Open Thread

What's going on?
Not much.

Regarding Cheney, what is the lowest favoribility rating where when you shoot somebody, your poll numbers actually go up? I call this the redneck effect.

On another thing, concerning this "breech" versus "over-topping" problem with the New Orleans levees, everything I have ever seen regarding flooding is that when something over-tops it will soon breech due to the forces of the water.  You see this all the time with roads, etc, getting washed out, when flood waters get too high.

Sorry, I have been listening to some wing-nut radio today.

I forgot to add something. Can anyone predict when Bush will utter the phrase, "I don't think anyone anticipated the peaking of oil" ?
"but I told you we're addicted to oil" {I told you so -grinning).
  1. I provide "wing-nut" detox (in twelve steps or less, your choice) in a state of the art sound-proof facility here on  blue-state MDI.  Call for favorable rates. I promise not to blather on res lexi

  2. May 2007

  3. Stuart, which are more reliable numbers EIA, IEA, AIE, IAE, IKEA ? Error bars for the most reliable numbers? Chocolate Bars and members of the Bar for the rest?
I am about as apolitical as I wanna be, and love to laught at Baby Doc Bush as much as the next rear-or-the-Bus driver... but to be honest, I think Oil Man Bush and his advisors going into his first term Knew darned well what we were facing.

I also think it's pretty clear this mess was Unavoidable (we be critters too ya know - with only a tiny layer of "self-awareness-greyishywhitematter" separating us from the next critter down on the self-conscious scale...why do we expect so much better behavior from Homo sap ? "Is this a Fair and Reasonable Expectation," asks The Mother as she reviews her copies of "The Naked Ape and Human Zoo")

I also think it is NO one's fault... this Wave was inevitable and is not attributable to any one person or nation etc etc... finger pointing in Past Waves seems mostly to confuse and then distract from solving the problem (e.g. N.O = Katrina ClusterCoitus type of responses).

Unfortunately (maybe... - after All "good" and "bad" in these situations are Defined by The Mothe of Nature and if not mistaken, I think She does the Sorting Out Of later too)...unfortunately it looks like Bush went for the Historical and Typical and Easy Way Out of SpyvsSpy, Military-Might-Makes-Right approach.

IMHO it appears that Bush et. al chose to SECURE Iraqi oil and keep it on the open mkt as opposed to Stealing it for America onyl (etc, etc, Maybe).  Nice of the Euro's to trash us in public but Drink the Iraqi Black Blood we ensure makes it to the market just the same... )hippocritters just like us 'mericans afterall i guesses)...

The Jury on Bush II, the Nightmare Begins, is probably going to be out for a while until Further Reliable (i.e. Not from the tri-somic monochromatic media Hype-n-Type 4 Cash) Information/Data is made available in the future some day... (when we are looking Back at the Peak of Energy Dayze...).

I also think it is NO one's fault...

It was a failure of leadership, with the fault resting on the shoulders of one man.

If that is what you deliberately chose to believe, fine.  But some people would rather put their emotions and the popular Strawman-of-the-Month aside, consider the facts in light of HISTORY... as well as your current life-experience.

And people who do those things may beg to differ.  Or might not bother because it is a childishly distrating subject.

IF and when Someone somewhere in Time THEN looks back to NOW and can actually PinPoint a Single Individual upon which This Wave's CREST's Fate rests, go back in Time tHEN, and kill him.

And Exactly one (1) week later Someone ELSE will pick the wings of the same Butterfly and the Same Effect will be affected.

I think I bet.

Leadership is going to New Orleans promptly instead of making fund-raising stops while strumming a guitar on stage.

Not a big revelation, but I thought quite obvious.

"Not a big revelation, but I thought quite obvious.

Or... a big SCAPEGOAT DISTRACTION for Homo Wimps who muble,[piss and moan when Some ONE ESLE failed to Notice They had Diaper Rash...

I mean really.  "Mommy, why did you not notice when I slammed my finger in the door Four Years ago and take the Door off the Hinges or fix it better for me While I PARTIED like it was still 1999... the Year of the Cats-Who-Could-Create Matter and Energy even ...

PASS THE PAPER FIAT Mother... i hear they need it to dry their crocodilic, faux, terra fauna tears.

WHAT ???  oh, i wouldn't go that far The Mother...   but then again, it is Your Universe and youse DOES make these laws don'tcha... as well as the Sentences of the Weak and REALITY TV Famous... take 'em out and sort 'em later Mother.

You've clearly been taking it in the breeches.

breech   Audio pronunciation of "breech" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (brch)

   1. The lower rear portion of the human trunk; the buttocks.
         1. A breech presentation or delivery.
         2. A fetus in breech presentation.


   1. The lower rear portion of the human trunk; the buttocks.
         1. A breech presentation or delivery.
         2. A fetus in breech presentation.


         1. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
         2. A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.
   2. A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a promise.
   3. A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
   4. A leap of a whale from the water.
   5. The breaking of waves or surf.

It was because he shot a lawyer.
The first thing that happened was that the floodwalls and levees were overtopped.  With the floodwalls the water fell down the onshore side and eroded away the support for the wall, in most places chewing down a cavity that was about 3 ft wide on the land side of the wall.  The loss of resistance, and local factors would then cause one segment of the wall to move in as the land-side resistance failed, and the sheet piling bent into a spout shape in most places.

The major difference at the Lower Ninth Ward (where all the videos are usually shot) is that the wall was breached by a barge than ran along the wall as it went through it, knocking out and moving some 200 yards or more of wall, almost instantaneously.  Thus, instead of just a slow rising water level, in that case there was a wall of water than entered the city.  It removed all the dwellings for about four blocks carrying everything before it until it started to run out of power and dumped most of the debris (house bits, cars etc), which caused barriers that redirected some of the flow then laterally. This sudden failure and large damage zone was atypical of the city damage.  On the other hand down the delta whenever the water overtopped the levees the damage was almost total as it was whipped up by the force of the hurricane.  

Quite frankly wrong, at least for the 17th Street and Orleans Canal breaches, which flooded a majority of New Orleans.

The debris line was over a foot from the top.  Terrible Corps of Engineers design did not sink pilings deep enough, water went underneath and bubbled up on the other side.  Eventually this "tunneled" and undermined  the levees there.

In Placquemines and St. Bernard, the Corps of Engineers built Mr GO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet) was also a Gulf of Mexico Gulf Inlet and, after having destroyed the swamps around it with salt water intrusion, let in a wave of water that over topped the levees in that side.

Just got back from dinner @ GW Fins with two Corps of Engineers engineers.  A good friend is a City of New Orleans Public Works engineer who got back in on Wednesday after Katrina and took photos before evidence was bulldozed.

Not to be controversial but I do have a picture from the 17th St breech, showing the overtopping scar as it was filled in during the creation of the new wall.
Without seeing that specific photo, I have talked with those engineers on the scene.  In the undermine scenario, the concrete plates would fall underneath the waves as the dirt disappeared underneath.  The intact concrete plates next to the breach showed debris lines a foot from the top.  Since all plates were within an inch of each other in height before Katrina, if it did not overtop next to the breach AND there is clear evidence of a sand boil in the yard of a neighbor, then this supports the undermining explanation.

Note, more than one breach on the 17th Street Canal (love the Quality control at the Corps of Engineers !), so there may be more than one mechanism for failure.

This is a typical overtopping scour (from the Industrial Canal). The width is about 3-4 ft and you can see the sheet piles exposed under the concrete wall.  The sheet piles are then moved forward and tilt.

This was from down at Port Sulfur. Note that the water flow has gouged out down to bedrock in front of the sheet piles.
The concrete slabs on top are then thrown forward

This is from the center of the 17th St failure. You can see the slabs fell forward and not back,

We have many photos that show similarities across the floodwall failures around NOLA and the delta, but these I can use, since they are mine, the rest will only be available when the report  is released.

I can likley get you additional photos taken on onsite Wednesday after Katrina fro 17th Street & Orleans failures.

eMail with directions (friend of mine with Public Works took them)

I didn't know Louisiana had any "bedrock".  Most of my projects, we only hit stiff clay and oyster shells sometimes if we were lucky.   I worked a lot up at Taft and then down in Homa, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Morgan City and a lot we did only on piles set deep into muck with a build up of shell on the surface.  I thought most all of its the kind of gumbo you can't eat, clay gumbo; kinda' too thick to drink, but too thin to plow.
I may have got that wrong - I wasn't about to go down and look, though it did look like a rock slab it could have been a hard layer of clay, and it was fairly deep below the surface.
The core of levees should be clay, in order to stop water migration.
Everything in LA and East Texas is Clay Clay Clay, in varying degrees of "stiffness".  Sometimes you do see a pretty stiff layer that you'd almost think is rock, but usually its just clay with a lot of micro coral shells well embedded.
It's a lazy day, resting for my penultimate performance in Not Now, Darling.  I've noticed that we often project our hopes for social changes onto energy depletion, hoping people will behave more like us when they don't have so much cheap energy.  I wonder how community theatre will change in an energy-depleted USA?  We now have actors driving some distance to rehearse and perform, so I guess local theatre may become more truly local.  I think of that town-hall show from The Shipping News (book).

I speculate that television may become largely broadcast-local again.  In a slow squeeze, or worse, I can't imagine most people paying $30 to $80 a month for cable TV.  

Most everything you wanted to know about the Alaskan oil spill, caused by deterioration of the pipeline system - that curiously has escaped the attention of even POers:

Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Prevention and Emergency Response Program

I posted a link to a news story about this in another thread but it did not generate any comments the last time I looked. This will have some political repercussions but it's not big enough to really rattle the market. This is leftist environmental manna from heaven - free political saber rattling against the evil oil companies but in reality I am not sure it's hugely relevant to the peak oil discussion. Then again, maybe I am missing some angle on this.
I saw your previous post and did have a look at the leak, sorry link.  I didn't think it too terribly significant, because it looked like it was not the TAPS mainline, appeared to be quite small and under control.  Todays update seems to confirm it is only a gathering pipeline.
So the interior and exterior corrosion damage known to have occurred in the gathering pipeline is not indictaive of the rest of the Alaskan Pipeline system?
Leaks in the TAPline are not something I worry about. It's the gathering system from the wells that is my concern. If there are five valves between the oil in the ground under pressure from gas, and the open air (to fuel an oil well fire), and four of them have already failed, you are one failure away from catastrophe and not being able to drill the ANWAR because of the bad publicity.
The TAPline has hundreds of valves between a section of the pipeline and disaster. It's bigger, but not as dangerous.
Leaks in TAPS are much more threatening.  Valves can be up to 25 to 30 miles apart in some locations.  In the gathering system, generally, valves will not be more than a few to say 10 miles maximum.  In my experience, it is not uncommon to have leaks in gathering systems at all.  That's where the most valves, flanges, gaskets, pipe elbows and other fittings are, so there's more opportunities to have leaks there.  

A lot of people think, more valves on a pipeline are better, but actually this is true only up to a certain number.  The probability of having a given leakage volume increases with the number of valves and their associated joints, weight, supports, flanges and stem packings, lubrication ports, etc. increases such that the benefit actually become less.  This is balanced against the probability of losing the same amount of oil from a pipeline segment between any two given valves a given distance apart.  Thus the overall probability of having any leak is minimized.

I looked at all the reports and there is no mention of 4 of 5 valves that had failed.  Actually they still don't say anything about a reason for the leak yet.  Pictures don't show any valves in the area.  So, maybe it will be corrosion or a weld crack.

Really the greatest risk for uncontrolled HC releases and fire is actually when drilling.  Afterwards, the process equipment areas become the most critical areas.  Note, there was no fire in this location.

Don't know about the TAPline failure you are discussing. My mention of 4 of 5 valves failing is from an example from a gathering system on the slope. That situation is much more threatening because the whole of the oil deposit is pushing a billion barrels of oil and gas out of the structure, unlike the TAPline where they think a ten thousand barrel spill is a big deal.
I think they are probably taking a little better care of the TAPS mainline.  It can be inspected by inserting "intelligent" pigs and running them the length of the pipeline while they record any corrosion pitting and look for cracks in weld joints, etc.  This is usually not the case for gathering system pipelines, where the lines are much shorter and there are typically a lot of people close by that can monitor ops and respond quickly.  

The TAPS system also has an advanced SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system, as do most pipelines today.  The SCADA systems have a subroutine that automatically detects leaks.  Pipeline flows and pressures all along the pipeline are read every 5 seconds and compared to theoretical hydraulic flow and pressure calculations.  If there is any significant differences between actual readings and calculated results that indicate a leak has occured, an alarm is triggered and the operators shut down the pipeline.  The SCADA system will indicate the size and the approximate location of the leak.  The emergency spill response plan is then put into action and appropriate equipment and personnel are sent to investigate and control the situation.

Hopefully the valves and sensors in the field have been regularly maintained.  And the cathodic protection still works.
That's right,... if they have them in the gathering system.  The TAPS mainline is covered by the Federal Pipeline Design and Operating Regulations, CFR 49, Part 192.  On the mainlines, there are design standards and it is required to do some regular inspections and testing and operators have to be certified as competant.  "The Problem", according to my experience, is that these regulations DO NOT apply to gathering systems.  I've always argued that they should apply everywhere, but its not the case.  This is why a lot of the leaks, explosions and fires occur in the gathering systems.  The only good(?) thing about that is that there usually arn't too many people around the gathering systems.  The gathering system I worked on would have a pipeline explosion almost every week.  When I started working there I began designing the new pipelines according to the CFRs and just didn't tell my boss I was doing it.    
Thanks all, I think I get it now.

After three days, the latest news is that they have finally identified the source of the leek.

One of the things that's puzzled me about Great Britain is the relative lack of public debate about North Sea oil production having peaked, not only peaked, but sliding over into fairly rapid decline. Why don't people talk about it more? I mean it's not as if this doesn't have enormous implications for the economy. A few years ago one had enough oil to cover dosmestic demand, earn billions exporting oil and now it's over. Britain has to import oil and the natural gas situation is even worse.

