DrumBeat: December 9, 2006
Posted by threadbot on December 9, 2006 - 9:55am
Russia: How Long Can The Fun Last?
...Some also wonder whether the expansion can be sustained. There's little doubt that a major driver of the newfound bounty is oil and other natural resources. Without the runup in commodity prices, economic growth would have been two to three percentage points lower during the last three years, estimates the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development. Developing countries, meanwhile, don't have a very good track record of using windfall profits from commodity booms to lay the foundations for sustainable growth.
10 percent of Russia's oil output illegal, minister says
MOSCOW: More than 10 percent of Russia's oil output, nearly 1 million barrels a day, is being produced illegally, the nation's natural resources minister said Friday.Yuri Trutnev made the statement during an official meeting intended to work out measures to tighten official controls over the extraction of mineral riches.
Save energy, urges Russia and EU
Russia and the European Union on Friday backed energy efficiency measures to save more than 400 million tonnes of oil equivalent each year by 2020 -- similar to adding two more Irans to world oil supply.
Zimbabwe: US$800m Needed for Power Projects
Close to US$800 million is required for power generating expansion projects, setting up of new transmission and distribution systems as well as carrying out a cocktail of maintenance work on existing infrastructure in order for the country's power sector to meet growing electricity demands.
India’s Energy Crunch - Council of Foreign Relations backgrounder
Study: Oil Transition Carries Major Environmental Risks
The increasing use of substitute fossil-based liquid hydrocarbons—either unconventional crude oils or synthetic liquid fuels (synfuels)—will dramatically increase global greenhouse gas emissions unless mitigating steps are taken, according to a new study by researchers at UC Berkeley.
Carbon emissions up one-quarter since 1990
Global carbon emissions rose nearly 3 percent in 2005, up more than a quarter from 1990 levels despite many governments' pledges of cuts to fight global warming, a scientist who provides data for the U.S. Department of Energy said."The rate of acceleration is quite phenomenal," said Gregg Marland, senior staff scientist at the U.S. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), which supplies emissions data to governments, researchers and NGOs worldwide.
Forecasting Future World Energy Sources and Emissions
While wind power, tidal and solar energy are the best and fastest growing energy sectors, worldwide transitions away from outdarted, polluting forms of energy can be slow. Here is a report that looks at likely scenarios.
Biofuel Skeptic Extraordinaire: An interview with David Pimentel
Q. All of that is very controversial, but let's get to the really provocative part of your work. You claim cellulosic ethanol's energy balance is "worse" than that of conventional ethanol. How can that be?A. It's quite easy. Number one, if you have a handful of sawdust, and a handful of corn, which one has the most starches and sugars? That's easy. It takes almost twice as much sawdust to make the same gross energy as [corn] from cellulose, or wood.
Number two, it takes two additional treatments to release the starches and sugars [from cellulose]. That is, you're going to treat the cellulose.
Canadian oilsands seen as global energy bonanza
CALGARY - Despite rising costs, Canada will be the planet's largest source of new oil supplies by the end of the decade, economists said Friday.Jeff Rubin, chief strategist with CIBC World Markets Inc. in Toronto, said virtually all of the world's new capacity growth outside of OPEC will come from oilsands development after 2009.
House Rejects Push to Renegotiate Contracts
In a 207-to-205 vote, the U.S. House on Friday rejected a plan aimed at pushing oil and natural gas companies to renegotiate flawed 1998 and 1999 drilling contracts.
Devon trims output forecast on Canada drop
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Independent oil and gas producer Devon Energy Corp. on Friday trimmed its forecast for fourth quarter production by 1 million to 2 million barrels of oil equivalent, hurt by reduced Canadian gas output.
Iraq oil wealth distribution planned
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi legislation intended to resolve the politically charged question of distributing the country's oil wealth is nearing completion, the chairman of a panel drafting the law said Saturday.The distribution of oil revenues, the mainstay of Iraq's economy, is at the heart of some of Iraq's most contentious political issues, including the push by Shiite leaders to allow the oil-rich south of Iraq to set up a self-rule region a similar to a Kurdish one in the north.
Congress OKs oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Just hours before it ended, the Republican-led 109th Congress sent President Bush legislation early on Saturday to normalize trade with former enemy Vietnam, renew popular tax cuts and open the Gulf of Mexico to new oil and gas drilling.
Nigeria: Militants to hold hostages indefinitely
LAGOS, Nigeria - A militant group in Nigeria's oil-rich delta said Friday it will hold four foreign hostages "indefinitely" to press for the release of two of the region's jailed leaders and compensation from an oil company for alleged pollution.
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.
Via Spaceweather: (site current has movie of the solar event)
Telescope spots solar tsunami
Propagation - current satellite and radio effects
Looking at the EIA's International Petroleum Monthly, spreadsheet 1.4, I was shocked to learn that all liquids peaked in May of 2005. Of course the EIA originally had all liquids peaking a July of 2006, as does the IEA. But unlike the IEA, the EIA often revises its figures several months back as better data becomes available. The IEA never revises its numbers past the second month back.
At any rate the new numbers shows all liquids production in May 2005 to be 85,205,000 barrels per day while the July 2006 numbers, the second highest month on record, are 85,184,000 barrels per day.
The peak year so far is still 2005 for both crude + condensate and all liquids, but by a far wider margin for crude + condensate than all liquids.
Ron Patterson
Rick
One reason I (again) bring this up is that one of the lead articles in today's thread claims that roughly 1 million bbl/day of Russian oil is sold illegally. It has also been reported elsewhere that a smaller yet still sizeable amount of Iraqi oil gets diverted to the black market. As such, I find it doubtful that this 'hot' oil gets accurately recorded in the respective country's production statistics, if it gets recorded at all.
I've asked this as an open question about three or four times in as many ways, but no one out there seems to be able to offer a numerical answer (i.e. something other than 'pretty good') as to the confidence level, error band, or whatever those more statistically literate than I wish to call it.
The accuracy of these production numbers is also potentially muddied by an apples & oranges problem as to whether all the components that make of the global total consist of just crude + condensate, c + c plus NGL plus other liquids, or what.
As such, I have a very hard time seeing these global production numbers as being anymore accurate than three significant figures (at best).
I know this is a bit beside your point that production (as however measured) has not moved much, but I think there is a tendency here at TOD to read too much into some of these very small differences between very large numbers.
In my haste I dropped the last zero. Should read: (85,205,000 vs 85,184,000).
Sorry
And yes there is some oil sold on the black market that is not counted. But in the grand scheme of things, this small amount of oil can be ignored. It has always been there and will likely be there for a very long while.
The second point is the exact month matters little. What matters is that we are currently on a plateau, and we have been there for about two years. This plateau, in my opinion, is the peak of world production. The month simply does not matter, nor does it matter that some oil is not reported, and neither does it matter that the figures are not exact. Even if the numbers are fudged by the reporting agencies, they can only fudge the numbers so much for so long. This will not hide the peak when it comes. (Which in my opinion is right now.)
