned up all the batteries?
Seriously - assuming that Sweden is like Germany, batteries are collected and recycled, and the materials used in batteries are pretty strictly regulated, because batteries, in any of their current forms, are little toxic bombs of metal combinations which are not healthy, especially in terms of fetal development.
But in the U.S., no one seems to have collected the again literally millions of tons of batteries simply left in dumps, in abandoned houses, constructions sites, old buildings - wherever.
After roughly a century, the water would be very measurably full of these leached metals. One of the more incredible things I have ever seen in my younger life was an auto junkyard in Manassas, Virginia, which seemed to sit above a reservior called Lake Jackson - and others in that area definitely sat above the water which then ran into the Chesapeake Bay. (Memories from 30 plus years ago - names could be wrong - but not the basic geography or the rotting cars.)
As a side note - the fact that it is rumored that Florida is half underwater in the scenario makes the absence of any information about nuclear plants even more suspicious - in such a chaotic 50 years, it is very unlikely that the massive industrial effort required to merely delay having a power plant under water was performed.
And I find it slow that it would take about a hundred years to clean up all old known sloppy industrial sites and toxic waste dumps in Sweden. What is prioritized are those hindering urban development, those threathening fresh water sources and where the soil is acutely poisonous if someone would be stupid enough to eat it. (Arsenic and heavy metal dip anti rot treatment for wood were popular in early 1900:s. )
I am also fairly certain that industrial use is at least legally controlled, so that a company can't legally dump tons of heavy metals where they wish. But in terms of how well that is controlled, I wouldn't expect much, though there is a market incentive to recycle metals like lead - I used to pick up car batteries people would leave in mall parking lots (the car owner replaced the battery, and simply left the old one there - and this is still happening) and after collecting a couple which wouldn't hold a charge at all, sell them to a scrap dealer I knew for a few dollars (I owned an old VW bus then, which had space for two batteries - it was simple to switch between the two, thus always keeping one battery as a reserve, or simply keeping one battery available for lighting, fan, music, etc.)
No, the U.S. does not have anything even approximating the EU standards on handling the byproducts of the electronic age, much less efficient recycling/separation of waste streams.
Generally, such regulation is seen by citizens as burdensome, and by industries as profit reducing - no one seems to be much bothered by it, and thus nothing much is done about it. (The amount of packaging for products sold in the U.S. is also unbelievable - and most of that packaging is also shipped - incredible waste which is considered economic growth, since more=growth.) Besides, people who are concerned about such things tend to be lumped into the 'hysterical' category, since there are so many more important things to worry about - like which star is doing whatever with whomever.
America is heading for so many problems, it is difficult for Europeans to imagine, since Europeans have experience in not hopelessly ruining where they live. This isn't the same as saying they can't do it, it just means they know it can happen, and try to avoid it - or repair the damage afterwards, before it becomes impossible to fix at any cost. And this has been true for centuries at this point.
There is a reason why many intelligent and well informed Americans think the whole world will fall apart - they look around, and think the rest of the world lives and acts as they do.
I've never even heard you're not supposed to throw batteries in the trash. I do it all the time.
Most people do know that you're not supposed to dump used motor oil in storm drains. But a lot of people do it anyway. Or they put it in paint cans or milk jugs and throw it in the trash.
I wonder what happens if for "some reason" chaos in the Oil Patch comes early, and causes an abrupt and dramatic drop in oil production and exports from the persian gulf region, instead of a slow "siphoning by other nations."
The Iranian mullah's know peak oil is here. They know they can cripple the Great Satan. And they "know" their 12th Imam will return in the chaos and save them.
Or maybe the 12th Imam is just a silly old fable and the Iranians think like "rational westerners."
And maybe the Iranian Mullahs do not have their own Grand Designs for a Shiite-dominated middle east, let alone a Shiite World Order.
Afterall, in this age of enlightenment, No one really believes in that apocalyptic nonsense anymore right? No need to be concerned - especially if it might insult some one.
The only insulting being done is that which you inflict upon the intelligence of the rest of us.
Something you can testify to from personal experience, no doubt.
We enter this world ignorant and probably remain so about most things the rest of our lives.
I remember once as a child believing in a Santa and a Jezus- now that was bliss!
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/bosses_prefer_o.html
What if the industry prefers "overconfident predictions" of future supply for the same reasons?
I've certainly seen this in the software business. You've got a hard problem and you start interviewing managers. The first guy says he can do the project in 2 years. The second says 1 year. The third says 6 months. They hire "6 month guy" who obviously does not understand the problem and totally messes things up. (At which point we consulting vultures swoop in.)
FWIW.