The reason I think this is relevant for more than just people living in the U.K. is that there are possible lessons to learn for other countries entering peak oil and maybe patterns will emerge that are interesting to observe with international implications.

For example the U.K.'s political and strategic relations with Russia who are going to be providing lots of gas. Then there's the whole question of nuclear. It appears that Tony Blair, having prayed to his God for inspiration, is going to say yes to a massive increase in nuclear power. Or as they like to call it, the new generation of nuclear power stations.

I remember well over twenty-five years ago whilst at university stating that I thought the oil revenues should be used primarally for three things. Investment in a new transport infrastructure based on a modernised railway system. The modernization of healthcare provision. And finally a radically better education system, so we'd have something to live on when the oil ran out. The development of new industries to replace the old. Instead the money was wasted on tax cuts for the well-off, a massive consumer boom based on cheap energy, and among other things the distruction of the domestic coal industry.

Britain managed it's oil wealth not that differently from some developing nations. That is not really investing in the future, but consuming in the now.

It was strange because the oil was such a gift from posterity, almost a lifeline and the money could have been used so much better. Britain reminded me at the time of an aging courtesan who is suddenly left a small fortune by an admirer. What does she do with the money? Instead of buying a hotel or farm in the country, she opts for a huge party for all her friends and a lot of cosmetic plastic surgury! When the money's gone, she's older and still she end's up on the street corner.

I agree, but then the US decline never got people's attn here either. As long as people can fill their own tanks and go, most don't give oil/gas a thought.  Many people I have spoken with don't even realize US oil has been declining. Then when there's a problem, they try to find someone to blame.
Based on a Hubbert Linearization (HL) plot I did, total North Sea oil (crude + condensate) production peaked in 1999 at 52% of Qt (Ultimate Recoverable Reserves).   Also, as suggested by the P/Q intercept, the North Sea decline has been fairly steep.  Not much mystery here.  Lower 48 peaked at 48%.  Texas at 54%.  The world is at 50%.  The top four net oil exporters are at around 65% of Qt, which suggests that we will soon see a furious bidding war (hopefully not a shooting war) for the available net export capacity.

As Matt Simmons noted, the top 10 major oil companies working the North Sea--using the best data and engineers in the world--were predicting that the North Sea would not peak until 2010.   Keep this in mind when people talk about tremendous remaining reserves in Russia and when ExxonMobil talks about trillions of barrels of remaining reserves.  The industry couldn't get it right in a very compact region like the North Sea, but the simple HL method got it right.

Sorry if you answered this before westexas, but I'm too lazy to go back through your previous posts this morning.  I'm curious about your calculation showing that the top 4 oil exporters are at 65% of Qt.  Does this mean that they are all well past peak now and their collective production is declining?  If their production is not declining yet, how have they managed to keep it up so far past the 50% Qt mark?
Khebab did all the technical work (and he has his own opinions).  

In round numbers (based on HL), I think that Saudi Arabia is about 55% depleted, Russia around 88% (at least existing fields), Norway 65% and Iran, 50%.   Khebab and I are working on an article on this.

Some have been buying reserves from other companies.  Kind of an easy way to fool most of us, no?
The British Government is still saying we will be self sufficient in oil until 2010 as reacently as 11th of January 2006 the energy minister Malcolm Wicks said in Parliament "We became a net importer of gas in 2004, and in a few years we will become a net importer of oil." See Hansard
Even the Liberal Democrats, the party that claims to be most environmentally orientated is not sounding the alarm. Thier economic spokesman Vince Cable (an ex Shell economist) has been handing out the usual economists line of how higher prices will soon produce more oil.
Texas funded the University of Texas system with royalty money from state lands.  Is there any other US state that has used their oil wealth in a similar manner?
Alaska has put ~$20 billion into a permanent fund.  Louisiana out a couple of billion away for education enhancements.  Louisiana gets zero % of offshore monies, all to our freinds the feds.  Alabama put a pittance away (less found than expected).
All states can receive royalties from their oil well leases on offshore territories.  Curiously enough the extent of individual state's offshore territories can vary.  Texas has 3 times the limit of other states.  Texas is about 10 miles, whereas Louisiana is 3 miles.  Very strange, since each entered the US with 3 leagues of offshore territory.  This was because Louisiana joined the US with its league defined as based on the Celtic version of a league, similar to the other states at the time.  What was different about Texas?  Since, "Celtic leagues" has probably caught Don Sailorman's attention, even he may be puzzled at this point as to why Celtic leagues must be used to explain the difference, I'll continue.

Why the Celts?  The Celtic league was adopted by the Romans as the leuga and  became a common unit of measurement throughout western Europe. It represented the distance a person could walk in an hour (or today, drive in 1.5 minutes at 60 mph).  The Celtic unit was about 1.5 Roman miles, which is roughly 1.4 statute miles or 2275 meters.  The unit did not remain constant and grew longer over time.  In many cases it was equal to 3 miles.  That was for land measurements.  At sea, the league was most often equal to 3 nautical miles (1/20 degree, 3.45 statute miles, or exactly 5556 meters).  Many occurrences of the "league" in English-language works are actually references to the Spanish league (the legua), the Portuguese league (legoa) or the French league (lieue).  In the U.S. and Britain, standard practice of modern times is to define the league to be 3 statute miles (4828.03 meters) on land or 3 nautical miles at sea.  So you can see the Celtic league has a pretty confusing history.

To complicate matters (as if its not already), the Spanish traditional legua was equal to 5000 varas, which is close to 2.6 miles or 4.2 kilometers.  Using the Texas definition of the vara = 33.33", the legua is 2.6305 miles, 13889 feet, or 4233.4 meters. (Even the vera is different between California, Texas, & South American countries) Using the original Spanish definition, the league would be 2.597 miles, 13712 feet, or 4179.4 meters.  This unit was abolished by Philip II in 1568, but it remained in rather widespread use, especially in the Americas.  During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a league of 8000 varas (4.15 miles or 6680 meters) was legal inside Spain, but at sea, Spanish sailors used the usual marine league (3 nautical miles or 5556 meters) or Philip V's "geographical" league of 1/17.5 degree (3.429 nautical miles or 6350.5 meters).  At present, the legua is used informally in Argentina and in other Spanish-speaking countries as a metric unit equal to exactly 5 kilometers (3.107 miles).

The Submerged Lands Act (SLA) of 1953 grants the States rights to the natural resources of the submerged lands from the coastline to no more than 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) into the Atlantic, Pacific, the Arctic Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico except the coastal waters of Texas and western Florida, where State jurisdiction extends from the coastline to no more than 3 marine leagues (16.2 km, apx 10 miles) into the Gulf of Mexico. The SLA also reaffirmed the Federal claim to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which consists of those submerged lands seaward of State jurisdiction.

The SLA led to the passage of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in 1954 (OCSLA). The OCSLA and subsequent amendments in 1978 and 1985 provide for Federal jurisdiction over the submerged lands of the OCS. Additionally, it authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease those lands for mineral development. Note that the legal OCS includes submerged lands that are not part of the geological OCS.

On March 10, 1983, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed Proclamation 5030 (3 CFR 22), which set up the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The EEZ consists of those areas adjoining the territorial sea of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. overseas territories and possessions. The EEZ extends up to 370 km (200 nmi) from the coastline.

Thank goodness for GPS.  The only problem with GPS is that its so accurate, we can see the difference between points located on different continental plates only after a few years.  Now we need a dynamic world atlas.

California funded the university system with general revenues. Oil was important to the California economy, but it was not dedicated to the university.
"One of the things that's puzzled me about Great Britain is the relative lack of public debate about North Sea oil production having peaked, not only peaked, but sliding over into fairly rapid decline. Why don't people talk about it more?"

Nine years of New Labour lies and blather have destroyed any interest in politics. People just want to get on with redecorating their houses - refinancing their debt on the back of their their house price appreciation,  and watching the footy on Sky. British politics has collapsed into the soggy centre of ideology free mediocrity. Its all very boring. Nobody gives a toss about mainstream politics these days. Rising energy prices have not hit home in a big enough way to distract from Man U and Arsenal - yet...

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. "

Are you trying to say something profound about the use of sports teams to create false tribal affiliations and the instinctual formation of tribes in "Lord of the Flies"? And if so, what is it?

Sorry, I don't speak or understand Brit. Is "footy" football as in soccer for us Yanks? Is Sky some sort of satellite TV?

I suspect that as Britain goes, so too will the USA eventually. The one delay factor we have in the USA is so much more land and a still untapped reservoir of coal. And of course, our population is not distracted by footy because we have much better things to do, like WFW and Oscar Night Awards. (WFW= World Federation of Wrestling =a scripted violence show).

As an aside, does anyone think that Clooney winning an Oscar (a false golden idol) for the "Syriana" movie will bring public attention momentarily to the Oil Question?

That's an interesting question. Maybe, they will release a video of that Energy Task Force meeting like the Katrina video. I don't think Bush or Cheney minds very much how many people approve of them. I used to listen to rightwing radio a lot too. I don't think there's a problem with people who believe the right wing stuff. I think we'll have a lot different priorities than divisional politcal ideologies in the future.

The Scientific American refuted an NY Times editorial refuting the peak:

World Oil, one of the two major trade journals for the petroleum industry, warns in its 2006 Outlook that despite double-digit increases in exploration investments in recent years:

The author, an energy industry consultant, goes on to predict that 2006 "will be the year when the Peak Oil topic intensifies into a debate on the scale of climate change/global warming."

Ut-oh, when they start talking about it, I don't know.  If they haven't been talking about it for fear of spooking people, what if a lot of people get spooked? Global warming is kind of talked about more often I've noticed, but not that often.  

16 days until the bourse. There was a news story I say about China changing a huge chunk of its dollar reserves.
Like from $800 billion to $300 billion I think. I can't find the original article where I found it.

I also saw a nes story on Yahoo about how Americans have negative savings all together.

Note that the "energy industry consultant" in question is Matthew R. Simmons, author of Twilight In the Desert.
16 days until the bourse. There was a news story I say about China changing a huge chunk of its dollar reserves.

and 2 days till the iaea start to do anything on the report that it was refered too, if i remember correctly.
I'd like to see that one.  Maybe TSHTF is starting.  We'll see.
There's a post over at Green Car Congress -
"The US Department of Energy (DOE) released reports projecting that state-of-the-art enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques could significantly increase recoverable oil resources of the United States by a factor of four or more."
I'm sure the oil tech heads here can parse it a bit better than I.
See Bubba's comment in this thread:

You can get a link to a specific comment like this:

(click on the date of a comment to find it's unique URL).

If you don't want the entire thread to come up when someone clicks it, you can also grab the reply URL and remove the "/post#here" on the tail end.  (It will load a lot faster if you do.)
This is a pretty spectacular report. Here is the web page for the report, and here is the PDF Fact Sheet that summarizes it. Some quotes from the latter:
While a mature hydrocarbon province, the United States still has 400 billion barrels of undeveloped technically recoverable oil.  Undeveloped domestic oil resources still in the ground (in-place) total 1,124 billion barrels.  Of this large in-place resource, 400 billon barrels is estimated to be technically recoverable.  This resource includes undiscovered oil, "stranded" light oil amenable to CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies, unconventional oil (deep heavy oil and tar sands) and new petroleum concepts (residual oil in reservoir transition zones).  

 - Of the 582 billion barrels of oil in-place in discovered fields, 208 billion has been already produced or proven, leaving behind 374 billion barrels of "stranded" oil after application of conventional (primary/secondary) oil recovery technology. With appropriate EOR technologies, 100 billion barrels of this "stranded" resource may become technically recoverable.

 - Undiscovered domestic oil is estimated to hold 360 billion barrels in-place, with 119 billion barrels recoverable with primary/secondary recovery. Application of EOR could add another 60 billion barrels of technically recoverable resource.

 - Future reserve growth of discovered oil fields is estimated to hold 210 billion barrels of oil in-place, with 71 billion barrels recoverable with primary/secondary recovery. Application of EOR could raise this technically recoverable volume by up to 40 billion barrels.

 - With advances in thermal EOR technology, domestic tar sands, holding 80 billion barrels of resource in-place, could provide up to 10 billion barrels of technically recoverable domestic oil resource. No estimates of recoverable oil from the residual oil zone are provided.

 - For comparison, current proved crude oil reserves are 22 billion barrels and annual domestic crude oil production is about 2 billion barrels.

That last figure is roughly in line with Stuart's estimate based on Hubbert linearization of 27 +- 8 GB remaining.

These projections are truly spectacular! They are talking about increasing estimates of recoverable oil by over an order of magnitude based on these new technologies. To put it in perspective, look at the contribution expected from tar sands: 10 billion barrels. That would normally seem like a lot, but it is insignificant next to the other contributions, which are in the hundreds of billions of barrels.

Who knows whether these technologies will work out as hoped, but I feel that this clearly shows the limits of extrapolation and curve-fitting techniques such as Hubbert linearization. Stuart fits a curve and gets that there are 27 GB left. Then here comes some new technologies that can supposedly recover 400 GB. What does the Hubbert curve say to that?

Is it telling us that these new technologies won't work? How could the curve know? That curve pretty much had its shape fixed by the time of the 1980s. How could anyone know, back in 1980, whether new EOR techniques and other technologies could greatly increase oil recovery? When engineers go to apply these techniques to oil fields, is the ghost of King Hubbert going to appear and make them stop?

The point is, if you pit human ingenuity and creativity against extrapolations from the past, my bet will be on the  humans. These curves have no power to compel future generations to accept their limits. It seems absurd to claim that a curve whose shape was fixed in 1985 can somehow constrain the entire future of human creativity and productivity to never be able to recover more oil than was predicted at that time. The future is just not that predictable.