Ron Patterson
Regarding the small amount of 'funny' oil, you are probably right in that it has always been there and therefore tends to be a constant source of error that more or less washes out.
Based on my work in the environmental field, I am particularly skeptical about a lot of these gross 'aggregated' economic statistics, particularly those generated by governmental agencies. Not because someone is being deliberately misleading, but rather due to the inherent limitations and just plain slop in many of methodologies used in generating the numbers.
I remember hearing about some people who lived for several months in pre-medieval conditions, (I don't recall the exact historical period). The hardest part of acclimating back to modern life was that they were always too warm when they went into buildings heated to modern temperatures.
In the process of moving to my new place I had to do a lot of heavy work over 3 days, and I could not believe how warm the new place seemed. It's warmer than the old place true, but I find my tolerence to cold goes up a lot if I'm doing a lot of physical activity. I was walking around downtown in a t-shirt while everyone else was bundled up!
The last day or so have been very active for me, and again my cold tolerence spiked again.
If you could get your wife doing exercise, her cold tolerence would probably go up quite a bit - and the prospect of doing some push-ups before going to bed in the Finnish tradition to sleep warm, would not be so frightening.
I see some gals who are just HUGE (what can I say, I live in the US) and they're very cold-sensitive, it's amazing with all that insulation, but it's the result of an extremely sedentary lifestyle.
Have you considered withholding sex as a bargaining tool?
*and it's amazing what you can call "tea" in various cultures so it does not necessarily need to depend on globalism.
or on the low tech side you can get ahold of one of those infared temperature sensors (sold at autoparts stores) go outside and measure the temperature of your walls windows roof and get an idea or where you are loosing the heat (heat flows downhill temperaturewise ) so higher external temps will indicate heat loss good luck
We have areas of the house at 58 and other areas at 68.
The area that is 68 is the TV, dining and kitchen area. You would not believe how it "brings the family together".
By the way, I work in my office at 58. You get used to it.
Disclaimer - 58 is not recommended for the aged or the sick.
Rick
I guess it's a strategy for dealing with Peak NG. Seriously, though I heard many people in my town were setting their thermostats way down last winter.
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12251&channel=0
In the 16th C and 17th C windows were few and far between. Glass prices or the imposition Window taxes meant that many existing windows were walled up.
The 1960's building fashions went for large 'picture windows' - At least here in the UK. These were rarely double or triple glazed. Some of these windows were seriously large and occupied a major percentage of a house frontage.
As well as heat loss, owners used to get frantic about kids playing knock about soccer in the street...
I like the thermostat at different temperatures depending on what I a doing. If I am sleeping, 50 is fine. In the morning, 67 is much more comfortable. Whenever I am around the house, a sweater or pullover is standard - so is about 65.
My biggest problem is visiting other buildings. I can dress for the weather outside and to be comfortable around the house, but then when I visit my friends in their apartments, the thermostat is set to ~77 by the management. This is uncomfortably warm and explains why my friends have so many pairs of shorts.
I think a law that mandates a standard temperature for public buildings should be legislated. If evey one of those building went from 77 to 65, think of how much NG would be saved. People would also get used to that temperature so that other buildings would be more likely to select a lower temperature as well.
Alternatively, a powerplant like the one from 'the matrix' to harness all of the hot air coming out of washington might be a good investment.
We have a programmable thermostat, which is essential for us. We live in a dark and very cold climate in a house built in 1946. It is not well insulated, although we are gradually correcting that. We set the thermostat to 55 degrees at night. In the morning the temp. goes up to 65 degrees for one hour then back to 62 degrees (F) for the rest of the day. Suffice it to say that the woodstove is popular and the kids actually like getting long underwear for Christmas/Solstice.
When we kept the house at A-STP (American standard temperature and pressure...68 degrees day/65 degrees night) our fuel oil consumption for the year was averaging 355 to 400 gallons. Now we use between 180 and 220 gallons per year. However, some of the heating load is taken up by our high-efficiency woodstove, so we really have not halved or fuel use; more a case of substitution. On a cash cost basis, the 400 gallons were priced at $2.25/Gal while last winter's heating oil ran about $3.50 delivered. Our strategy is to heat room where people are, not the house.
I don't think we will willingly set the thermostat much lower...the kids and wife are about at their limit. My experience is that, as long as you are busy, temperatures between 55-62 degrees are comfortable. If you sit down to read or play on the computer it becomes uncomfortable unless you add clothes...mostly the family wears hats, berets and beanies inside. Wool throws and blankets become fought over commodities. Long underwear is just what you wear in the winter (the merino wool stuff from smartwool is worth the price).
As to plumbing, when we get those -10 to -40 degree nights, we do increase our heating but rather than heat the unheated spaces through which the plumbing is routed, we open sink cabinets and leave the water running; my more wealthy neighbors us thermostatically controlled heat tape.
Given the complexities of insulation, my choice for determining how well your house is insulated would be exploratory and mathematical. First, determine what you actually have, (I removed the siding and poked around) and then calculate the whole wall insulation. Remember that the insulation between the joists/studs is only part of the picture...the thermal "breaks caused by the studs significantly reduce the whole wall insulative values. Then you need to get a handle on leakage. Leakage will be pretty important especially on older houses like mine...when the wind blows the house loses heat very quickly. After all that math you will be able to calculate how many btu/hour your house loses for a given outside temperature and wind speed. It is a good exercise, but time consuming...I usually do only a wall at a time...windows and wind suck heat bad. I think ASHRAE has some good numbers for this.
Apart from visual inspection of accessible areas and windows, there isn't a simple way to know how well your house is insulated. I've looked into purchasing a camera sensitive enough to IR to show heat loss from walls, but they are quite expensive. An example is the IR 235 DX Robust handheld FLIR Thermal Infrared Imaging Camera which shatters the 8k price barrier!.
You just want to see the heat leaks in your house, not catch a running perp.
But there's a huge difference between near-IR (8000-12000 Å) and thermal IR. Soda-glass lenses are opaque to thermal IR, so you couldn't have used a conventional camera to take a picture of a thermal source even if you could have kept the film's thermal radiation from exposing itself.
I turned off my condo's heater, but in coastal California the lowest temp I've seen so far is 57F in the morning. I seem to recall 54F as the low last February. The real drag is that my condo is down a hill and behind some trees. It might be 11:00 AM before I get any direct sun. That means bundling up, or heading up the hill to the sun.
This all started as an experiment, to see if heat is really needed here, and I'd say it isn't (for a healthy adult). And I think I actually stay healthier ... but that could be my imagination.
My best practical advice? If you feel cold, eat something. That seems to flip a switch, fire up the body's thermostat.