Shortly after that the company was facing a critical decision on a project that would affect the board's decision to accept a buyout offer or not. Again, the hired gun gave a wildly optimistic schedule. They asked me to look at it and I gave a schedule that was almost triple his in total man hours. At that point they decided to go further and have two more outside consultants do estimates. Both of the outside consultant estimates came within 10% of mine. The guy who had cost so much money was let go, the board took the buyout, and the new owners ran with my schedule. We delivered the next product only 3 weeks late (out of roughly 180 total man months in the project) on a 15 person project.
People very much do not want to hear "bad" news so they take the most optimistic choice and run with it. This may be one cause of why so many business startups fail - the startup owner has overestimated so much. And it may be why large corporations exhibit the same behavior - if the short time frame succeeds it mean more and longer profits and if it fails, almost never is anyone held to account for it except for the single fall guy who made the bad estimate. Never are his superiors who accept such estimates called into question, so they hire another person just like the one who failed before and the new one fails exactly the same way.
America has always been known for a "can do" optimism, where the power of positive thinking (with positive thinking being a marketable product in America) is the major factor governing success. The American lower middle class is fueled by the belief that they too can become multi-millionaires irregardless of any statistical evidence to the contrary.
Europeans appear to be far more sceptical of the possibilties associated with individual or group exceptionalism. This "realism" in part explains the lack of support for US adventurism in the ME. This also shows in a greater European concern with issues such as Global Warming and a distrust of technological fixes such as GM foods.
Also of interest are anthropological studies which demonstrate that when the existential belief structure of a group is called into question i.e. reality asserts itself, the group has vastly diminished chances of survival and recovery. This does not bode well for a positive US response to evidence of PO.
The whole damn economy works (or 'works') like that. The biggest bullsh*t artist with the lowest price gets the tender and away we go. In some cases it is not important that the required work even gets done: what matters is that the right motions have been gone through and the lowest priced contractor has been obtained, even if the results are no improvement over doing nothing at all.
It's extraordinary. Capitalist 'efficiency' at work.
While I think it is global, it certainly seems worse in some economies rather than others. We might posit a split between 'bullshit economies' (US, UK, Hong Kong...) and 'actual performance economies' (Germany, Japan, Finland...)In the former, all that matters is 'the bottom line', even if the product or service turns out to be crap. Just do it! Do it now! Do it cheap! In the latter, people expect to be able to make a quality product and sell it at the appropriate premium.
Sometimes I think having been born in the Anglosphere and condemned to live in it was a great curse...
Now you're beginning to understand.
It looks like a sensible approach for both domestic and geo-politics, and it looks like the US needs help in both areas.
But it does give Iran time for strategic preparations in both logistics (e.g. re-arming Hezbo) and regional politics. And their foreign legions Hezbollah and Hamas can work on their profoundly local politics in the mean time (notice lebanon now... ;)
I guess it also gives the West and fence sitters time to make preparations too (if Lebanon "falls" to the hezbos... I wonder if France will stick around and if so ... ).
They are not "foreign legions", but very much like the African National Conference accepted help from anyone in their struggle against apartheid, they accept help from anyone against Isreal.
Isreal has shown an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Hezbollah was negotiating (per reports) with the central gov't for withdrawal from Southern Lebanon (price was 3 cabinet members, debate over which 3, PM wanted to offer just 2).
Hamas was about to have a plebiscite among the Palestenians to accept Isreal's right to exist, a positive vote on that issue is a fundamental, and irreversible step towards peace.
Now that step was aborted by Isreal, and Hezbollah is MUCH stronger today, and the central gov't weaker, after Isreal bombed power plants and all sorts of infrastructure that had no military value. If Hezbollah becomes the dominant force in Lebanon, Isreal need only look in the mirror to find the cause.
Alan
Meanwhile Iran waits for the return of the 12th imam, calls repeatedly for the wiping of Israel off the map, rearms Hamas and Hezbollah, and waits for The Chaos to begin...
Alan
http://uk.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/6/8530/55650
which included in the subtitle to a table: "Crude oil 1 tonne = 7.5 bbls. NGL 1 tonne = 11.5 bbls". Comparing the two, 7.5/11.5 = 0.652, so does this means that a barrel of NGL only weighs 0.652 as much as a barrel of conventional crude? What about the calorific (energy) value of a barrel of NGL - is that only around 2/3rds as much as for a barrel of typical crude? Something of importance if NGL starts to account for several percent of global Total Liquids.
Do you believe the extrapolation beyond 2010 is correct?
Red bar is for us in the high school class of 1956.
I want to clarify that I am not defending the way we have spoiled the environment, wasted resources, or driven other species to extinction. I'm just saying that it is not clear to me why the earth cannot support the present population.
Have you done the ecological footprint survey? At the end, they suggest that we already at are a point of 4.5 biologically productive acres per person.