I appreciate the link and thoughts. I, for one, am extremely skeptical based on past gross over-optimism of the government agencies. If they start showing results, I'll be more persuaded. But what are they proposing that we are not doing now that will make such a huge difference? All kinds of tech has been developed since 1970 - 36 years! - and yet HL has held up pretty well. Will it really be that different over the next 5 - 10 years given nothing much new is really coming down the pike? Can they really stop the production slide, or just slow it some?

I'll keep an open mind and wait and see, but not hold my breath. It might be that these resources/technologies are what keep us in plastics for the next 150 yrs, but don't provide the volume production we are used to.

Halfin: I would note two things:
  • Lots of very interesting new technology has been developed and applied in the US in the last 30 years. It has not made a dramatic difference to the shape of the linearization curve so far.
  • CO2 injection is not a new technique. The location of major oil fields in the US have been known for a long time. As for undiscovered oil, with the exception of some not-that-prospective places of scenic interest, the government's been keen to have the industry look for more oil. There are a number of large oil companies failing to replace their reserves, unable to increase production and losing market share, and lots of small companies eager to make it big. So if there's so much oil, why aren't they all exploiting it to increase production?
So, should we believe that the domestic industry is incompetent and is thus suffering from three decades of falling production even though only 1/3 of the eventual oil has been produced? Or is it easier to believe that some government contractor paid by a Republican DOE maybe exaggerated the potential a wee bit here?
I think the driver of CO2 injection is global warming, not trying to get more oil. If getting ANY oil at all is a byproduct of sequestration, society will view that as a good thing.
One thing I notice in the report is that the biggest chunk of those 400 GB comes from undiscovered oil. That's 170 GB, and of that, 119 GB is conventional recovery of that oil. In other words, even if we leave off EOR and other exotic technologies, the reports estimate there is 5 times the proven reserves in undiscovered oil.

So where is that oil? Well, I guess if we knew that, it wouldn't be undiscovered, would it? But they probably have some ideas where to look. Maybe someone will read the reports and find out.

My guess is that the oil is in places where for political reason we are not allowing oil development and exploration now, environmentally sensitive regions like the California and Florida coastlines, national forests, Alaska of course, etc. Maybe we need to put a giant oil derrick on top of Old Faithful and fill Yosemite valley with oil pumps. There was a ruckus locally when they proposed to start oil exploration in the National Forest region nearby.

It's conceivable that there is a lot of undiscovered oil in these regions. Whether we are ever going to drill it is another question.

"But they probably have some ideas . . ."

"They" is an unreferred pronoun.

Suppose "they" refer to geologists. I know what the geologists are saying: The rest of the oil out there is going to be a helluva lot more expensive to develop than the easy oil we have already pumped.

Rather than focus on the ultimate amounts recoverable with current technology, let's look at cost per barrel. There may be a huge amount of oil out there (deep under water, in tiny pockets, in hard bitumen, in shale and tar sands, etc.) but if it costs $500 per barrel it is useless. If it costs $400 per barrel it is useless. If it costs $300 it is useless, at least for the next twenty years. Once we get down to say, $200 per barrel, triple current price, then how much oil is out there? I think that is the question, and given current technology I think Matt Simmons has nailed it.

While technically those numbers COULD be accurate, they make no accounting for EROI - some of that oil clearly would take more than a barrel of energy equivalent to pump than to get one barrel out.  But that report, sanctioned by Department of Energy will be all the Peak Oil naysayers need to glom onto - look - 400 billion barrels left! market will solve it! back to business as usual! etc etc
  1. At one time all you had to do was puncture the top-soil and the stuff would come spurting out.

  2. Now you have to scrape the entire surface of eastern Montana, expending a huge amount of energy in the process.

  3. A single hydrogen atom contains a proportionally high amount of potentially releaseable energy.

If you really think about it, we have a huge amount of energy available, but one's attitude depends on the decision to live in a reality-based society or not.
Sorry, Halfin, but you taking these figures at face value is absurd and not up to your usual standards. I have seen some posts from HO that CO2 injection could provide more recoverable reserves in California and some other places. CO2 injection is not universally applicable because it depends on the particular geology.

27 Gb versus 400 Gb? This is crazy. The US is a mature oil province, the most explored, developed (including EOR) and analyzed province in the world.

It is naive to think that pronouncements like the have any basis in reality. This statement from the DOE link

This assessment originally examined the resource potential for applying state-of-the-art CO2-EOR technologies in only six basins/areas of the United States. It did not include the additional resource potential outlined in the ten basin-oriented assessments, or the recoverable resources from residual oil zones, as discussed in related reports issued by DOE in February 2006. Accounting for these, the future recovery potential from domestic undeveloped oil resources by applying EOR technology is 240 billion barrels, boosting potentially recoverable resources to 430 billion barrels.
They did a bogus extrapolation based on 6 areas where CO2 injection might increase recoverable reserves. And then, using some voodoo I can't describe at present until I look further, they did some more extrapolations (without taking into economics of recovery) and made a "potential" estimate of recoverable reserves. I'll take a look again but on the face of it, this is total bullshit.

I expect a bit more critical analysis in the stuff you post, Halfin, since you are a resident and respected "skeptic" here at TOD.

Actually, the report looks like a real attempt to identify some paths for increasing the amount of oil available for recovery in the united states.  Basically, they are recommending thermal and CO2 approaches to recovering oil left behind by conventional approaches historically used in the US.

While the numbers are probably pie in the sky, they probably are correct that there is a lot of oil which can be recovered through additional effort.

The part that goes off the deep end is the table on page A-4 of the report, where they predict that these efforts could yield an additional 17.2 mbd of production by 2030.  Indentifying, expensive, technically complex options for increasing oil yield is one thing, stating that these options could be implemented to such a level as to provide oil at three times our current production rate is absolutely insane.

I would probably agree more with this report if they estimated that these techniques could provide another 2-4 mbd by 2030.  Of course, then the report would do nothing to counter the issue of PO, which is the real purpose of the report.

Unless the geological limits of CO2 injection are substantial (and I'd like to see you point to info about that), the potential appears huge.  The project at Weyburn, SK looks to increase total recovery by something like half.  That's certainly not going to make the oil age continue indefinitely, but it would buy more than enough time to avoid the crash scenarios.
I think it's important to repeat what bubba said here :

My company has screened all the world's fields for their CO2 flood potential. The list of good candidates is small.  Their first has to be a cheap, reliable source of high pressure, high volume CO2. Then the reservoir and reservoir fluids have to exist in the right pressure and temperature conditions and have the right composition. The reservoir needs to be susceptible to pattern flooding (i.e. a good waterflood candidate usually makes a good CO2 flood candidate).  Lastly the fiscal conditions have to be such that companies would be willing to invest very large sums of money with the prospect of making a profit many years in the future.
A move toward carbon sequestration would create a plethora of high-pressure, high-volume CO2 at zero or negative cost; that's the big one.  Widespread replacement of existing fossil-fuel burners creates an opportunity to site them where they are most convenient for sequestration (and CO2 flooding).  As for "suitability of the fields", does it matter?  We really need to put that carbon somewhere, and any oil we get back is lagniappe.
This sounds like a mirror of the ethanol debate - if we want to create 1 billion barrels of ethanol per year at an EROI of 1.2:1, we need to use 6 billion barrels of oil equivalent to grow 5 billion barrels of ethanol to net out 1 billion to society.

Same thing with CO2 injection for EOR - people are looking at the size of the asset without considering taking away from our energy bank account in order to access it.

Kind of like saying there is enough heat at the earths core to heat every house on the planet for 5000 years. OK lets do it.

As Peak Oil becomes more mainstream, peoples genetic penchant (and cultural for that matter) for optimism will increasingly show up in sexy, almost real sounding alternatives that wont pass muster when applied to the critical alt supply framework:
2) Environmental externalities

Thelastsasquatch, I agree with your figures of 6 acres needed to grow 1 acre for ethanol, IF the EROEI is 1.2. I prefer a figure of 1.5 which still requires 3 acres to produce 1 acre's worth of ethanol. Just shows how crucial ROEI is at these low numbers...
I'm not saying this report is 100% correct. Mostly I was looking at the larger question of what we can learn from different kinds of analyses. I thought this was a good example of an inherent limitation of Hubbert Linearization, namely that it cannot by its nature foresee future technological enhancements. You almost have to believe in fate or predestination to say that no technology can ever overcome the limits of the HL curve.

Looking at some of the other comments, they emphasize that these enhanced recovery techniques may be very expensive. The report mentions that as well and even talks about subsidizing the oil companies (poor starving little things!). This is an example, then, of the much-derided belief of economists that increased prices will increase supply.

Some geologists argue that this view is ludicrous, because you can't create more oil than is in the ground, no matter the price. This report reminds us that there is enormously more oil in the ground than we can actually produce today, and that if we are willing to pay more (possibly much more), we should be able to extract more oil. This is the sense that economists mean it when they say that increasing price increases supply. It's not that more oil is being created, it's that previously uneconomical recovery techniques can now be used to profitably extract existing oil.

Again, I don't know if the particular techniques evaluated by these reports will turn out to be practical or not. Sounds like they will probably work better in some fields than others. But the point remains that increasing price and improving technology both give us grounds to increase our estimates of recoverable oil, possibly substantially above estimates from the Hubbert curve.

I thought this was a good example of an inherent limitation of Hubbert Linearization, namely that it cannot by its nature foresee future technological enhancements. You almost have to believe in fate or predestination to say that no technology can ever overcome the limits of the HL curve.
Well, I partially agree, with the caveat that the technological enhancment would have to be significantly more game-changing than the past history of technological enhancements. A technology that gave us 100% recovery rates with modest capital and energy inputs would certainly blow away the extrapolation.
I think amuch of this EOR oil figure is meaningless.  It hasn't been produced yet because of cost and quite possibly will only be produced at a very high cost.  Counting total reserves when including all EOR methods (known and unknown ?) is meaningless.  Unless EOR oil can be produced at a cost beneficial to the economy, what use is it?  Oil at any price is not the same as the oil we know and talk about today.  How much of this is should be called the "elite" oil reserves that will be available only for strategic use by the military, important high value products, ie. not for transportation of noncritical goods, etc?  

What one should do is break out this EOR oil according to market price necessary to make various quantities of it available for an economically viable recovery, and gauge the various prices against expected effects that any given price for oil would have on the economy.  This would be a meaningful method of "evaluating" EOR oil.  Could it not be possible that only, say 1/2, of this total EOR oil reserve is possible to produce "economically"?

Let's try an experiment! I think we should all try to use the term "global meltdown" instead of "global warming", as it's way too benign. I'd kind of like to see if we have the influence to get it into the mainstream media, by using it conciously as a substitute phrase. I like to try to shake-up the way the mainstream uses language and thereby controls and defines the agenda. I suppose I hope it would give us another kind of image. That we are being proactive and challanging the way we describe reality. I mean I'd really like to take on Carl Rove given half the chance!
I think we are past "framing the debate." I think everyone needs to take care of themselves and not keep believing anything they do will be effective on a society-wide basis.
Let's Try TWO experiments.

In one population do NOT DISTRACT them with that $$%(&*#&^$&^ Global Warming Crap.

See if they can pay attention to the more immediate problem at hand, namely Feeding and Heating and Cooling our selves in the HERE and NOW.

As opposed to worring the Septic Tank-O-Wasted CO2 Molecules overflowing when the Fridge is empty and the Furnace and A/C are out.

Ask ANY 3rd Worlder how many Sticks He Burned today to cook and heat himself... AND if he gives a Cold Day in Hades about how many CO2 molecules he released.

Luxuries like Morals, Laws, Ethics and even Religions go Out of the Mind of the Irrational under Extreme Streeses they never imagined would REALLY happen to them.

"Meltdown" is certainly a more eye catching phrase because the listner is free to interpret it (decode it) to mean almost anything, not necessarily greenhouse induced melting of the polar ice caps. It could mean financial meltdown, or social meltdown. And of course it brings in imagery of nuclear meltdown.
I have not read the Deloite Report on the future of UK electricity generation yet, but this caught my eye over at:  

What little I do know is that the long-range power generation problems are at least as acute in California and Northeastern North America with the exception of Quebec. Rates here in Maine are the highest in the U.S.

I was thinking of all my annual charitable giving - I give to a wide range of organizations local, national and worldwide. I have been thinking of two ways of leveraging those donations:

A - Continue to give to current organizations and restrict my donation to "Improving energy efficiency". That means they will have to earmark my donation to some type of energy efficiency technique.

B - Finding some new worthy organizations that will be working toward PO Awareness or solutions. Post Carbon Institute comes to mind, any other ideas?

Try sending me a "charitable donation" so I can do this full time!
Do what full time?
I would STRONGLY recommend  For CHARITABLE giving to edjacation for Peak Energy Awareness.  See the YELLOW BOX on left side.

I think the recipients (based on personal experience so far) will find these pretty posters useful for "finger painting day" with their children if nothing else.

I found the poster extremely educational and informative and all requested local "officials" I requested be sent copies apparently received the posters in a very timely manner (and promptly became confused and angry... like typical Homo da Saps who fear their non-negotiable PartyUP life style might be threatened by "facts," - remember those "stupid things?"

Yeah, great idea that I totally forgot about. EOS is still my favorite education tool, but it does freak people out a bit. The poster is very straightforward. And only $5 a pop. Did they send you a list of who they were sent to? For my area, I'm thinking not just public officials and teachers, but co-op condo boards of big buildings. Definitely going to buy some this weekend.
They apparently look up the officials in your area they think would benefit the most from the poster - that is how it appears based on the order form questions.