(59F feels warm to me right now)
Secret heat source
To cut firewood for personal use on National Forest lands you must have a Personal Use Firewood Permit. Permits are available for purchase each year starting in the Spring and are valid for gathering firewood from the date of issue until December 31st of the same year. The minimum volume of wood per permit is four cords, with the cost per cord at $5.00.
Rick
(Currently suffering from sinus infection and asthma. Thank god for electric blankets.)
I totally agree that you have to be healthy to endure cooler temperatures.
Being cold when you're sick SUCKS.
Look into goose down though, I swear when TSHTF I'll collect pigeon down and cat hair etc if that's what it takes, down is Nature's electric blanket.
Let me second what Joseph referred to - I get so acclimated that I have to change my clothes if I'm going to a more "conventionally" heated place in the winter, or I'll just roast. It's amazing what you can get used to, with the proper clothing. If you feel chilled, just sit by the fire for a minute.
Back in the days of the first oil embargo, my mother turned the thermostat waaay down, and whenever we kids complained, she would simply say "put on another sweater". To this day, if anyone in my family mentions that they're feeling cold, we all recite "put on another sweater", and it provokes gales of laughter.
- sgage
Not diagnosing anyone. My thyroid tests normal and I can remember when younger and spending much time out of doors I could acclimatize to 50's indoors.
Don't bust up a family over this ooe. Insulate. If family members aren't adjusting it may be because they just physically can't. That you are able to do something is not an indication someone else could if they were willing.
We heat with a wood stove and a high efficiency gas furnace, gas stove, and gas dryer. We keep a kerosene heater around for backup and use it sometimes. We go through about 350 total CCF of gas, one cord of wood, and five gallons of kerosene in winter in Michigan. We drop the temperature to 55F at night, use the furnace to raise it to 60F in the morning, and keep it between 65 and 68F during the day using the woodstove. We direct the gas clothes dryer exhaust into the room during the winter and bake a lot. We've also doubled our attic insulation and plastic sealed many of the windows in the winter. Finally, though they probably didn't realize it when they built the place, our 1k sq.ft. house has many passive solar features that help heat the place when the sun's out.
This year the wood's been pretty much free, since we got a bunch of ash wood that the city was removing. The emerald ash borer is probably going to eliminate ash trees in eastern forests. Too bad, it makes great firewood.
Pollen samples show that Eastern Hemlock was almost a monoculture about 10-12,000 years ago in parts of the Eastern US. And then it almost disappeared. What wiped it out does not appear to be affecting the remnant population.
Forests do not appear to have stable species mixes, although human influence seems to speed that dynamic up dramatically.
Alan
I guess I will know in 2 months or so. going to miss hand picking pecans in the fall though. my dad will send up about 5 pounds shelled as a nice gift box every month,,, I have his secrets,, he owes me ... LOL.
Charles.
The next year, we switched to the third floor, because heat rises. I'm sure we did evil things to the power bill of the guys on the 2nd floor, but they never knew it. :)
And it did make a huge difference to our power bill. With the heat on, the power bill was almost four times higher. We went the whole winter without turning on the heat. We had to study wearing gloves and hats, but after awhile, it became a kind of challenge. No one wanted to be the first to give in and ask to turn the heat on.
Some examples:
Exxon Mobil: 11.54
Total SA: 22.62 (okay, the exception that proves the rule)
PetroChina: 11.44
BP plc: 10.46
Chevron: 8.98
ConocoPhillips: 6.40
Eni SpA: 4.30
People invest in the market for growth, not price to earnings ratio. Companies, like banks for instance, often have a very low p/e ratio because they are traditionally very slow growers. If you see a company with a very high p/e ratio, then the traders are expecting that company to grow by leaps and bounds.
Obviously people think these oil companies have very little room to grow, hence the very low p/e ratio.
Which leads to another point. When peak oil becomes obvious, and it is perceived that all companies will likely shrink instead of grow.......guess what?
Ron Patterson
Silly me.
Starvid, are you being factitious? Obviously people do invest in hopes of seeing their money grow. That is why they invest in companies that they think will grow! Only people who hope to have a much better return than the bond market can offer, invest in stocks at all. Companies that pay a small dividend and have little growth, like banks and utility companies, usually have a very small p/e ratio. The capital return from these companies, dividends plus a small amount of growth, is usually about the same as you can get from bonds.
But people invest in the equities market in expectation that they are going to get a far greater return on their money. Of course they also take a far greater risk than if they just invested in bonds or utility companies.
Investors are not so simplistic as you seem to think. They are calculating in the amount of return they hope to make and weigh that against the amount of risk they are willing to take.
Ron Patterson
I tend to believe that lack of understanding of how the market really works, results in a large amount of money getting invested in the stock market. Financial advisers tell people and companies to invest their money and retirement savings into stocks. Since stocks have a much higher turnover rate (in terms of buys and sells), Financial institution profit handsomely. If everyone tried to take thier profits the market would surely crash.
Financial planners push stocks on the average joe and very rarely talk about bonds or other investments, because they don't make very much money as the do with stocks.
Ron Patterson
When Peak oil becomes obvious oil company stocks will be the first to soar followed by railroads, ethanol,coal companies etc.
The market is like an ecosystem, and even big changes like peak oil will result in winners and losers.
Oh yeah? How many winners were there between October 1929 and 1932? Not a single one! A falling tide lowers all boats.
Okay, there may be a couple of winners, coal companies come to mind, if they come up with a good way to turn the stuff into liquid fuel. But the losers and losses will be massive. Losers will likely outnumber winners by 100 to 1. Trillions of dollars will evaporate into thin air.
Remember what happened during the Great Depression. When the money supply dried up, millions were laid off, which led to a drop in purchases of all goods and services, which led to more people getting laid off, which led to.....
I do not see any bright economic news coming as the result of peak oil.
Ron Patterson
Hmmm, who wound up with all the foreclosed properties? How many farmers lost their land? Some people (banks) got filthy rich off that scheme/scam, just had to wait a few years sitting on them deeds that they got for free.
Movie houses and move makers did well, anything to get in out of the cold and escape a bit, for a nickel or a dime, whatever a matinee cost.
Didn't the oil industry also do OK?
We are sheep, and Depressions are where we are rid of that extra wool.
Remember, you can drop billions of dollars from helicopters, but if everyone just picks it up and puts it under the bed, there is no demand response. This is why economists are so terrified of deflationary depression. No one knows how to reverse it. Bernanke thinks he knows, but his thesis is untested. Let's hope we never have to find out whether he's packing live ammo.
When credit bubbles burst money supply contracts, usually quite rapidly. And as businesses and individuals go bankrupt, demand in the economy collapses as households and businesses rein in spending in a self-feeding downward spiral. It's this failure of demand that is so difficult to reverse. After running a zero or negative savings rate for so long, what do you do if US households suddenly decide to build their savings and pay off debt?. What if they all take on board Westexas's ELP advice? Barring putting a gun to people's heads, you can't force them to go down to WalMart and spend.