You are not an ecologist, are you? I'm betting you're an engineer of some sort. The problem isn't one of simple land area - it's... food, water, etc., etc.
An awful lot of the land area is unproductive, and that which is "productive" is often so because of subsidies of irrigation water and energy. Look up the concept of "ecological footprint".
And the very notion that the limit to the carrying capacity of Earth is how many could possibly eke out some sort of survival sounds like dystopia to me. A dystopia with absolutely no cushion for the occasional random glitch. And a standard of living of zilch.
You don't seem to have a very clear sense of where the ecological services that provide things like clean air and water come from. There needs to be un-messed-with land, lots of it, to provide these things. Then there are all the myriad other "resources" required. So subtract all the forest, agricultural, mining, grazing, etc., "resources" from your land area calculation.
We are already rather overshot, and we just don't know it yet. It seems a bit bizarre and demented to hear someone positing that we can sustainably support larger human populations.
- sgage
The import dependency IS that great. As an engineer, you are not afraid of numbers, so I will just say to you what I tell all my various Ecology and Environmental Studies students: Do The Numbers.
With anything like what you and I would call an acceptable standard of living, the carrying capacity of this planet is probably somewhere around a billion. Again I would ask you to look into the concept of "ecological footprint".
Cheers,
- sgage
Whoah! Amazing factoid of the day... and missed by everyone, apparently.
I'm with you on this. Population is not the driver of our current problems. We are not reindeer or yeast (though we are as dumb as the latter in many ways. It is the particular political and economic system we have that may send us all the way of the dodo.
Doom: it doesn't have to be. But it probably will...
(I'm an eternal pessimist)
Your quote: "It's hard to imagine how a family of four could not live on 16 acres - even if two-thirds of it was not agriculturally productive."
Thousands of acres/Anasazi Indian, but they still abandoned their societal infrastructure. Climate change causing severe drought in a desert is a bitch-- exactly where the NA southwest is headed.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The problem I see with that is what sort of lifestyle do you expect? Without specifying this, the acres/person is meaingless.
In the US the average person uses the equivalent of 24 acres each. That's 6 times more than your 4 acres. If everyone lived like the US, we would need 6 Earths.
Of course, if you want to live like a subsistence third-worlder, then 4 acres/person is maybe enough. Just don't expect to have electricity, or health care etc.
I encourage everyone to take the footprint test!
Well, let's just do a little math. According to The World CIA factbook:
World population: 6,525,000,000
World area: (converting to acres) 36,796,608,000
Percent of that arable land: 13.31 percent.
Total arable land: 4,897,628,525 acres.
Acres arable land per person: 0.750 currently
At 8 billion people: .61 acres arable land per person.
Your figures are all wet NASA guy!
Ron Patterson
Yes, humans can theoretically live at much higher densities but is it the right thing to do? Someone else once observed that if you place too many of any mammal in a confined space that those mammals will go crazy and exhibit self-destructive behaviors. Homo sapiens is the only species that does this to itself voluntarily.
Take Hong Kong and Tokyo. Both these places have very high population densities, but I observe much less aggro and anti-social behaviour amongst people in these places than in my own much more sparsely populated Australia. You may be right about a stress-crowding limit in humans, but you don't see it even in Hong Kong, at over 1200 people per hectare in some places (and an average of 600 / hectare).
Much of the stress we feel on crowding is cultural. In fact, I suspect simply by living in villages of over 100 people we have already drastically exceeded any natural human intolerance that exists... and it's 'doable', as it were.
I expect to see "Peak People" within 25 years. The United Nations isn't whistling past the graveyard so much as whistling on its way in.
But then, I'm a bit of a pessimist. Who knows, the tea leaves could be spelling out "Cold Fusion", and I just can't read.
There were about two billion humans on the planet then. Now there are 6.5 billion. And not only have we not done anything about it, but few even acknowledge the problem anymore.
I should point out that I lived in Newton, MA. I've come to realize that this sort of thing was unlikely to have been in the standard curriculum nationwide. I expect any sixth grade teacher who presented such a thing in a classroom today would be in big trouble!
For me it was my Earth Science class in high school, in 1975. I distinctly remember learning about greenhouse gases, overpopulation, and resource depletion.
This was confirmed in 1981, in a mindblowing college course called "Geology and Human Affairs." It was basically a peak fuels course, even though the term "peak oil" hadn't been invented.
We have no excuse for not having averted catastrophe. None.
until most of the planet is in a state similar to Zimbabwe.Starving women can turn out a lot of babies, contrary to popular belief.
WWII killed only 10 million people per year. We would need seven times that death rate, continued in perpetuity, to stabilize our population. That's OK, though. This is one area in which I have every confidence that humanity will rise to the challenge.
Maybe it's just all propaganda...