I sent in all of the names and addresses myself and they used them.  I sent to the mayor, area high school science or ag teachers, Local Agriculture Groups, Local Chamber of Commerce head, Local Physical Plant Central Committee Member for area school system (buys all heat utilities etc), a couple bright(er) area business leaders, the city library, Social Services Free-Psych clinician (Pre/post Tramatic Stress Syndrome will be Culled from our population ... or not... ??? "Depends," says Mother Nature (there she sits there doing her Nail Claws now...)

Charles Hall at Syracuse is trying to create an "EROI Institute" but has little funding outside his core Schoolf of Forestry projects - he has several students working on EROI research and alt fuel projects that include environmental costs within the boundaries. Hes doing this on a shoestring so a donation to Syracuse ESF/Hall would probably go a long way. Hes a good thinker and teacher but not a good moneyraiser.

He coined the term EROI 25 years ago with his research on fish, then with Cutler Cleveland wrote many papers and an 'energy bible' on the subject - most of this stuff is old and is desperately in need of updating.

Before we plunge pell mell into the unknown of various alternative fuels, it will be critical to have an impartial systems umbrella that can sythesize the various assets and liabilities of the global energy balance sheets.

That's an interesting idea. I like the academic angle. This sounds like something to lobby public officials about rather than for individual donations. I know a few folks who went to Syracuse - I'll ask them to mention him in their donations.
please do. So far, the public official route hasnt worked out too well.
I used to give donations to various organizations but found the volume of snail mail I was getting soliciting me for ever more funds mounted up to near the kilogram a day level, and now I give only to The Nature Conservancy, which I believe to be the most effective organization at meeting the most vital long-term needs of humans--and also, we have an ageement: I send money, and they send me exactly one annual reminder, nothing else. Thus many trees are saved, and in more ways than one.
Some ideas I could recommend:

  1. Think about your local homeless shelters.  Our local paper is running a series now on the homeless in the area.  While we can have differing views on these people, it is a terrible way to live.  Once TSHIF, there is going to be a lot more of them, and the life will be a lot more difficult.

  2. Try  They do a lot of work in the 3rd world with sustainable development/works installing solar water pumps, etc.

  3. My favorite guys: Knightsbridge International (  These are real Knights of Malta and Templars trying to make the world a better place.  (Anyone that can beat the CIA into Afganistan after 9/11 AND have a $50,000 price on their head by the Taliban got to be fun to hang around!)

  4. Help out with the solar economy by purchasing solar equipment (panels, water heaters, etc.) Help grow this industry so it will be there when we need it
I can't believe I forgot THESE Ex-Hippie's-turned Saviors who Teach and help Define State Incentive Programs for Renewable Energies...

AND... and which is the Only place on this blue-green Orb that offers Certification for Site Assessing for Sloar PV and HW as well as Wind Turbine installation...

As of FEB, 2006 their enrollment for their Workshops and Certification Classes is up sumthin' like 400% over LAST year ... busy, busy, busy doing The Mother's Work...

Some of them ex-Hippies consult with other states, foreign countries and with companies big and small.

The Midwest Renewable Energy Association.
(world's Bestest Annual RENewable Energy Fair)

Ever since getting out of the Hospital from massive blood clots that tried to kill me, I have been a lurker here.  But An Open thread rather fresh.

I have noticed that the pirces of recycled metals have gone up.  I collected 24 pounds of crushed cans over the last 3 weeks.  

I am moving from Huntsville Alabama to Atwood Colorado but the end of May 2006 hopefuly the gas prices are not too high, But I will be on a one-way ticket via my Chevy Ventura Mini-van.  Finally a small town and a small home.

My girl friend is trying to buy a small house on a double lot and I will grow the gardens and do the home prep for winter and the rest of the year, and go into more full time writting,  I just hope the shit stays away from the fan long enough so I can get out there on $3.00 gas.  Which is what I am saving for.

God Bless you all and the coming storms, both the wet kind and the oil kind.

Vaya con Dios...
I personally think you just might be OK in that time frame.  Wish I had the nerve to face the unknown instead of sitting and waiting to be "positioned" well enough (whatever that means besides terminal procrastination) to get the hell out of San Diego.
Don't know where Atwood is, even though I was raised in CO and have all my family there, but just a hint...ENSURE YOUR WATER SUPPLY.
Big Oil's marketing machine has now rumbled into action with Exxon denying Peak Oil. In the supply side debate, there seems to me only one area of the debate that could realistically change the "peaking about now" view - Saudi reserves.

It's said that exploration in Saudi Arabia was severely curtailed during the 1990s oil glut/$10 bbl period. We've also heard from Al-Naimi that the Saudis are to add 200 billion bbl to reserves "soon".

Is it realistic that significant new reserves in Saudi Arabia can be found by ramping up exploration there?

The suggestion that nuclear plants get involved with Candadian tar sands has been dismissed as crazy. However I think nuclear energy could help maintain our personal mobility and keep folks employed in tourist towns. Some alternative fuels have tricky intermediate steps that sap energy and lower EROEI. Examples are hydrogenation reactions (FT diesel, methanol) and drying of fermentation alcohols. The existing inputs could be boosted by nuclear hydrogen or electricity. Farmers could use battery driven tractors and synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. Add to that light rail as a substitute for car commuting and not least plug-in hybrids.  In other words business-as-usual except the underpinning energy source is not fossil fuel.  
A fifteen minute visit to TOD before bed is usually all it takes to ruin a good night's sleep (visions of post peak looters dancing in my head). The problem of suburbia causes me particular anguish: there is such a damned lot of it, and so much has already been invested in it, that I often wish at least some portion could be rehabilitated.

I also worry that people will tune out entirely if they are offered nothing but the prospect of dying cold and alone. Surely throwing up one's hands and reciting the standard "You live in the suburbs? Buddy, you're screwed. Don't even bother with the efficient lightbulbs, just prepare for the culling!" is not the best way to get the middle class on side.

With that in mind, I found these two pieces interesting, since they provide concrete examples of what "ordinary people" can do to reduce reliance on fossil fuels:

This broadcast from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Radio National is about Linda and Trevor Cockburn, a couple who wanted to see if they could go six months without spending a dollar on food, power, water or transport in Queensland. They grew their own veggies on their 2180 square metre suburban block and bartered their homemade goat's cheese for staples such as rice, flour and sugar. Also see an earlier interview here and here for their own site.

This article by Australian permaculture guru David Holmgren discusses how he believes the suburbs could be retrofitted for sustainability. As he points out in this interview, there is room for an incremental, adaptive strategy in the suburbs, since people can "just start changing houses and doing things - give or take planning regulations -without the whole of society agreeing on some plan".

I also worry that people will tune out entirely if they are offered nothing but the prospect of dying cold and alone.
You just pegged one of the big reasons I went into blogging.  People will do something if they have an idea of what to do.
I want to ask about possible resources etc  for information on "How To"'s for Crisis Planning for small communities for Peak Energy.  

I am (trying desperately and very unsuccessfuly to) work QUIETly with some very dense local Central Commitees and want all the Angles I can get to convince them there are in fact BABY STEPS that can be taken - a sort of Plan Z, if you will.

Thank you for your consideration,

Here's one thing your community can do, and it's baby-step easy and major-leap effective:  make superinsulation MANDATORY in the local building codes.  Make sure that retrofits are budgeted into every renovation of municipal structures, and strongly encourage the same for private buildings.  If you can, revise property-tax appraisals so that e.g. the increased building footprint from added insulation does not raise the tax bill.

And don't allow vehicles over 6500 lbs GVW to be driven except on truck routes, or parked except in loading zones.  That'll get rid of the huge Durangos and Hummers.

Thank you for some very constructive ideas I had not even thought about considering yet.  I know the TAX incentives and other similar approaches are gaining steam ini many states BUT the Muni's could Also offer rebates and tax incentives to Area Business (and any new construction that my remain possible ...).  That would Foster Competition between CityStates w/I each slightly larger Local.

BUT I have been picking at this scab a-longtime along this vein and don't think that's gonna cut it alone.

WE need sumthing for the Emergency situations.

One suggestionquestion... - I wonder about Crisis Mgmt on the local level (considering the N.O. Local's as the biggest Failures in Katrina- NO mess)...and I wonder does the school system have any kind of reserve or storage system for themselves or is it at the mercy of the local suppliers storage systems?  I wonder about that for the local Emergency Systems too.. ambulance, fire, police.

These systems are critical for Community Confidence in ANY crisis -  just a cursory glance at even Real-Time events around the world recently suggests In Most Cases the Systems in place by local authorities have not been very effective (at least not early in the crisis).

I be just wantin' to have confidence We in My Home Townz are not going to Ever behave like Them ...  just about Any "them" I see in the news lately I guess... like maybe

... like N.O. .... they had a Level III Hurricane DRILL with their Dykes and Levies about four years before Katrina.... who fell asleep after That Media-recorded-but-forgot-and-blamed-Bush-for-later Event... and only woke up to try to Blame the Federal gubermint for some Local problem.... pathetic.

My guess is that there are Maybe 12 Communities of my HomeTownz Size and Complexity in the USA that are aware of and actually prepared for this Energy Crisis and Monetary System-Realignment.

Maybe a dozen might seem generous to you, or not, I have no idea.

...Zap-Gap-Out...: For a Good Time Call: (no, not underscore, dash)

More and more states are adopting the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), but some still use state-specific codes or ASHRAE.  You can check what your state uses here:
In last "Cigar Now?" thread there were some comments about russian oil production costs and the Russian Minister of Industry and Energy's warnings on "collapse in oil production". I want to explain some Russia's realities.
First of all, Energy Minister in Russia is the main lobbyist of oil and gas industries. Don't take him too seriously. His goal is to win tax preferences for oil companies and maybe to provoke the further rise in oil price.
Secondly, production costs in Russia are climbing fast in US dollars terms because of huge internal dollar inflation. In 2000 Russia's GDP was around 200 billion dollars, in 2005 it was 765 billion and in 2006 it will be around 1 trillion US dollars (based on projections by financial ministry). Fivefold increase in 6 years. Of course real GDP rise was not so fast.
Russian ruble could be devalued if Kremlin sniffs a threat to its incomes.
And maybe another point. There is wide-spread criticism in english language press of Russia's place in so-called G8 because of small GDP and autocratic tendencies. I think Kremlin has decided to eliminate one of these failings and to achieve formal eighth place by the size of GDP before the next presidential elections in 2008 even by the price of diminished competitiveness of national companies.

Andrei, back in Moscow now.

Almost everyone said that Hubbert was crazy about the Lower 48 peaking.   The Lower 48 peaked in 1970 at 48% of Qt.

And almost all Texas oilmen in 1972 said Hubbert was crazy.   Texas peaked in 1972 at 54% of Qt.

And the top 10 majors working the North Sea confidently predicted--using the best data and the best engineers available--that North Sea Production would not peak until 2010.  The North Sea peaked in 1999 at 52% of Qt.  

Notice a trend here?

So, this time conventional wisdom is right, and Russia is magically exempt from the simple Hubbert Linearization (HL) analysis?  I don't buy it.  Sure, the frontier areas may have some unexploited reserves.  But every HL model we have says that existing Russian production is poised for a dramatic collapse in production. But I forgot, THIS TIME, conventional wisdom is correct.  It's just been almost always wrong in the past.  

One little point. Post-1984 cumulative Russian oil production is still BELOW what the HL model--using only 1984 and earlier data to predict future production--predicts that it should be.   And as Russia gets closer to catching up to where the model says it should be, production growth has been slowing dramatically.  

But I forgot. THIS TIME conventional wisdom is right.

I don't trust the industry predictions, either.  They don't seem to learn from their mistakes.  They missed the U.S. oil peak.  Then made the same mistake with natural gas.  The big energy companies were saying we had "hundreds of years' worth" of natural gas, even as it was peaking.  They said we were the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas."  I fear they were more right than they know.

Hirsch found that even with the best information in the world, the peak is sharp and sudden, and you don't see it coming.  Millions of dollars' worth of natural gas plants had to be cancelled when the industry realized they could not be supplied.  So it wouldn't surprise me if Russia started building a pipeline even if they're at peak now.

At least my company is not going to peak in next 10 years and from what I know my peers are not either. Maybe I am wrong. If so I'll buy an island somewhere near equator and will grow bananas and fuck guys.
Either way I'll win :)

Andrei, Moscow.

Bolshoi moi...that will certainly help reduce the population overshoot.
Don't be surprized.

New under construction or will happen

North European Gas Pipeline
Baltic Pipeline System
Sachalin Pipeline (oil is presently ferried in)


Druzhba Northern Branch  upgrade
Suknodolnaya-Rodionovka (Ukraine Bypass)
Export Pipeline Surgut to Murmansk
Export Pipeline Usinsk to Murmansk
Inkutsk to Bejing
Skavoradino to Bejing
Gas Kazachinskoye to Bejing-Seoul
Yamal Gas Line to China
Yamal Gas Line to Europe
Barents sea Gas Line
Shtokman Gas Line
Shtokman LNG (US and China Markets)
Ukraine-Russia-Germany Gas Transport Consortium
Nabucco Pipeine

I think that Iran would deep freeze its nuclear development program if the Turkmenistan-Iran-Afganistan-India pipeline was given financing instead.

"I think that Iran would deep freeze its nuclear development program if the Turkmenistan-Iran-Afganistan-India pipeline was given financing instead. "

Are you really serious about this, or was this an "off the cuff" statement intended to incite belly laughs?

Serious, but laugh if you think its funny.  They would have a most excellent market for their gas reserves and make a bit of money on the Taj gas going through Iran.  Not to mention the political influence the could gain over  Pakistan and India via controlling their fuel supply.