The dollar may dive, but that won't necessarily make much difference (and it would be a precursor to a reversal of the US trade deficit). In 1931 Britain's currency plunged 25% when it came off the Gold Standard. Did that cause an inflationary surge and immediately arrest the depression the country was in? No.
I accept that it may be within the power of the Fed to attempt to monetize all that debt away if the big crunch arrives. But will it? The Fed know as well as anyone else that the end result would be much the same - an inflationary depression (failure of supply) as opposed to a deflationary depression (failure of demand).
In short, I don't believe it's as easy as some assume to inflate an economy in which the money supply is imploding. Can anyone cite an instance where this has happened?
I can see how you may consider it impossible for deflation to occur in the US for a prolonged period of time. The whole post-WWII period has never seen anything like it. Here is how it could happen, though.
1. Consumption in the US is currently based on asset inflation, i.e. on the the ability to borrow against real estate and on the wealth effect of higher stocks, instead of higher incomes. That is plain from the debt/GDP ratio, keeping in mind that consumer consumption now makes up 70% of US GDP. When assets deflate people cannot borrow any more against them and can even lose them to the lender. The process works in reverse, creating a "poverty effect" cycle.
Debt to GDP is currently at 330%
2. Americans are running a negative personal savings rate, i.e. liquidating savings to spend. They have no "shock absorber" and have to cut down consumption, sell assets or both - since their ability to borrow more is impaired.
3. Lower prices will also result from another direction: reduced corporate profit margins. Such profits are now at an all time high as a share of GDP, as opposed to wages and salaries. As consumer spending slows down, businesses lower prices. There are signs of that already: WalMart has slashed prices way ahead of the holidays to capture consumers' "rarer" dollars. Keep in mind that their turnover alone accounts directly for 2% of GDP.
- As many people in this forum point out constantly, we are overwhelmed with consumerism. We already own "everything" - what else do we need to buy? If our financial condition deteriorates as per above, we can easily cut back drastically for a long period of time, until finances are repaired - one way or another. Some demand will simply evaporate.
- China has built a simply incredible overcapacity to manufacture everything, betting on continued expansion in consumer spending. When that slows down, there will be a race to the bottom.
- Last, but certainly not least (since this is TOD), if we are about to enter Peak Energy then real deflation will set in by definition, even if only because there will be fewer people around - or fewer than currently projected, anyhow.
EpilogueMany generals prepare to fight the last war (Maginot Line?), unable to make the mental leap to another possibility. Likewise, many who examine Peak Oil think less oil will bring rampant inflation. Interestingly, many are trained scientists and engineers and I wonder why they cannot make the obvious connection between the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Economics.
Regards
What you said is absolutely correct. However, an oil production crisis will be much different than previous financial crisises. Its highly likely currency changes will be asymetric where some goods and services deflate and other inflate. For instance I believe that once Peak Oil is globally recognized, most exporters will drastically alter there policies and limit production. It would make no sense for them to continue exporting oil to the US in trade for dollars, and its likely that price of oil will rise substantially higher. On the other hand, domestically produced durable goods and real estate will deflate. No one is going to want to purchase a new vehicle or hold onto a gas-guzzler that they can no longer afford. Families will consolidate into fewer homes in order to reduce costs (heating, electricity, etc).
a) Debt is worked out/liquidated
AND
b) A sustainable energy balance is achieved
This is not going to be a "financial crisis". It will be an economic crisis, in the full sense of the word "economy".
Regards
Let's take an example out of current events. Home prices are dropping and lenders are becoming very edgy - some have even shut down because they cannot repurchase the defaulting loans they previously sold as packages(eg Ownit).
What buyers there are, naturally prefer to drive a very hard bargain or buy at auction. Lenders are much more careful who they lend to. Combined result: prices get squeezed some more. Builders stop building new homes (the supply is already huge), workers get laid off, incomes suffer, mortgage payments go unpaid and the vicious cycle is at work. This is just real estate, and it has just started to hit the finance side, which is crucial. Once the lenders stop lending it is deflation writ large.
The Fed can do NOTHING in such a situation but sweat it out and Japan IS a good example, though not 100% analogous.
Can the Fed print money? Sure can, but then the US can kiss the dollar goodbye as a global currency - forever. And that will mean nothing short of the US ending up exactly like the USSR, i.e. Upper Volta with nukes. No one in the Fed or any branch of govt. wants that.
Pay attention to the bond market. It is screaming deflation. And them bond daddies know...
Its likely in the event of a financial crisis kicked off by declining oil production, that the currency values will be asymetric. Meaning lots of things get a lot cheaper and lots of other things get much more expensive. For instance, the price of domesticaly produced durable goods (cars, washing machines, etc) will fall as consumers loaded in debt will make due with what they already have. Goods that are imported will likely rise since it will still take energy to transport it to the US.
In past financial crisises, only money and credit became hard to aquire there was no physical contraint. When Oil production declines, it will be a true physical contraint which will dramatically alter the course of the crisis.
Lots of people shorted the stock market and made a killing. One famous example: Jesse Lauriston Livermore
"Most notably, he was worth $3 million and $100 million after the 1907 and 1929 market crashes, respectively."
There are always winners and losers.
Hell, people who just kept their money in the bank, at no interest, were winners because of the deflation. And of course people who shorted stocks were also winners. No one questioned whether or not that there were people who made out like a bandid during the Great Depression.
Keithster, you cannot refute an argument that was never made.
Ron Patterson
Ron, I hope that was a typo and not a reflection of your actual knowledge of the depression. Remember stories of old people who kept cash in mastresses because they didn't trust banks? Ever wonder why?
My father's father, a yuppie banker, lost all his savings during the crash. He was on paternity leave for my uncle's birth on the day the bank he worked for went bust. Till the day he died, grandad kept a hoard of silver dollars at home.
Many people who kept their money in banks lost every cent when the banks failed. This massive crime is part of what made common thug bank robbers into folk heroes (the other part was the bank foreclosures on farms and homes). It is also the reason the FDIC (deposit insurance) program was started.
Perhaps I should have said "piggy banks". ;-)
Ron Patterson
(Note the similarity to the most vunerable hurricane Katrina homeowners. Senator Trent Lott will get a new porch for his mansion, but the 9th ward homeowners will lose even their lots for failure to pay property taxes while they are stuck in a FEMA trailer park in another state.)
Funny, I had read that one of New Orleans' problems was that one could never lose one's home from property tax leins. I'd read that the city was clogged with semi abandoned properties. But then, what do I know?
About half of the listed properties do not go to auction dues to last minute payments (I know someone that bid every year).