Coming from JPost.com? No!
For some reason people here seem to want to deny reality, or make excuses for it, instead of facing it.
Mr. Lewis is not the only one who understands this thank godz.The point is to honestly evaluate the threats regardless of your own political, religious, national etc bias. Most here seem to be capable of doing that when looking at oil production but refuse to do it with "sensitive" subjects like geopoliTICS.
I am not advocating war - I do not have any "plan" to deal with this. But it is childish to pretend The Danger is Not Real and to pretent that other nations do not have plans for war.
Iran may not be a direct threat to anyone here but Their planz on Their drawing boardz will affect everyone here indirectly - without notice and with a very great impact.
Bahktiari knows this and he is very much correct when he says, "But even during that rather benign T1, the unexpected might become the rule and the orderly 'Pre-Peak' rapidly give way to some chaotic 'Post-Peak.'
We are in "T1" now and the Chaos is likely to begin sooner than most here expect.
Be it said that even those who sponsored him for the fricking honorary degree found him so terminally embarrassing that not one person spoke to him all evening.The 80 year old female professor seated next to him on the dais told him loudly to keep his hands to himself but no other conversation. Practically got into a fight with the waiters.
And of course in an ordinarily very diverse setting the event had been purified - no one present from anywhere near the Middle East.
Lewis has never recovered from the publication of Said's Orientalism. He's a laughingstock who keeps digging the hole deeper. Unfortunately he is still politically useful.
I do not believe that the Iranian leadership is working for chaos to bring on the 12th Imam, are the "Witches of Tehran", or any of the other stuff sol keeps bringing up.
Best Hopes for less bigotry,
Alan
You can "Believe in" anything you want but it will not change reality.
Head in sand, ass in air...
the Saps again were caught unaware.
Nope, that's you, not me.
"Witches of Tehran" is one of your favorites terms I believe.
Alan
Well exscuuuuuse me. I have a hard time telling the difference between them all - witch, warlock, father, reverend, mullah, whatever.
Alan, if they really do believe in the 12th Imam, you just said you will not accept that as reality. That is intolerant of you. It shows prejudice and a devotion to your own opinion.
Forecaster sees high hurricane activity
The band playing while the Titanic sinks?
How about shopping while the store burns down? No, really!
Holiday shoppers keep buying during fire
Like the herd of cows, they enter the burning barn.
Might I add that 50% of the people are below average.
That's poppycock.
It is well known that 90% of us are in the upper half.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2229511748333360205
The interview was very good actually. I was surprised that he thinks that NG can actually help the oil situation albeit temporarily
It is a GUSHER!!!!!!
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
It's being called the biggest oil discovery in California in 30 years. Now, two oil companies -- including one with offices in Orcutt -- are competing for the right to drill off the coast of Vandenberg Air Force Base.
The proposed drilling project is 6 miles west of Surf Beach. The oil would be transferred to the Lompoc Oil and Gas Plant through a pipeline that already exists. if approved, 35,000 barrels of oil would be pumped daily.
A permit from the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission would be the first of many steps needed to move forward with this project.
Right now, a company called Plains Exploration & Production Company, or PXP, is the only one that submitted all the paperwork necessary to seek the rights to tap into this oil reserve. If they get the go-ahead, PXP would drill for the next 30 years.
Home to the snowy plover, Surf Beach also has another neighbor 6 miles went in federal waters, named "Irene." Irene is an oil platform ready to tap the Tranquillion Ridge Oil Field, which holds an estimated 200 billion barrels of crude oil. PXP is bidding for the right to tap that deep reserve.
Read the rest here...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15740591/
What happened in your article is called a mistake:
http://www.countyofsb.org/energy/projects/PlainsPedernales.asp
http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles/2006/11/16/news/news03.txt?imw=Y
You're as bad as Heddy Frutter.
Theres CHAOS in the units of measure.
I do not know how to read the letters MBBL...
Is that Millions of Bubble Barrel Liquids?
Or perhaps Monster Bath Brittle Latin?
Why can't we just go something like:
"2*10^8" for two hundred million barrels
etc?
Dissing the wind...
quad= E15B
or E18J, etc etc.
Quicker to write, unambiguous, eliminates a bunch of mistakes, and computes fast.
and I don't have to use any of my used-up memory.
AND (most important) the next reader can spot any goof immediately so he can haul out his big sack of bad words and scatter them all over the place.
Better yet, all numbers as ratios. like 1/200 of daily consumption, etc. This gives a quick feel for importance, as well as instantaneous check from common sense.
In fact, come to think of the obvious- how about a side bar with basic facts- number of units of this and that per capita, etc.
Yes, I've heard of google. That is where I found the story.
Upon further look, I have to agree that the writer of that story blew it....using billions instead of millions.
Good call.