Pipsqueek's nuclear deal with the NON-NPT signer (India) has royally POed both Pakistan and Iran and was a direct countermove against the Taj-India pipeline, which India wants very badly.  It is believed that the nuclear deal was set up last year so India would agree to vote against Iran, if there was a move to take Iran to the Security Council, rather than vote no and try to get this pipeline built. It is not as simplistic as it may appear to be on the surface.  Why else would Pipsqueek think he could get away with offering a NON NPT signer such a deal???  Not really within the NPT theme of play, don't you think?

EXCELLENT Response.  Okay now, let us see... Mother ????

"Serious, but laugh if you think its funny"

Yes, this is serious, and yes, I do laugh because I think it is very, very funny.  Not a tear to be shed for homo Sap at This Time and This Place Now that is NOT different this timezUp afterall.

I love how deep you delve here into the Minds of Giants playing on This Board now.  Seriously, my brother-in-law and I were sort of "pretending" to play Risk using the most realistic, objectiveness we could muster (quite a bit really when you step back and don't chose any sides... like The Mother Never choses sides until the Bloodzz comes up whin She Sticks it with a fork.

Look the Nukes-Or-Nuthin' approach is how I read Iran and it's Godz Hearing Learned-Leaders .. you know, the Ones on a Crusade to Wipe the InfidelicHebrewState from the Orb?

Are you aware that your posts are nearly incoherent?
Ignore him and he'll go away.
Yes.  Mother is aware her Posters are sometimes not coherent... sumtimezUP are.

Scientific brain linked to autism
30 Jan 06 |  Health

Einstein and Newton 'had autism'
30 Apr 03 |  Health

sometimes people listen better too than other times.

couple links

Re: "And as Russia gets closer to catching up to where the model says it should be, production growth has been slowing dramatically"

I don't really want to go around and around with you on this particular subject again, westexas, but it is not the case that production growth has been slowing dramatically. At least, not yet. I'm looking for declines in the 2008 to 2010 period (more likely the latter date) and so are most other analysts. This has a lot to do with internal finance & politics and harder to produce unexploited oil basins with accompanying lack of infrastructure to move the oil. Recoverable reserves are uncertain and expected daily production in the next 5 years or so is uncertain too.

Time will tell. If they collapse, you're right and I'm wrong. Betting everything on the Hubbert Linearization is kind of putting all your eggs in one basket as far as this issue goes. Khebab, who has done the curve fitting, sees a double peak that shows there may be more future production out of Russia than you are willing to admit. Won't you at least acknowledge that there are major uncertainties in the situation in Russia going forward? Just as with Stuart's "Cigar" posts on world production, we are put in a "wait & see" position regarding Russia.

best, Dave

HL has been WAY off on the slope (y-o-y changes) for decades now in Russia.  Why is HL suddenly going to be right after having been SO wrong fro So long @ Russia ?
I have admitted the lightly explored frontier areas in Russia are big unknowns.  

In regard to the "noisy" HL Russian plot, that is why I asked Khebab to focus just on the 1984 and earlier production data to predict post-1984 Russian production.  Russia, like Iran, has production problems that were related to political problems.

Using just 1984 and earlier data to predict post-1984 production, the cumulative post-1984  Russian production was quite close to the HL prediction, but still below where it should be.  

If memory serves, the recent year over year increases in production were something like 11%, 9% and then 2.7% last year, which sure looks like slowing to me as Russia gets closer to where the cumulative production should be.  Which is why I thought the warnings by the Russian energy minister of the possibility of a "real collapse in oil production" were so interesting.

I have the same feeling about future Russian production, though it is based mostly on deductions from my observed effectiveness of the former socialist economy. It's nice to see it supported by somebody who is in the industry.

IMHO we need a more regular checkup with reality here at TOD, and I think that the underestimated Russian potential is a nice wakeup call, especially for the doomsday peakoilers.

Поживем, увидем
(we'll live and see)

Don't Know If All Saw This Announcement At ASPO-USA

Dr. Robert L. Hirsch joins ASPO-USA advisory board.
ASPO USA    Monday, February 27, 2006

ASPO-USA is pleased to announce that Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, principal author of the DOE funded SAIC report "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management", has joined the board of advisors. Dr. Hirsch will work with Matthew R. Simmons, Dr. Albert Bartlett and other prominent board members to advise ASPO-USA on important matters in the future.

Hi guys. I'm new to this thread but started reading some of the post a few weeks ago. It's the best site for up-to-date peak oil information that I've found.

I just finished reading Deffeyes book where he explains that for oil to be created, the organic material must have gone through the "oil window", which is a certain depth range inside Earth's crust. He also claims that you're not going to find much oil below the ocean floor, which puts 60% of Earth off limits for finding oil. It wasn't clear why this was the case. Is it because the crust isn't thick enough there?? Yet, a large fraction of the new found in the last few years has been in "deep water". Can anybody explain this apparent paradox.


I don't know why oil isn't below the sea floor--someone else here (like a real geologist) can probably answer that part.

My hunch about the "deep water" part is that it's relative--what you and I would call "deep water" is a pittance in comparison to the depths of the main part of the oceans.  I'm guessing that, in a global view, "deep water" is really more like "just slightly farther offshore".

In other words, the "deep water" areas where oil is currently being found are just the edges of the continental shelves. This would explain why nobody's drilling around Hawaii or in the Mariana Trench.
The vast bulk of "deep water" finds in the last decade appear to still be on the continental shelf. So although they may be in several thousand feet of water, they are not in 15,000 or more feet of water that marks the real ocean floor. And those few that are tend to be right on the edge of the continental shelf anyway. The continental shelf area still is situated to receive biological matter flushed from the continents and the warmer/shallower shelf waters. The deeper ocean is not so well situated so the creation of proper conditions plus the deposition of sufficient biological material in the open ocean does not appear to happen, according to what we know about geology, oceanography, and biology today. Thus, the floors of the deep ocean are not good candidates for finding oil.
The limits of the "oil window" (and forgive me for not having read the Deffeyes book) evokes an image of a cross section of the earth, like you've probably seen in school or the National Geographic. And in this cross section, you have a really hot interior, the source of volcanoes and such, where carbon could only exist as diamonds or dissolved in molten rock.

And right at the surface, if you had hydrocarbons there millions of years ago, they would have leaked out -- when that happens you get a tar pit for a while but that's a temporary phenomenon in geologic time as the leakage oxidizes / evaporates away. So there's this range of depths at which liquid hydrocabons can exist.

Seismic data shows that the sea floor is relatively thin compared to continental crust. Although I'm not a scientist (but play one on usenet), I'd say there isn't any "oil window" on the abyssal plains. You've got seafloor being created along these cracks running around the earth and there isn't much sediment on it, as the seafloor is mostly geologically recent solidified magma.

On the other hand, oil is apparently still being created in the Gulf Of Mexico where the Mississippi delta piles up mud and organic goo ... all that dead biological stuff and sewage eventually gets rotted and squished and cooked to the right temperature and if there's a layer of rock salt or something to trap it, you have oil and gas.

Note: the GOM is not "deep water".  Most of it is on the continental shelf, essentially a continuation of North America but under water.

The Markets Do Not YET recognize Peak Production of Oil or NGas ???

BUT the Markets do Anticipate Production Peaking for Gold (but not for silver, copper and aluminum) ???

Based this on analysis (see Methods ref. below) of the Slope for the Graph of the December Futures Delivery Contracts plotted over time (up to 2112 for oil ... see for raw publicl, free raw data)).

Only Gold slope is positive, the others are flat or negative.  So, The Market Appears to foresee declining gold availability and is willing to pay a higher price on further-out Forward Contracts.  

Any comments would be appreciated (except those by passing economist-creationist wishing to entertain Science On Trial II: This Time It Counts 4 REAL (Matter and Energy Kin NOT be created by the godz of Technology, Politics, Markets, Science and Technology and even Zues)

Peak Oil and the NYMEX Futures Market: Do Investors Believe in Physical Realities? - Pedro Almeida

Complacency Claims more lives than ALL other mechanimsm of Death combined.

This type of analysis is misleading. First of all, there is a cost of carry to the gold market. Oil and natural gas dont really sit in vaults so there is not a pure arbitrage available on forward year futures. Te positive slope you se in the gold market is purely a function of interest rates minus carrying cost.

Natural gas markets expect LNG to come online by 2009-2010 which is why the negative slope there.

Crude has had a downward sloping futures curve but back dated contracts (I think you meant 2012, not 2112) are now at all time highs. Gold is still way below its all time highs.

Also, you cant make fertilizer or jet fuel out of gold, though you can barter with it - if the planet had to devote resources towards producing oil or mining gold, more 'work' could be created from the oil, which is the route they'd go.

A wedding ring for a chicken anyone?

I like the gold hedge. I'm also looking into future contracts for oil. Anyone recommend a reputable broker for that type of transaction?
You are going to play at the gold table and other gambling tables . . . . um . . . a reputable broker? No, what you need is a reputable astrologer. Did you know that at the present day in France there are more people making their livings at astrology than who are priests?

Also, consider looking now for a leading bankruptcy attorney. Speculation is a fool's game.

Read the classic, "Where are the Customers' Yachts?"

Also read Paul Erdmann's "The Silver Bears."

You want to make money in speculation? You be the broker. In any kind of casino, only the house wins. That is a DUET. (Deep Universal Eternal Truth)

On the other hand, if you were as smart as John Maynard Keynes or Bernard Baruch, you would not be asking questions about finding brokers.

You mean that Keynes and Baruchiband guys trade on-line on their own?  Ameritrade I bet - cheap per trade but good service.

Some Risks are not as great as gamble as others.  

There is absolutely NO comparison between astrology and the markets etc.

You are correct that there is no comparison between astrology and the kind of speculation you propose doing.

As an astrologer you can make a good living.

As a speculator, maybe a few months down the road I'll be buying newspapers from you that you try to peddle to motorists stopped at lights.

Whom the gods wish to destroy, first they drive them mad.

Or you might be buying Newspaper from my Newspaper ... someday... smartarse ;)

I be just doobin fineba dareba... but thank you foryour concerned.

Former, selfully and happily4ever
"professor" franken...stein to my former wife and friends and even to many people in my community i did not know before...

They ALL said, "You Can't do THAT !" to me many, many many many times.  Also, "That's a stupid idea."

That second one is my favorite (or maybe tied for favorite)

Ive used Man financial for about a decade (used to be jack carl) and they are reasonable.

Gambling - when odds are against you or even

Speculation - when odds are in your favor (insufficient to only THINK odds are in your favor)

Investing - long term when odds are in your favor (insufficient to THINK odds are in your favor)

THANK you sasquatch !  Honestly, I was hoping for a reasonsable answer and I am not by any stretch an expert in this area.  And yes, 2012 (not the Musical RUSH 2112)

I personally feel that Energy is Non-negotiable and that a Reliable Currency is a close second.

And Historically Gold is the Currency of Last Resort - when the "paper" fiat storms begin (and the only thing besides paper currency the Central Banks keep as a store of value).

  Russia is the forgotten stepchild of the mega-producer twins unlike it's superstar rival Saudi Arabia. But they produce about the same amount of oil, 10 mbd each. So together, the twins put about 25% of the world's oil on the very tight market every day. Considering what every little threat to Iran's supply does to the market with their measly 4 mbp, we should be more than twice as nervous about Russia. But when you try to predict Russia's production by the usual tools, you despair. Russian reserve estimates make the Saudi fields look like a crystal ball. And as was pointed out by Khebab in this discussion, doing the standard Hubbert linearization is a problem because Russia's production has always been controlled more by their manic/depressive government than by normal reservoir management. The Russian chart isn't a case of a single peak per Hubbert's theory but what looks like a confusing twin peak with a Russian oil industry that by many including Jim Rogers is as inept as ever ("a disaster going on a catastrophe" he has called it). So a very critical Russia would appear to have near zero predictability. Isn't that lovely ?
  But I got to studyin' about that, and wondered if you could use a sort of Hubbert regression analysis on Russia - very crude, but maybe a clearer way of looking at the big picture than HL or their reserve #s. If you consider that Russia's oil could have been produced the way most oil is done, by sound geology, you could imagine some gaussian curve along which it would be proceeding now. Oil production left to it's own devices free of geopolitical interference has a strong tendency to follow smooth math curves for reasons I considered   here.       So with a URR known, you could fit several completed Hubbert curves onto the production data with that area under the curve. The predictive value of this is based on the fact that, when all the oil has been produced, all the areas of production gyration over and under the smooth math curve have to balance out (same amount of oil ultimately produced regardless of the path). I tried this with the Russian chart Khebab did in the above mentioned Russian discussion where he did a probability analysis of URR and a "Hubbert-free" projection of future production. If you retrofit a possible Hubbert curve, it looks like this:

This roughly does the area balance (which dictates red plus purple under the smooth curve must equal green plus purple above the smooth curve). If the green curve would have been the natural production, it implies that the Russian oil industry was relatively dormant in the early stages in the 30s and 40s. From what I've read, this was the case. The Bolshevik Revolution wasn't kind to the oil industry or any other industry. But then the evil empire went on the war path in the 50s to the mid 80s looking like they were going to conquer the world. And their oil production was funding this. You could argue that the huge shoulder of 1965 to 1980 is an exaggerated version of the OPEC overproduction hump during this same time, only in addition to the decade long demand surge causing this as described by Simmons in Twilight, you had the Soviet military ambitions fueling it as well. If you really had this amount of overproduction, it would imply some ominous things about our present day oil situation. There would probably be a high amount of reservoir damage and bypassed oil. This oil would not be recovered at the high flow rate, high pressure primary water sweep, but would induce a sharp decline in production at peak with the bypassed oil recovered at much lower flow rates if recovered at all. The dramatic drop in production in the 90s was due to a combination of overproduced fields giving out, drilling that was too focused on the existing low hanging fruit at the expense of exploratory drilling for the new ones, and the collapse of the evil empire. Balancing all the over/under areas doesn't paint a very robust picture of where Russian production goes from here.
  But let's not be so pessimistic. Let's assume that there wasn't this massive reservoir damaging overproduction. After all, the curve I show is just one of several that has this same area under it for the URR. And some of the twin peak behavior can be attributed to the Russians simply developing their oil in two batches, playing out the first batch of big fields before starting in on the 200+ smaller fry. Let's fit a curve that balances our over/under phases and largely eliminates this ugly overproduction. If you go to the other extreme on this overproduction issue, the curve looks like this:

Here there is currently a big imbalance between the overproduced oil and the delayed production that's just waiting to deliver us from our impending shortage. But the big question is at what flow rates will this oil be coming out of the ground? Will this be pre-peak, double-peak, or post-peak flow rate? I obviously show it to be post peak with a little bias toward double peak. It's the shape of the curve in the peak years that matters more than how much oil eventually comes out. This is why I think URR is only important as it relates to forming the shape of the curve in the top half. It's worth noting that all of the area balancing in the charts is within the confines of the +/- 1 sigma probability range projected in Khebab's chart. A lot depends on the condition of Russia's fields. We need Simmons to write a book about "Twilight on the Tundra". Unless the Russian oil industry is robust enough to surge well beyond the decline shown, it doesn't look to me like they can be depended on to come to the rescue of a Saudi collapse or any other major problem. And if the case is Chart "A", they will be a big problem themselves.
  I plan to do more reading into just what all went on in the Soviet era, because it would seem to have a huge bearing on how severe our approaching problems are going to be. My present opinion is a result closer to Chart "A". I can't help but suspect that Soviet reservoir management was done more from the point of an AK47 than from geology 101. An interesting article I ran across was  this   where a U.S. Air Force major wrote a piece in Air University Review in 1980 titled "NATO and Oil - Conflict and Capabilities" about Russia. Clear back then, he sounded like Simmons today only talking about Russia and predicting a production collapse by the mid 80s. He pointed out the big, easily produced fields playing out and the numerous new fields in inaccessible, hard to produce areas with technical problems. He points out that Russia ambitiously directed over half of their exports to Eastern Europe supplying them with 3/4 of their needs and other geopolitical factors that led to serious overproduction where "...rewards for exceeding goals are given without regard to productivity over the long term." Keep in mind that the industry-challenged Soviets had little of interest to offer in global trade other than oil, which was the rapidly expanding empire's main funding. "The consequences are...overproduction of existing fields using low productivity techniques that reduce the total amount of recoverable oil." The Russian situation back then was so bad that the major, not being a student of Hubbert, apparently, on the bigger global picture, was concerned about a global oil war developing as soon as the late 80s.

Just wondering, did you read my fairly recent post Uncertainties About Russian Reserves and Future Production?
Yes, I looked through it. Maybe you should write "Twilight on the Tundra".
Think again about the overproduction hypothesis. In the beginning of the 80-s Russia lacked:
  1. The know-how we have today in terms of EOR technologies.
  2. An easy access to capital for investment
  3. A proper management and a proper motivation of the human resource

To achieve prodigies of overproduction in such environment against some fictionous geology limit that must have been pulling you back, seems simply incredible to me.
Trust me this was not the case.
I wouldn't be too quick to disparage Russia's industrial capabilities. One of the strengths of a centrally directed economy is that enormous amounts of capital can be brought to bear on those industries which the government sees as important. In fact in a way the problem is too much capital, so that much of it is wasted and used inefficiently. But still, Russia accomplished an incredible track record of economic growth over most of the 20th century. Starting from an extremely impoverished state they became a superpower, equal to the United States in many areas.

And their scientific and technical knowledge was always strong. Another advantage of their system was their ability to identify promising students, whether athletically or intellectually, and funnel them into special schools and training academies. In the West, talented students are expected to create their own success, but in most of the Eastern bloc the government would pluck them out and put them on the fast track. You don't get to be the first country to put up a satellite, put a man into space and into orbit without having first class scientific know-how. The Russian space program was big and inefficient but it did amazing things.

I don't know the details of Russian oil development, but this sounds like the kind of industry they tended to do very well. It's big, it's messy, it's large-scale, and it's of crucial importance to the industrial and military success of the nation. I imagine that oil development was an extremely high priority to the government and got all the capital and technical expertise that was available. In such a system, over-production would have been a very real possibility.

  It's true that the Soviets accomplished a lot, got ahead of the U.S. in the space race, and much more. But they had a bad tendency to do it in a high-danger/low tech way (a la Chernobyl). They may not have had the best recovery technology, best capital support, or most cheerful workers. But for the cause of expanding their empire, they got it done - one way or the other. I have to wonder how much of their less than ideal reservoir management is going to effect our present day peak oil melt down.
Westexas made an equivalent observation that the Russian cumulative production was correctly predicted by the Hubbert linearization technique despite being wrong on the current production levels. It means that we can find a logistic curve representing what an unconstraint production could have been (like the US) and get the same cumulative producton. I still don't know what to thing about that performance. However, the question is the amount of Yet-to-be-find in particular in siberia (as big as Canada: 10 Million km2, 58% of the total area of Russia).
Have any of "Sim City" guys brought out a simulation that takes into account rising energy prices?  Sounds like an interesting addition.  Probably be very complicated since now the simulation would have to factor in the kinds of jobs available along with salaries.

My nephew is being taught by his father about the Physical Limits of Some resources in his game (Civilization I think?).  He talks about not using up the wood, stone and gold etc.

BUT the DARN KID is an Econo-Creationist at Heart.  I call him Alan Greenspawn to tease him.

THE kid found CHEAT SHEETS that allow for Unlimited Resources !!!

YES - A Monty Python Monty Hall Universe (#42) EXISTS ... but, unfortunately, only in the minds of econo-creationsists and small children.... not in Mothers Reality)

I second - it is a brilliant idea. It is in fact a perfect idea for a game: you have a problem, limited resources and time to solve it, a crowd of enemies, subtle problems and inertia pushing you back, the fate of the mankind at stake, and thousands of possible outcomes: from a new Stone Age to Cold Fusion propelled cars.

I think we should suggest it to some company like Activision or we may even create an open soruce project ourselves :)

(P.S. They put the resource limits in Civilisation IV, I think; Civ is(was) another brilliant game up to Civ II)

WE (homo saps beating oil drums fiercely) HEREBY do Declare in All Our Mother's Official Language:

DIBS !!! for

for the Rites of Passage and Publishing on Our Colctive intellectuallymasterbationary Property.

Signed this Date (whatever) - ___

Thank you for your consideration.

I don't know how long Warcraft (the videogame) has been out but it's been at least 12 years.  The premise from the start was to build a civilization starting out from one "peon" farmer, decent land, forests, gold mines and oil wells.  The more you built, the more you could build and the more people (warriors being a type of person) you could make.  By killing off other tribes, you could take thier resources.  You could eventually study all kinds of supernatural techniques to produce storms to wipe out the other tribe or to make your guys go berzerk on them or for thier guys to be disoriented (biological warfare).  It's all been done.  Age of Empires was the same basic idea.  Then were many other knock offs.
NOPE --- NO Dice for an "educational" game Based on REAL and well known Physical Realities.  IMHO

The Premise - sounds outstanding.

By killing off other tribes, you could take thier resources.

Yes, typical of desert descendantantses.  Let's Try introducing Pocket's-O-Plenty where Forest Peoples Dwell....

and tend to "usually" get along better ... (resources availabvle versus stresses place on Saps ... hmmm equilibriums can be disturbed even in TempTrop and Rainy as well as Dayzed FORESTS.  The point is we should broaden the likely "Escape Pods" Mother OFFERS... for example to t to the RedClaws of the Aussie Hot-n-Dry Outbacksthere-otta-the way...

"You could eventually study all kinds of supernatural techniques"

OR you could leave that bullship-O-Foolz godz crap right out of the game completely THIS TIME here and Now.

"to produce storms to wipe out the other tribe "

Yes.  The Mother already has that one covered and she doesn't talk to Godz-Hearing leaders or care if their Cities Expect Them to wipe hinders clean.

"or to make your guys go berzerk on them or for thier guys to be disoriented (biological warfare).  It's all been done.

Yes, the typical Homo Da Saps route of least resistances and less competition and eminies to-be-lowered populations-to-contend-with Para-Dig-Mmm. for a Dime a dozen.

"Age of Empires was the same basic idea.  Then were many other knock offs. "

Age of Empires is a Child's Game and is a cheap IMITATION of The Mother's Very Real Gamez of Life-Forms-Gone-Bubble

"Powergrid" is a game where energy prices start out with low coal and oil prices, then as people buy plants the coal and oil gets used up and garbage and nuclear fuel get relatively cheaper. Depends on what other people buy and burn for fuel. There are some wind and solar plants available, also. Fascinating game. I play it about one night a month at the Sunnyvale Games night at Jake's Pizza, or at Matchplay on Wednesday at the San Antonio Mall.
We can make it better... (well, maybe someone else here kin anyway).

"Powergrid" sounds interesting, as does a Games Night at Jakes Pizza.  Maybe I know someone locally that might like to have a "PowerGrid Master TourniQuititPlease" Games Night at his pizza place near the Hight School... hhmmmm. Good thing I read your post Fellow Butterfly.

BUT that looks like a BIG TARGET for The Mother to focus on there abouts where you PLAY PowerGrid FOR REAL MAYBE ????? Just maybe sum of dayze TheN ?....:

Just like that Hockey Puck SHE tossed at 'O'leans... you don't need levies though in San Ant Onio's Hot House though.


(usually the "zombies" look a lot like Mean Mamma Grizzly Bears)

Do markets really Anticipate? How far in Advance

Consider the fact that the NYMEX Oil Futures Contracts Started trading in 1983 - about 10 years AFTER the first Oil Shocks and also Three Years After the Iranian crises (and note overall production dipped from '80 to '83 wherit bottomed and bounced finally...).

Again the US BOND Yield Curve Inversion is "predicting" another recession likely to begin later this year.  It has pretty good prediction (right every time in 30 years or so).  But the Stock Markets Party like it is 1999 (just as the yeild curve inverted in 1999.... hmmm).

So what is the Smart Money ("commercials") Betting On at this point in the Here and Now Time ????  They are Shorting (betting against) the Nasdaq.

Commercials are the Blue Line in LOWER Graph is (Diving = selling) - scroll graph to right for "the present")

NOTICE the Red and Greens are BUYING"
These are the "traders" big (hedge) and small (retail foolz like me - except in this specific case thank godz).

An Economy whose Bond Markets says is heading for Recession... Birdz Flu in Europe... God Fearing And GOD Hearing Leaders w/BigBombs... PEAK CHEAP OIL (at least) .... Islamic Fundies and EuroIdiot Editors who deliberately incite to inform, instead of inform w/o the stupid reprinted cartoons...  Nigerian Jungle Fighters fighting for THEIR oil... Energy Starving China eyeing Siberia and Russia OUTING BUSH by jerking Gas Chains to euro and asian foreign allies (to show Putin Meant Business!) and then Bush MIRACULOUSLY decides a week or two later to have a brand-spankin' "NEW ENERGY IDEA - HEY, LISTEN UP !!!"... just ONE WEEK BEFORE the RUSSIANS said the G8 Summit "WILL be about ENERGY SECURITY..."  hmmm

I think the Commercials are right and the Stock Market Dives later this year some time just like THEY are btting On at This Time and Place in space.

Puzzling on the apparent blindness of markets/investors to Peak Oil, I had this thought last night...

Investors make their predictions/bets in order to receive investment returns from the system. I believe, as I am now guessing they do too, that there will be no "system" to deliver currency returns after a short period of time past peak. Therefore, bets on what oil will "cost" in 2015 are meaningless because there will be no currency, so the numbers simply reflect some stable imaginary world that they themselves do not believe, but have no incentive to bet otherwise because the bookie will be closed.

That sounds plausible to me, but applicable to the Deeper End of the Spectrum of Realistically Probabistically possibilities.

I think Little Richard Heindenburgendenden is correcter that there will probably be series after seris of recesions (whiplashing between deflation and hyperinflation ??).

I do not think the Markets are at all anticipating a catastrophic outcome soon - let alone ever apparetnly.

I personally think We Homo Saps will go down with a whimper, only to Rise from the Canvas of Life ... and then who knows... watch another Mass Extinction due to Another Green House Global HotTub... maybe another million years from now.  

Civilizations EBB AND FLOW - and rarely really disappear.  The Web of Homo sapians Civilized Domains will probably contract but and What Wealth remains will Again be RE-Distributed After the Fall as usual.

I think.

Let The Mother Know what you think if you want to maker her git a big bear belly laugh.

I don't think I've heard a plausible argument against this understanding of mine:

After peaking, oil production declines, and either demand must decline accordingly or price must rise and rise. Your series of recessions would be possible, but there is no prospect of a serious expansion taking hold following those recessions. With oil prices rising or demand decreasing, the resources would not be available to undertake a massive, unprecedented transformation of infrastructure that would be required to switch to an alternate energy source to fuel the economy even if such an alternative existed technologically.

Like an animal's beating heart, capitalism is sustained only by the promise of return on investment. As soon as investors realize that there will be no returns on investment, capitalism ceases to exist. I cannot conceive of any scenario in which investors do not realize this in the very near future.

see above link to DOE claim of 400 billion barrels of yet to be recovered oil in US. Whether its true or not is irrelevant -people will cling to the existing system until the last possible moment - that moment is nowhere near the present time - we're still on the upslope for gosh sakes. capitalism will likely exist many many years post peak as people will want to 'believe' claims like above.
Depressingly, as much as I used to disagree with Kunstler, I believe that there will be a veritable plethora of politicians, economists and other "world improvers" who will rise to the forefront of the MSM and collective consciousness with plans to return life "to normal", who will receive almost endless credibility for the amount of timeit takes to screw things up even more.  
What if a brief but very costly (say 1 billion served to The Mother) war breaks out for a very, very short period of time and then the world catches it's breath and has a growth period for a few years?