It takes several years (5 ?) of non-payment of taxes before the property is auctioned off.
Some properties do not get a bid high enough to cover past due taxes. Special programs have been set up for these.
Alan
Am I the only person who feels, given the coming discontinuity, that having lots silver rounds buried in the yard is not as crazy an idea as it may sound?
I talked to my father-in-law a while ago about the depression and "Where did you find work"? He said that eventually the MFG companies hired some. (Endicott Shoes was his example).
That is something that I think is different this time. In the 30's we had manufacturing base. Sure millions of them went out of business, but stuff was still made here.
Today's service economy with people who work at the hair salon, buy stuff at walmart, that spend their money at the fast food place...
When the economy stops, what bootstrap is there to get it going again? Our economy is now like a Ram-Jet engine. The speed is what makes it work, (with "credit card" payments to the tune of 3 billion a day support), when it slows down, we crash.
Or like a Shark, we will sink once we stop moving forward(swimming).
Just some rambling thoughts.
Fare Thee Well.
peace
John
P.S. again from Woody Guthrie's "Pretty Boy Floyd"
"The Banksters"
I would have to check, but this may be the first thing you have written that I agree with 100%.
Right now oil companies are still being valued as cyclical companies. Once Peak Oil hits, or even "Peak Lite", then the cyclicality will be gone for the most part because it will no longer be possible to overbuild capacity and cause a price glut. Earnings growth will be explosive, but there is always the possibility that the government will step in to "help" consumers gain some relief (not understanding that there can be no relief).
This is quite possibly true but it is no lead-pipe cinch. If a severe depress hits, brought on by peak oil, then oil demand will drop and prices will drop with it.
We see that happening right now. As OPEC lowers production, prices rise a little but lower demand drives prices right back down until they reach a level that demand can sustain.
Bottom line, a severe depression can cause demand to drop dramatically. People in third world nations have very little extra money with which to buy oil or products produced by oil. As prices rise they will simply do without. And that phenomenon will work its way right up the food chain until it catches us.
Don't get me wrong, I see oil companies as one of the safest bets around. But in the advent of the chaos and anarchy that is likely to accompany the downslope of fossil oil production, there are no guaranteed winners.
Ron Patterson
Its a one way bet really. Pretty pleased with the last 2 weeks on Ford.
How has the weather been in Aberdeen so far? In Billings, we only had 1 period of below zero (F) weather. I don't guess you get that in Aberdeen though.
Possibly, but I'd then sell them before the politicians begin responding to the problem with expropriation.
This is my forecast, so you would be wise to ingore it. The US economy is going into recession next year so commodity prices will initially drop. I also think this will expose the poor quality of some of the debt we have been running up. This will cause the dollar to fall out of bed and give support to commodity prices.
Of the majors, Conoco-Phillips looks the best to me. Frankly, royalty trusts look like a better bet or purchase of working interests in a good unconventional gas program which is unlikely to get whacked by a punative tax. Good independents like Anadarko or Devon. Beware independents with a lot of debt that chase the newest trends, like Chesapeake or EnCana.
Oil services look very undervalued to me, folks like Schlumberger, Transocean-Sedco-Forex, Baker-Hughes, CoreLabs, Rowan. They're operating at full capacity, will be for the forseeable future, and are mostly honest, hard-working folks. I'd sure beware Haliburton, though, as the karma is bad. And generally, if someone will cheat their customers like Halliburton has cheated the US government, what makes you think the stockholders won't be cheated too? Thieves are thieves.
Valero looks great too. They are in the cat-birds seat with their heavy oil refining capacity and huge distribution network. They have a margin that goes up when prices go up.
IMHO a third of a billion is too high a severance package. And supporting every dictator for your economic benefit (including GWB) is reason to dump 'em. Bribing the governments of Nigeria, Khazakistan and Angola is just plain bad business.There are way too many companies who don't sacrifice every principle for me to give those guys my chump change to the ones that are raping us all.
Now, can I afford to possibly lose my retirement money on moral grounds...that's the question. It is a personal dilemma for me.
Have you ever seen the movie "Thanks For Smoking"? It is somewhat relevant to this discussion.
Think of what GM, Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, GE, Walmart, etc. have done in their past and how many of us probably invest directly or indirectly in these companies.
It is an interesting time in Ecomonics. You would normally think that a US recession/depression would cause oil to sink in price. However, the lower the value of the dollar, the higher oil will go. So huge US debt is going to actually cause oil prices to go up for no other reason than the dollar is worth less. How much debt do you think the US will need when they have to bail out 25% of homeowners who face the foreclosure of their $600,000.00 McMansions? How many people will go on welfare if the unemployment rate is 10-12% All of that mean more US debt, and higher oil prices. A very visious cycle...
Do like royalty trusts with long reserve lifes.
Believe Encana is focusing on unconventional and long life reserve plays. Don't like the debt but believe the gamble is correct.
Shell's project management has been a disaster.
AFAIK, coal bed methane has a flood of gas the first year, production drops by ~2/3rds, and then a trickle for 25 or so years. I would like to buy that trickle.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I will grant that using wind seems more benign than coal, but does it actually change the EROEI. For all I know, it increases it.
We need someone to analyze all this in terms of their overall impact on energy inputs. Pimental, anyone?
The news on MSW appears good, but how does that demonstrate that Pimental needs to go study bugs? Besides, do we have enough MSW to significantly impact our fuel needs?
Some people like to diss Pimenthal because some research of debatable merit comes up with an EROI of 1.3:1 for the corn to ethanol process. Whoop-tee-doo. And then pants are wet at the first signs of an eventual breakthrough which would lead to an EROI of 2 or 3 to 1.
In the meantime, the emerging non-state-supported bioheat industry is delivering energy profits of 10:1 and more. Manufacturers, around the world, neither directly or indirectly on the public dole, are bringing new and improved solid fuel burners to market suited for uses from households to greenhouses to district heating plants and more. Marketing networks are being established. Technical skills are being acquired. And this while the price of natural gas, the primary competitor, is still low.
It won't be long before the temperate zone ethanol industry is remembered with the same disgust over the waste of time and resources that the hydrogen fuel cell white elephant deservedly garners.
The 4.5 (billion)gpy quoted in the interview is currently over 5. EIA data show 333 kbpd for September. The 1% of energy use means what - of 28 mmbpd crude? 21/d + x?
That's nearly 4% of mogas consumption & will probably be 5 to 6% by 12/07.
I have to post all of this as it requires a password. From Defense Weekly:
U.S. Army Weighs Li-on Batteries for Hybrid Vehicles
By KRIS OSBORN
The U.S. Army is revving up efforts to refine lithium-ion technology and build light, fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles.
The U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, Engineering Command (TARDEC) has extended its two-year partnership with Saft, providing the French battery design and manufacturing company a new $1.2 million contract for research into lithium-ion, or Li-on, batteries.
Such batteries can be up to four times smaller and lighter than older and more common lead-acid cells. Used for years to power laptops, cellphones and even a new battery-powered two-seat car called the Tesla, the technology is drawing the attention of military contractors.
Raytheon's Improved Target Acquisition System uses what company officials call "the first fielded large lithium-ion battery in the military" to power a sophisticated "target-tracking" telescope and launch Tube-launched Optically tracked Wire-guided missiles.
Now TARDEC and Saft are working to see whether the batteries can handle the needs of a vehicle that might see combat.
The command already has a handful of hybrid-electric demonstrator vehicles powered by Li-on cells, and is testing a new one built by Saft. But officials say it will likely be five to nine years before the technology produces a deployable armored vehicle.
"It is not as simple as taking off-the-shelf technology," said TARDEC spokesman Paul Mehney. "We're not there yet."
The vehicle will need a sophisticated power management system that can balance the electrical needs of the hybrid power train and those of onboard gear such as radios and weapon mounts, Mehney said.
Temperature management is part of this equation, according to TARDEC officials, who say "we are working with the production of prismatic cells [lithium ion] while integrating liquid cooling into the module."
The attraction of a hybrid vehicle -- one that combines a conventional engine and an electrical motor -- is using less gas.
"Fuel efficiency is the target point," said Glen Bowling, general manager for Saft's Space and Defense division, Cockeysville, Md.
$400 for a Gallon of Fuel
Each gallon of fuel hauled to troops in Afghanistan costs about $400 because of the country's lack of infrastructure and poor security, Bowling said. Moreover, a hybrid vehicle would save fuel by smoothing acceleration. A completely battery-powered one would have the advantage of being silent until it started moving.
Bowling said some of the demonstrator vehicle's systems will require up to 300 kilowatts instantaneously; others, about half that.
Current lithium-ion technology has its limits. The cells wear out faster and perform more poorly at high and low temperatures than the military likes.
Another firm, Nevada-based Altairnano Technologies, is working to build a Li-on battery that does better. Instead of using graphite particles on the electrodes, Altairnano's cell used finer-grained nano-titanate materials.
"The typical lithium-ion battery has a life cycle of about three years," said Altairnano Chief Executive Alan Gotcher, who said his firm has developed a battery that he predicts will last 15 to 20 years and to work well from minus-50 to 165 degrees Fahrenheit.
Saft's Glen Bowling said, "Saft does research in almost every electrochemical variety. We are not currently too excited about titanate because its advantage is not so significant as to make up for its really low energy density."
Larry Jordan, who once commanded the Army's Training and Doctrine Command and now works with Burdeshaw Associates, believes lithium-ion technology could one day provide lightweight power to active protection gear weapons, and sensors.
"If the technology delivers, lithium ions could be useful in the field of armored vehicles," said Jordan.
Raytheon's Bill Metzinger sees an increasing role for lithium ions, saying that more developers are likely to "refine and direct this technology to specific goals." *
Seems an appropriate discussion in light of your comments.
Engineers have a finely honed understanding of 'efficiency', but they tend to get confused when it comes to an understanding of 'effectiveness'. The two are not the same: not by a long shot.
One can be very efficient at doing something that does not (or more likely, should not) be done in the first place.
In the final analysis, it all gets down to deciding upon what is a wise allocation of finite resources. Thus, having 60-ton Abrams tanks improving their gas mileage (1/2 mpg last time I looked) may be inproving efficiency, but that begs the question of whether they should even be cruising around in Irag at all.
So, pardon me if I can't seem to get very enthused about the US military's (supposed) efforts to improve their energy efficiency. We're still going to have generals using huge Air Force transports as their personal limos, and we'll still be air-lifting all sorts of stuff half way around the globe to our far-flung imperial garrisons.
I sometimes wonder how much energy is bundled into that approximate $1.5 billion or more per month that we're spending (nay, pissing away) on Iraq.
Nov 30, Nature ran a story on Philip Fearnside
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7119/full/444524a.html
who has claimed for years that hydropower produces a lot of greenhouse gases; not just a bit, but 3-4 times more than oil gas coal plants
now there's a second study, completely independent, from Taipei, that says the exact same thing
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=143&art_id=qw1165558865413S360
while there's trouble in the Amazon over the zillionth dam down there
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=39379&newsdate=08-Dec-2006
it's getting hard to maintain that hydro is such a clean form of power
and now the silly ethanol debate is hopefully over, even though the industry has just started (it's really just a snake oil tale, isn't it?), time to have a go at other "clean energy" forms
and we'll do that till everyone finally understands that there is no clean energy, though it remains a shame, and a deadly one, that all the money going into boondoggles like ethanol, nuclear, hydro, etc, is no longer available to make sure we simple use less
And this facility is currently generating 3 to 4 times as much CO2 as a coal fired plant? Really?
Is this along the lines that windpower caused the Europe wide power outage a few weeks ago? A claim which went out with amazing speed, and no factual basis.
To be honest, I am not claiming that drowning huge amounts of living land and damming the water is a good idea or won't lead to increases in greenhouse gases, but how does Hoover dam, to use another example of a massive project, actually produce so much more C02 than a coal powered plant?
Hydropower in the two concrete cases here, is much cleaner than burning coal in terms of greenhouse gases. That we may have already exploited the best sites is certainly a valid point, but to say that hydropower is somehow a dirtier form of electricity than commonly believed needs to encompass a much broader framework than gigantic projects in tropical regions.
Or when tidal power becomes more common, will we then read studies about how it is more harmful than coal burning?
As a by the way - ExxonMobil still seems to be spending a bit of its money funding groups in Europe denying climate change. Which makes sense - no one who isn't paid to believe such nonsense in Europe is likely to show their foolishness in public. Especially in the face of a real historical event - after two months in a row of the highest average monthly temperatures recorded in Germany for the respective months, there is no reason to believe that a third month won't be added. And quite honestly, like ExxonMobil, I don't think you would find too many people thinking that the 10 Rhine dams are a worse problem than generating the equivalent electricity burning coal. But who knows - maybe this is just one of those rare situations which the studies didn't cover.
My question is. Wouldn't the buildup of silt and other organic matter over time prevent these gases from escaping from the reservoir into the atmophere? I'm guessing the scientists took this into account but the article did not address this?
Also, wouldn't the impact of a hoover dam,for example, be much less than a dam in,say the Amazon. The river largely flows through desert on the way to Hoover so there would be relatively little organic matter.
The National Hydropower Association tries to discredit all research (phase1: denial). Untold billions are made worldwide with hydropower projects, and the owners like to keep it that way and expand. At the Kyoto conference last month NGO's from India complained that hydro was pushed down their throats, against their will, just so the EU could get carbon offset credits.