What if famine and plague etc, wipe out 1/2 the Cureent Population of Homo Saps in a year's time or so ... sorta like the sorta thing that happens in olden, very olden, dayze, as well as in cycles longer than one human life span?

MANY, many, many variables... cannot compute accurately...

But I do agree with others who think This System wil NOT go down without a fight for every tooth and nail.

Very few things go straigh up or down, and I thing that humans will learn a lot from the decline of this latest and Greatest try at civilization. We be back, as some guy said in some ocean after gittin' his buttocks kicked.

Depends. A nuclear war fought in the middle of a northern winter with a warning nuke to allow evacuation would decrease demand for oil by wiping out suburbs, but also lead to higher use by the survivors as they rebuild. A nuclear war fought in the summer would dramatically decrease demand by killing off oil consumers by starvation when we lost the harvest. On the other hand, a major plague would increase demand because people in the third world would be able to sell labor at a high price to first world people and they would rapidly industrialise and consume oil. Depends what kind of war.
Well, according to The Mother, "Every Contingency Has It's Day... or at least it's 15 nminutes of Real World Surviofr Games... not necessarily Televised 24/7 but Probably... probably because Homo Sap likes to watch twitching bodies jump-mump and feelin; froggy after being icie a while.

Look, what If it rains every thursday for the next 10 (ten) years and the Plague Serves Up 500,000 by Lunch TimezUp for The Mother...

AND ... then one week later a limited Nuclear Exchange between what was formerly Iran...

no wait... Mother says to Hushnow titbabies don't you cry, Mama not gonna Poke youse in Thine Eyes have NOT seen the Wrathe of the Mother in All HER GORY Glory for MANY years I think.. at least in yer 1stest and Bestest of worlds there... hmmmmm...


In the perfect information market theory, all prices are the fair price at any given time and the price represents all known information about the subject at that given time.  Therefore, only unknown things can affect the price.  So, any price you see now, is provided that nothing happens between now and when somebody makes the purchase.  However, since making the purchase is in itself an event that changes the information about an object, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies, which I have adapted for economics as follows, "Attempting to make a purchase can change the object's price."  A consequence of the Uncertainty Principle for economics is that if an object's price is defined precisely then the price momentum of the object will be only weakly constrained, and vice versa. One cannot therefore simultaneously find both the price and price momentum of an object to arbitrary accuracy.  
Holy Jumpin&Twitchin' Bobble-headed-Jesus&Mary dollz4sale...

Sounds complicated and almost metaphysical... probably not metaphysical at all though - another cheap patho fleast resistance and Most Pain and stupidity.

Attempting to make a purchase can change the object's price."  

Especially if you Buy @ Market Price LARGE QUANTITIES IN A PANIC because whoKnowsWhatInHades went wrong now.

Same with Selling large quantities @ the Piggies Mkt (recall what happened to Piggy on the Island that Wrohiped Flies... sora like worshipin' Fiat Paper.

What was the question again?

"A consequence of the Uncertainty Principle for economics is that if an object's price is defined precisely then the price momentum of the object will be only weakly constrained, and vice versa. One cannot therefore simultaneously find both the price and price momentum of an object to arbitrary accuracy."

That is an amusing analogy but it is not really true, because the market is so large that one person's decision to buy does not have a detectable influence on price.

I'll tell you a different story that is somewhat similar, and this one is actually true. In economics there are a number of paradoxical "no trade" theorems. They say, basically, that if two people go to make a trade on a futures market, which amounts to making a bet about a future price, the trade will not go through. The mere fact that the other person is willing to bet against them is sufficient evidence to dissuade a rational person from making the bet!

This is a true theorem of economics and has been proven under a wide range of assumptions. Rational people will not bet against each other, or trade on futures markets.

To give an idea of how these proofs go, let me explain some of the reasoning. Suppose you and I disagree on some issue. Hypothetically, suppose I believe that the future price of oil will be $50, and you believe that it will be $200. We're going to bet on this, so we each know what price the other believes, and (this is important!) we know that the other person knows our beliefs, and they know we know they know, and so on ad infinitum. This is called "common knowledge", where two people know things, know they know them, and so on forever.

Now I ask myself, why is it that you believe in such a different valuation? We are both rational, meaning that we draw conclusions as well as we can from the information available to us. We are born into the same world but we have different information. Some of that information is built into our genes, some comes from our upbringing, and some comes from specific facts we have learned, such as facts about the oil situation. I know that somehow, the information you have convinces you of this $200 valuation, even though you know that my own information convinces me of a $50 valuation.

The question is, which of us has better information? A priori, there's no way to tell. I know how good my information is, but I don't know how good yours is. The only clue is that you won't change your mind even though you know that my opinion is very different.

Suppose I judge the quality of information available to me to be poor, to be less than the average person. Maybe I haven't studied the oil situation very closely. Then the fact that you have come to a different conclusion would suggest that you are more likely to be correct. OTOH suppose I judge the quality of my information to be higher than average. In this case, even though you have a different opinion, I would guess that my opinion is the correct one.

To help with the analysis, let's make it quantitative, and create a number to represent judgement of information quality, where 0.0 means terrible quality and I'm just guessing, and 1.0 means perfect quality and I am absolutely certain of the facts. Then I am saying that if my information quality is less than 0.5, it makes sense for me to switch when I find out that you disagree, while if it is greater than 0.5 I should stick to my opinion.

However, the next step is to take into consideration the fact that you would not switch when you found out my belief. Applying the logic above, and again assuming we are both rational, that means that you also judge your information quality to be above 0.5. So now I have to ask, how does my information quality compare with the average in the range 0.5-1.0? I could say, if my information quality is less than 0.75, I should switch now, because yours is probably higher; while if my information quality is greater than 0.75, I should still stick to my opinion.

Supposing that I will not switch, I can then put myself in your shoes and take the analysis one step deeper. The only thing that would keep you from switching, if you know my certainty is in the range 0.75 to 1.0, is if your own certainty is greater than 0.875. And then, knowing that, the only thing that would keep me from switching is if my own certainty level is greater than 0.9375.

This process goes on implicitly to an infinite degree, as we approach to shake hands and make our bet. At each moment that the other rational person refuses to switch, we have to increase our mental estimate of how good his information quality is, which in turn requires him to further increase his own estimate of our information quality, and so on. In the limit both of us must have perfect information in order to make a bet, but if we had perfect information, we would not disagree about a factual matter.

Hence it can't happen. Two people who are rational and know it can't bet, because the mere fact that the other person is willing to make the bet proves that we are wrong to be so certain that we are right.

In my opinion that is as remarkable and dramatic a result as the field of economics has to offer. There are a whole range of similar results that come from this kind of analysis. I am continuing to study this subject and incorporate these insights into my own view of the world. I see these considerations as offering a revolutionary new way for people to make decisions and judgements about the world. It has totally changed how I think of things and drives my perspectives on the Peak Oil issue as well as many other areas. For those who have read my postings on this site, perhaps this will offer some insight into where I am coming from.

Happens to me.  Every once in awhile I'll make a trade, lose faith in my information and wind up selling out in a couple of seconds.  
Explosion blows up oil pipeline Saturday, Mar 4, 2006 ... An explosion in Chanoni creek in Gbaramatu Kingdom in the Niger Delta blew up oil pipelines, Wednesday leading to the spilling of massive, but yet to be specified volume of oil.

Residents of Gbaramatu alleged that the explosion was from an undetonated bomb used on the community in February by men of "Operation Restore Hope" while destroying barges belonging to illegal oil bunkers.

"Operation Restore Hope" is the military task force assigned to stop oil thieves and ensure that peace is restored in the turbulent Niger Delta.

Shell Petroleum Development Company is the major oil company operating in the area, but no confirmation has come yet from the company that the affected pipelines belonged to it.

No representative of "Operation Restore Hope" was available for comments at the time of this report.

Here's another detail: The blown up pipeline is Chevron's not Shell's
And Willbros is from Oklahoma.
I'm trying to grasp the "size"/importance of this ... I notice it not being reported on
Remember - on the 17th the Jungle Rebels declared WAR and yesterday or so said they were going to Take Out the Entire Oil Production Capacity of the country.  Nigeria is a Very Critical Pivot to point to for Energy Security

Country profile: Nigeria

After lurching from one military coup to another, Nigeria now has an elected leadership. But it faces the growing challenge of preventing Africa's most populous country from breaking apart along ethnic and religious lines.  

The Delta's troubled waters
Nigeria's shadowy oil rebels
Oil fuels Delta conflict
Working in a danger zone
Profile: Militia leader

Related news stories:

Oil prices continue to rise in Asian trading ... US oil giant Chevron said Wednesday it had shut down one of its oil production plants in the Niger Delta, costing Nigeria 13,000 barrels per day (bpd) in lost output. ... Chevron spokesman Michael Barrett said the firm had shut the Makaraba flow station after an unexplained leak on a crude oil pipeline connecting the plant to the Escravos export platform caused a minor spill.

[Chevron's] Oil pipeline blown up in Nigeria, but said to be unlinked with militants [who are attacking Shell] "No. If this actually happened, it may have been carried out by local villagers or thieves," Gbomo said.

Nigerian militia tells British oilmen to get out warn 'rapist' oil workers The health system has collapsed, rivers and creeks are full of oil slicks and environmental groups say towering gas flares cause acid rain. Villagers complain that oil pollution has killed off fish and contaminated their drinking water.

Militants give 10 conditions - To release other hostages "be ensured that oil companies no longer operate behind the soldiers, disband the security Joint Task Force (JTF) and demilitarise Ijaw land."

Nigeria : Diplomats shun Niger Delta Meanwhile, the militant group, The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), which has been behind the spate of hostage taking in the Niger Delta, has threatened that it will extend its attack to other parts of the Niger Delta, especially Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Cross River states as part of efforts to achieve its purpose of crippling the country's ability to export crude oil if their demands are not met.

ryvr: I notice it not being reported on

HAHAHA! Stop! Stop! you're killing me!  CNN didn't report...oh that's so funny.

The Nigerian story reports there's a bomb from a US operations but doesn't know if the pipelines are Shell's or not.

The news from Chevron on the very same day in the very same part of the world is an "unexplained pipeline leak" causing a "minor spill".

And you are telling me that you can't find the story on CNN.

Let's me spell it out for you: Chevron's pipeline explosion story did not appear on CNN because it's being censored by the US media.

This sounds fishy.
The word "Massive" just isn't used that often, this is more likely a major event.

Notice the name of the Govmint "Army", Operation Restore hope!
You know the USofA has a hand in this, no other country would have a ridiculous name like this.  Watch for "Freedom Fighters" or "Democracy Forces", those will be used later in the year, as part of a "Hurricane-like" naming system for Combat Operations around the world.
How fitting is the name though?
A little bit of over-anal-izing, one would come to the conclusion that this is the perfect name, the citizens of Niger Delta have fallen in the dark trap known as reality, they're just not hoping (sp?) enough anymore.  Can one be get to the end of their......"Hope"? (I know I shouldn't of went there.)  

It's time to re-inforce hope, by using guns and bombs.

That is typical of news coming out of Nigeria.  I don't know if it's due to some kind of censorship, or just the conditions there, but news of explosions, pipeline attacks, etc., typically doesn't hit the U.S. media until days later.
An interesting development in Australia is the creation of maps that show the social impact of peak oil in our major cities. It started at a university in Queensland- our northern most state:

and is now being copied in others. The Griffith University report has found poorer outer suburbs in Australian cities are likely to be most affected by rising petrol costs because of their dependence on motor vehicles and limited access to public transport. This contrasts sharply with wealthy inner suburbs, which are less vulnerable to high bowser prices because of their higher incomes and better access to public transport.
This is similar to the earlier concept of "fuel poverty". This idea has been developed in the United Kingdom and the British Government published its Fuel Poverty Policy in November 2001 ( ).
Finally, a report late last year by Volunteering Australia in a media release on December 5, 2005 highlighted the impact of rising petrol prices on Australians volunteering to help their fellow Australians:
Coinciding with International Volunteer Day, Volunteering Australia, the national peak body for volunteering, has found that a staggering 52 per cent of surveyed organisations say their volunteers plan to stop or reduce their participation, including 11 per cent who have already stopped or changed volunteering, because of increased petrol costs.

Thanks for posting these reports.  Good ones.
Canadian Tar Sand Oil Flowing To US

Canadian oil flowing into United States  
Big News
Saturday 4th March, 2006  (UPI)  

Canada has become the biggest exporter of oil to the United States with the re-opening of a pipeline from Alberta to Oklahoma.

Crude oil from Alberta's tar sands began flowing this week from the Calgary, Alberta-based Enbridge Corp.'s facility through a 650-mile stretch of steel from Chicago to Cushing, Okla.

For years the pipe, which used to be owned by BP, carried Gulf of Mexico crude to northern markets, but as the Gulf supply dwindles, the crude is flowing in a different direction, the Houston Chronicle reported Saturday.

The line has an initial capacity to transport 125,000 barrels of oil a day, but can be expanded easily, the report said.

Exxon Mobil is also working on a pipeline reversal that would bring Canadian crude down to Gulf Coast refiners instead of flowing Gulf oil north to Midwestern markets.

Canada outranks Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia as oil exporters, and will likely double its oil production in the next decade, thanks to production from the oil sands.

I've been lurking for a long time watching the postings it been a real revelation for me
Peak Oil is very interesting. I happen to be in the mobile phone industry one of the few that would benefit from peak oil since more  people chat and work while waiting for the bus or train.

With that thought I've been thinking about how much people must travel in our modern society in many cases its a holdover from past customs not a requirement. Think about it this way we have had equal opportunity for most people ( more or less ) for at least 30 years in the US but there is still a significant amount of discrimination for gender and race in this country. I know the example is a bit inflammatory but in general the country is heading towards true equality it just takes a loooong time.