Fearnside takes on a multi-billion industry. I know where my initial sympathy lies. The green clean image is nice and profitable, but in the end it's just another corporate entity that takes the bacon home.
NB: he recognizes that emissions are higher in tropical climates: more, faster, and year-round plant growth.
----
http://www.irn.org/programs/greenhouse/index.php?id=/basics/conferences/cop10/TropicalHydro.12.08.04 .html
The most comprehensive study of net emissions yet published is for Tucuruí dam in eastern Amazonia by Philip Fearnside of the Brazilian National Institute for Research in the Amazon. The study concludes that in 1990, net emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from Tucuruí had a climate impact equivalent to 32 million tons of carbon dioxide.3 This is more than three times the gross emissions at Tucuruí measured by a team from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro headed by Luiz Pinguelli Rosa.4 A natural-gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant generating the same quantity of power would have had an impact equivalent to 8.1 million tons of carbon dioxide.5
An as yet unpublished study by Fearnside of another hydro dam in the Brazilian Amazon, Curuá-Una, found net emissions in 1990 7.5 times greater than a comparable NGCC.6 A preliminary calculation of net emissions at the notoriously poorly planned Balbina dam in central Amazonia made by Fearnside in 1995 found these to be an astonishing 58 times higher than an NGCC.
-------------
Interview Fearnside
http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm2006/interviews/PhilipFearnside.html
Q: A few of your papers discuss the emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs, such as Brazil's Tucuruí Dam, compared with those of conventional fossil fuels. What were your findings, and have they influenced energy policy?
A: The possibility that hydroelectric dams could be a significant source of greenhouse gases was first raised in 1993 by four Canadians with respect to dams in that country, but it was my 1995 paper in Environmental Conservation, with calculations of substantial releases from Amazonian dams, that so infuriated the hydroelectric industry. "It's baloney" was the reaction of the U.S. National Hydropower Association (see1 both sides of this and other controversies). Since then much progress has been made, and the general trend has been to find greater and greater emissions from dams. The 2002 paper on the Tucuruí Dam calculated methane emissions from water passing through the turbines and spillways, which represent the largest sources of emissions.
Mother Nature is heading climate change towards making lakes into deserts: Vast African Lakes Dropping Fast.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
What I do have a problem with is that just like 'windpower has problems,' the problems then become the entire debate for all those not interested in changing how electricity is generated, whether it be a power company heavily invested in other forms of generation or the original poster, who actually thinks 'till everyone finally understands that there is no clean energy...' we are prevented from using less - though how that author proposes to kill all the dirty plants using dirty sunlight, or overturn the dirty solar powered water cycle in the planetary atmosphere is not easy for me to understand.
And yes, that is a bit of sarcasm - the idea of radical efficiency and living differently is pretty much the only possible solution I see, but to look for perfection and then kick things apart because there is 'no clean energy' strikes me as not well thought out - there are certainly worse forms, even if none are perfect.
And this is not any defense of any tropical mega projects either.
what I try to do is kick at something and see if it remains standing.
very few people know about the emissions from hydro, and vested interests have a large influence there, research is sorely lacking, we just presume it's clean, not a very scientific approach.
for coal studies pile on top of each other, for hydro it's hardly been or being done. but what if we're just blindsided?
Fearnside is in a unique position because he was already in the Amazon doing climate research in connection with clearcutting etc., and started from there. no idea what started him off on his quest. I'm sure he's happy with the Taipei study, he's a bit less alone now.
you claim that there are certainly worse forms of energy, and that's also a presumption. let's see if that is true, and to what extent it is. do read the International Rivers Network article, it's interesting, and well written.
and let's send independent researchers to both the Hoover dam and the Rhine dam, and see what they come up with.
NB the main culprit is not CO2 but N2O and NH4
Still, an interesting area to look at, especially in terms of vested interests. Such mega projects are often run by the same people who also have a vested interested in a centralized power structure (and this is meant to apply in several ways).
This is one reason, among several others which are also valid, that both windpower and PV are not really supported - they decentralize power, not concentrate it.
In other words, true energy independence is a nightmare for a number of people who just happen to be the ones making the decisions concerning how we live.
and you are dead on, and that's why these reports interest me, as well as the reason why they get no attention
and I'm thinking it would be good to do an assessment of the amount of electricity coming from the Hoover dam, multiplied by x cents per KwH, per annum. the same would be good for all hydro in the US, and perhaps even globally. something tells me the numbers would be way out there
and figuring out who owns Hoover might be useful too
Alan
Only slowly are such old structures being replaced, and to a certain extent, not very well. Germany is organized, but that is not necessarily the same as efficient. And of course, different parts of Germany are quite different - I have no idea what East Germany looks like in terms of company structures.
VERY hard to oppose wind turbines when every so many turns = another krona (now euro cent) in your pocket :-)
I wonder how many Americans would invest ?
Best Hopes for Diverse Ownership of Renewable Resources,
Alan
It seems that a lot of hydro power comes from the melting snows of mountain ranges, and if warmer weather replaced the snow with rain, the net effect is that less water gets to the river. This has already become a concern for the Himalayas, on whose snow melt hundreds of millions of farmers depend. Imagine what it could mean for the overburdened Colorado River system, all the way down to Los Angeles.
If melting of mountain glaciers is not bad enough, Barrick Gold wanted to mine 3 glaciers in the Andes for a future gold & silver operation. They wanted to remove the ice [currently atop the orebeds], move it to another glacier, then use most of the resulting meltwater running downstream for mining ops. Hopefully, the protestors can prevent the insanity. Here is a link to a Powerpoint Presentation with good pictures.
I posted some time ago my idea than eventually China will start mining Himalayan glaciers to short-term solve their water problems. The poor Tibetans are screwed.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
If anything, the volume will increase as some frozen water evaporates.
The timing changes, yes, but not the total volume.
Global Warming will alter rainfall distribution but the total amount should increase. Higher temps > more evaporation.
Alan
This does not affect all dams, or even most dams. Only tropical dams with large verdant areas per MWh produced. So not applicable for Inga (I, II, III & Grand) near the mouth of the Congo or NT II in Laos for example.
The accounting seems skewed to give the desired result. Total lifetime emmissions need to be considered. Methane has more GHG impact but degrades more quickly. And the methane is a one time hit (as is the concrete used in construction)
They use the least GHG fossil impact power plant, a NG fired combined cycle power plant. But where will Brazil get the extra NG ? LNG of course, so add an additional 1/3 energy loss for that. For another 30 or 40 years, but after that, they will have to build the dam anyway.
Take home lesson ? Harvets forest and then defoliate jungle before flooding, and burn dried/dead vegation. Turn potential methane into carbon dioxide & charcoal before flooding. Problem solved.
Best Hopes for Much More Hydro Development,
Alan
Billions Later, Plan to Remake the Coast Guard Fleet Stumbles
here is the video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DlHaudbj50o
Has anybody here ever bought a Lockheed product for personal use?
I have a question for Americans. Who was the last Kennedy who served in your military?
No, of course I'm not going to "prove it." What, are you stupid?
Stop snorting the coke, my friend. I know what I cut that with.
And if you are going to do it in the morning, make sure you are drinking some orange juice. See the latest Journals.
Of course this is the real Hugo. How could you doubt me?
(Smart one here)
Barack Obama for VP 2008, JHK is almost praying for it and it has been showing in his weekly columns for several weeks now. The Dems, Would do very good in the Presdential Race if they were to ask Mr Obama to at least run for VP or be named as Head of state. I figure he'd even make a strong headway as Pres, but might not have the Name-Power in washington yet. Look for the ticket. Hilary-Obama for 2008..... I don't care personally I'll vote My write in canidate again Winnie the Pooh, More Honey for everyone and sleeping after sweet meals.
Yesterdays Columns and Points about the Montreal Summit On 50 failures of Kyoto... Okay that is not what it was called but nothing really got done and we all know it, just a bunch of people getting together to wine and dine and say they are doing something so they can fill the inbox with money and power and make Joe and Fran and the family Six-Pack happy that someone was doing something.
The Global Climate change is bringing stranger weather to you as we speak and all the pundits that you want can't tell you why or how to change things, and really though we know it is going on, few of us really understand the total system to even begin to figure out how to correct the problem. By the time we figure out what is wrong with a PLANET WIDE system and Figure Out a MASSIVE enough Computer Model to see the real causes, the changes will be wrecking new problems. I have had a hand in making Global Digital Mapping Software, The details to manipulate 3-D real time world surface information onto a 2-D paper surface can get mind boogling real fast, There are over 20 different ways to project our globe onto a flat surface, you call them maps, but the world changes every second of every day and I have seen what that does first hand in the data gathering field of Digital Cartography. We were never 100% on anything, it changes to fast, We had to deal with what Weather and earth and man was doing on a daily basis, and OUR programs were the BEST in the world. I do not envy the guys and gals trying to figure out what the weather will be like in 5 to 50 years, There are literally a WORLD'S worth of data points to take measurements on and try to figure out how to program for it all.
This is a problem we will have to live with long after every last drop of Fossil Fuels, or Plant Fuels have stopped being used. If humans were to vanish from this planet today, the affects would still be going on for eons longer. Since that is not going to happen we are just going to have to learn to live with it. Totally rethink how we look at the places we live and the actions we do. Things are changing to fast for us to ever turn a blind eye to the weather again.
These Opinions have been brought to you by Charles E. Owens Jr. aka Author at Large Http://dan-ur.blogspot.com
Ron Patterson
Jew's don't run the world and you got your ass kicked in school because you're a little prick with your eyes to close together. Get over it. Quit blaming your pathetic life on various shades of brown and move on.
matt
I didn't know what to think about him after he dropped out of sight so to speak after the election.
But, then again remembering these incendentals back in June 2004ish
(Google: 'john edwards bilderberg')It will be interesting to see who they put up to run in 2008.
Peace
I hear that. Gore
was against the war before he was against the war.
Desite the absurd and highly politicised spin being put on the facts in this article, OPEC production is not 'above' OPEC's target as claimed, but well below target.
Admittedly, production hasn't been cut by 1.2 million bpd, but that is partly because OPEC's production was already so far below quota. The figures at the bottom of the article show this to be the case.
Interestingly, OPEC's underproduction is not just due to Indonesia and Venezuela, but to Iran and Saudi Arabia as well. Yet this gets no mention in the article. I wonder why...
Leanan's toplink post on repowering Zimbabwe is a pipedream unless the world suddenly becomes very generous. This link paints a more accurate picture:
--------------------------------------------
The economic collapse destroys our culture and our humanity.
It is so bad now that people give false names when they leave sick relatives in hospital. This is so they cannot be traced when the relative dies, because they cannot pay for the funeral.Their relatives receive a pauper's burial in a mass grave.Zimbabwe's awful record
1.6m orphans -- one in four Zimbabwean children -- the world's highest rate
Average life expectancy: 34 for women, 37 for men, world's lowest
Inflation: 1070.2% (October), world's highest
Minimum monthly budget for a family of six: Z$209,000 (£442)
Average salary: Z$50,000 (£106)
Budget deficit: 43% of GDP
Unemployment 70%
---------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/world/africa/10africa.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
Maybe you should start including this country in your links, Bob.
Thxs for responding. Yep, things are only going to get MUCH WORSE as Dieoff kicks in. We are probably only a year or so away from reading cannibalism press reports. Hopefully, as this sad news trickles into the First World's conciousness--it will create a huge social impetus to go whole-hog on PO + GW mitigation. If not, expect the worst here. Yikes!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I was thinking about that video clip that showed methane gas bubbling up off the California coast. If a methane clathrate burp set off an underwater landslide and resulting tsunami that went inland for a few miles--even then I don't think you could pry the soccer mom's fingers from the steering wheel of her SUV. They would mentally react the same as if it was equal to the common California earthquake.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I still wish I could find, online, the Disney video played in the 70s on the "new" Mickey Mouse Show where, tongue-in-cheek, the Earth is made out to be inhabited by cars primarily.
Trump's Dump!
link to resort picture
Record First day sales!
-----------------------------
"When The Donald is willing to put his name on the site, that means a lot," he said.
Buyers in the predominantly Southern Californian crowd said Trump's involvement eased concerns about owning land in a foreign country. They were undeterred by spiraling violence in the border city of Tijuana, and they paid no heed to protesters outside the hotel who said Trump's property was on one of the most polluted beaches in North America, a charge the developer emphatically denied.
"Trump's name didn't hurt," said Tom Pfleider of Beaumont, who dropped $550,000 for a one-bedroom on the 11th floor. "I'm sure he wouldn't put his name on it if he hadn't investigated northern Baja meticulously."
------------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I realy hope space exploration can be continued during and post peak oil and not only small utility satellites such as communication, position and weather satellites. The astronauts are not the important part but a Hubble 2 and then 3 would be great for taking an even closer look on what can be found in nature beyond our imagination. And we dont realy now that much about our own solar system, yet.
Hopefully Nasa will replace Shuttle with a much more cost efficient system. On http://www.directlauncher.com/ is a presentation of some good ideas originating withing Nasa for doing that while getting a capacity that is far above what is comercially needed or minimal for having purely utility satellites.
but could this be from record high storage levels? forgive me but i am a rookie at this! Just a young Jedi in training!
But why are they cutting heavy crude? Light I'd understand, but heavy? I thought that's where all the expansion is going into. Where all the excess capacity was.
Does that mean production of heavy crude is declining or that they just can't sell the heavy stuff to refineries?