The same is true in business we still have a paranoid management concept and the 9-5 work week tradition almost directly inherited with little change the neolithic farming days.

I think with technology and some social adjustment many many people could work a lot from home and engage in business as they travel periodically to work on mass transit or for example company buses. Micro offices in the suburbs are also reasonable.

Finally distributed manufacturing is quite possible right now we have almost universal manufacturing equipment available cnc machines and various lithographic prototyping machines its much easier to transmit a design over the Internet then a physical product. Local recycling could keep a large percentage of raw materials close at hand.
Also for things like plastic manufacturing molds can be sent instead of the final product.
We could also consider going back to traveling sales people and fairs to present goods
when people want to see products.

I think that this forum is underestimating the usage of technology in transforming our society into one that travels
only when needed and then works during the trip.

If we transformed our society how much could we save in wasted energy ?

I'm guessing

75% on transportation.
60% on goods
50% on reduced energy waste in manufacturing.

Even with all this we need to aggressively invest in all energy resources coal, nuclear and renewable. I think that the real cost of using coal will eventually limit its usefulness but a combination of coal/nuclear and tar sands/nuclear is probably a must simply to transform our society since we will wait till its too late to change. In the end I think the cost of these solutions will convince society to change but we have to accept that it won't happen as it should. And even then modern society needs a lot of cheap electricity so nuclear fission or fusion is a must.

As far as coal goes we seem to be able to pipe natural gas across our nation there is no reason we can't reuse the existing infrastructure for moving C02 at least to were we could use algae mitigation ponds to sequester the gas or other methods of disposal
irregardless if we wish to do anything about C02 it will have to be piped.

The reason I'm writing is I think that its time for the people who believe in peak oil to also start working on real solutions the sooner we start the less we will use coal resources in a destructive manner.

But energy is not the problem, the real problem is can we create a society were people want to be productive with minimal supervision ?

Michael Emmel

I think you're underestimating the extent to which technology is dependent on petroleum.

When the grid went down in the Blackout of '03, the most of the cell towers went dark, too.  When people are losing their jobs or facing staggering fuel bills, will they continue to pay for two or three or four phones?  Or will they stick with just one?  If they had to choose only one, many would probably pick a cell phone today, but if blackouts become common as natural gas declines, landlines may be seen as the more reliable choice.  

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

First if there is one place that dense high performance solar cells and wind power make sense a cell tower is a good one.
In fact one of the major uses of solar power is in the telecomunications industry. I don't have the data to do the numbers but I bet that there is more then enough room on a tower to add enough solar cells and wind generation equipment to power the network.  Also don't underestimate the power savings on the horizon from asynchronous circuts and all optic
communications technologies others such as WiMAX would play a big part. Finally if were faced with the problems you mention civilian use of spread spectrum technology whould really limit the amount of data that needs to run over a wired (optic really ) network.

Theres more solar powered or highly efficient gas powered flying platforms and various blimp propsitions are very compelling.

The bottom line is that if needed or desired, making our networks efficient and keeping them powered via renewables is one of the few places that alternative energy makes sense.

And yes I think they will pay for the phones since its going to be the only way they can stay in communication during slow transits. In fact I think people will give up there cars before they give up there mobiles. If you have ever been in a third world country you would know that mobile phones are now critical to society.

If our society does self destruct the last modern act for most people before chaos hits will probably be to make on last call on the mobile thats what they do today during disasters.

Agian I've decided to post since it seems a lot of Peak Oilers can't see we need to move away from tradition and embrace the technology the keeps us from having to move around and burn oil.

I don't doubt that it's possible to keep the network up, if we really want to.  What I question is whether we will really want to.  Or will we have other priorities?  Like food, shelter, and clothing.  Or defense.

In particular, I was responding to your claim that peak oil would be good for the mobile phone industry.  I think that's absolutely wrong.  Even things proceed as you imagine, it will raise costs. And I seriously doubt it will raise revenue.  Just about everyone who wants a cell phone now has one (or two, or three...).  So you aren't going to increase the customer base much.  And many of those who keep multiple phones will start dropping them, to save money.  It's the economic effects of peak oil that many of us are worried about.  People will be losing their jobs, and when they do, they can't pay their cell phone bills.

In the long run, it's the energy cost of complexity that worries me.  It's why I don't think technology is the answer.

"And that's just the tip of the iceberg"  

New poster, long lurker, be kind. I do broadcast, and I have to say where the cell network up here (Maine) wants to be on backup, they use propane. We use a chopper to lift 20 or 30 100lb tanks. I think our friend must be in sales, because I don't see a chopper, or the propane magically appearing to keep the network up.

Remember I said if you wanted to...

It's already being done.

I'd suggest  your mobile provider about using renewables.

And there are companies that get it.

For Main remember I did mention wind energy but here are links for solar.

If your goint to start using ancedotal statements.
Get the power requriments for the base station can WiMAX be used for backhaul  etc. Its a technical problem easy to figure out. Generally I think you will find the power requirments well within those provided by renewable energy
even with today's equipment.

I'm not the first to think of this btw.

In testing

The coolest

This is for weather but its interesting since its generally off the grid

Another remote data use case mainly for the Oil Industry

In American during the thirties the installed phone base went down.

I don't consider that relevent since the depression started before telephones where really deployed and a intrinsic part of society. And mobile communications are intrinsically different from wired.


Hoover got a phone on the white house desk right at the start of the depression. And if you read the story even then  the telco's were monopolies but we all all aware of the history of the telecommunications field. I did not say they were angels or are for that matter.

The page has some brief notes on world war two but even at that time the telephone industry was still young so its tough to guage. I found a little information about telephone service during the war but generally it seems people wanted telephones but service was hard to get because of wartime rationing no mention is made of any great drop in service.
Military use of the telephone network was of course large.

Now its not wrong to compare historical events with today I'd say for example it makes sense to compare usage from the 1950 onward with today but going back before then is dubious becuase even into the 1940's horse transportation was quite common and cars were not generally available nor were good roads. In the oil idustry even I'd say it matured in the 1970's before then we were still developing the basic technology and doing major exploration.

Today it would be cool to get Iraq's cell phone usage stats

So at least in Iraq even with there economy in shambles there using mobile phones.

Agian there is to much focus on transportation and not really looking at the other great invention of the 20'th century
Communication. I agree that High Tech won't help solve the transportation problem since its a basic thermodynamic issue but if we want to we can use the other gift communication to vastly decrease the needs for transportation and still maintain a high tech society.

What I'm trying to show is that there are vital industries in this country that could move to renewable energy  the telecommunication/computer industry is in my opinion the best place to start mainly since they have the tech to supply themselves with solar cells at cost. The only way out of this mess is to start conversion to renewables now were we can and isolate the requirements for massive industral energy needs so they can be handled by
nuclear or coal.

The Peak Oil Crisis
Cantarell -- An Omen?

By Tom Whipple

There are a lot of bad things out there waiting to bite as the world moves towards peak oil-- Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Venezuela, China, globalization, and hurricanes to name a few. Last week a new bogeyman arose -- super fast oil depletion.

Our story begins 65 million years ago when the Chicxulub meteor (or perhaps comet) crashed into the sea near the Yucatan Peninsula . This was one big bang, for it not only wiped out all our dinosaurs, but also took out 75% of the species living on earth.

As our 10 km wide meteor was tooling along at 60,000 miles per hour when it hit, there was not much left of the meteor but vapor after the impact, but for a few seconds, there was a monster hole in the earth 100 miles in diameter. I won't go into all the terrible things that happened to our earth in the months after the blast, but few living things survived.

Our new hole promptly filled up with rubble (breccia, to geologists) pushed in by the rushing waters of the returning sea and landslides along the sides of the crater. Somewhere, between 65 million years ago and 1976, parts of this underwater rubble filled hole, filled up with about 35 billion barrels of oil. Making it one of the world's greatest oil fields. It is now called Cantarell.

Snip ......

Thanks. Interesting. The Falls Church News Press is a paper to keep one's eye on. Who is Tom Whipple? Why is such a small-town newspaper so well-informed? I can't imagine my local rag delving into peak oil! Does the paper have insider information? Who actually lives in Falls Church - the C.I.A.?
I think Tom Whipple is just a peak oiler like we are, who lives in a small town and managed to convince the local paper to give him a regular peak oil column.  That is the benefit of a small town newspaper.  Just about anyone can get in the paper, if they want to.  
Not your typical small town.  Falls Church VA is an independent city and a desirable bedroom community inside the beltway of Washington DC.  I suspect the residents appreciate the straight scoop.
Tom Whipple has been writing on this stuff for quite a while - he now writes a weekly/monthly Peak Oil update as editor of ASPO/US newsletter.
Cash rewards for XXXXXXX fighters  

{{How many will answer Similar Calls ... As the lights dim on Homo Saps Energy Starved Civilization...

The Russian Bear finds itself sitting on top of The Rock, and also on top of The Hard Place, totaling about 2.3 billion and counting... (pretty fast too now that ya mention it... lots of counters ... to feed and to keep warm). Many different tongues, colors and cultures...

Does the Russian Bear cry, "Help Me Mr. Wizard !!!" or does he call he Western Friends and say, "Ah guys, we need to talk... for the G8 meetin' this year... ????}}

By Kate Clark
File On 4, BBC Radio 4  

Four years ago, the Americans claimed victory over the Taleban. But in the past year, the fighting has intensified, producing the worst casualty figures since 2001.

"I'm fighting with a Kalashnikov and an RPG - a rocket propelled grenade launcher," he said. "I'm not trying to take over the country. I am just trying to earn my salary."  

This fighter joined the jihad for cash.

"They gave me a salary, new clothes, shoes, a motorbike and a Kalashnikov rifle. I had to go and fight where they told me for seven or eight days a month."

Is Chevon's "unexplained spill" really a US made bomb being used against Chevon's pipelines?

Is this the story?

Oil prices continue to rise in Asian trading ... US oil giant Chevron said Wednesday it had shut down one of its oil production plants in the Niger Delta, costing Nigeria 13,000 barrels per day (bpd) in lost output. ... Chevron spokesman Michael Barrett said the firm had shut the Makaraba flow station after an unexplained leak on a crude oil pipeline connecting the plant to the Escravos export platform caused a minor spill.

Or is this the story?

Explosion blows up oil pipeline Saturday, Mar 4, 2006 ... An explosion in Chanoni creek in Gbaramatu Kingdom in the Niger Delta blew up oil pipelines, Wednesday leading to the spilling of massive, but yet to be specified volume of oil.

Residents of Gbaramatu alleged that the explosion was from an undetonated bomb used on the community in February by men of "Operation Restore Hope" while destroying barges belonging to illegal oil bunkers.

"Operation Restore Hope" is the military task force assigned to stop oil thieves and ensure that peace is restored in the turbulent Niger Delta.

Shell Petroleum Development Company is the major oil company operating in the area, but no confirmation has come yet from the company that the affected pipelines belonged to it.

No representative of "Operation Restore Hope" was available for comments at the time of this report.

Note that this is the Chevron pipeline explosion not the Shell ones.

It's the same Wednesday in both stories, isn't it?  How many pipeline incidents were there on that Wednesday?  I think the answer is one.  I think there should be headlines like US DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT A US MADE BOMB BLEW UP A CHEVRON PIPELINE IN NIGERIA
Oh-OH Astro....

 Last Updated: Sunday, 5 March 2006, 08:08 GMT

Iranian in US campus 'car attack'  

An Iranian student has been charged with attempting to murder nine people with a car in the US to "avenge the deaths of Muslims", he told police.

WHICH AMERICAN CITY does the Picture look like and the Article CutnPastes Sound like in this article in say, 2112...

(oh, wait,... maybe make that 2012)

On Holiday in (ANY WHERE FAMILIAR)  
By Krakotawa Katie  
Newz Only Now On-Line  

Grey apartment blocks, bugged hotel rooms, an erratic electricity supply and rumours of a secret nuclear arsenal - (Former HIGHLIFE) is not everyone's idea of a perfect holiday destination...

"There is a road called Restaurant Street, which has several food outlets, all of which are empty," he said.  "There are no menus, as you get what there is in stock. The best restaurant in town served us a burger with a fried egg."

..Its many statues and monuments - most of them dedicated to the now-deceased (("Eternal Growth Forever is Not Negotiable" former Civilization)) - are a must-see.

"There's absolutely no reference...," he said.

"At night, because of the energy shortages, there are no lights and it's absolutely silent. You can hear babies crying from the other side of the river."

"We've had people who want to see the county rollercoasters, and others who want to tour 'The Same Ol' CrapAgin' 4Dinner' revolving restaurants," he said.

"It's not Torremolinos (Anymorez)," he said, "but there's no place like it."

.... (High Rise Coffins in Lg MegaTropical MegaCities  built for 2 for $2,000,000/ sq ft... hmmmm, wise choice there Saps...)

A question and a comment.

Question: How do you make your text bold on your posts?
Comment: Please dont do it unless absolutely essential - not good or eye Feng Shui - italics would be better, though I dont know how to do those either.

It's plain old HTML.

If you use Firefox, get the BBCodeXtra extension.  It lets you do bold, italics, quotes, links, etc,. very easily.  No HTML experience necessary.  (Though you'll quickly learn, when you see what the extension does.)

leanan - I DO use firefox - how do I 'get'BBCode extension? thanks
Firefox menu bar -> Tools -> Extenions -> Get More Extentions.
BBCodeXtra is here.

You can search the Firefox site for extensions.  Just about anything you ever wanted to do with a Web browser, someone has written an extension for it.

Once you install BBCodeXtra, you'll see a new menu when you right-click in the "post message" box.  You can highlight text and bold it, turn it into a link, put one of those quoteboxes around it, etc.  

The actual BBCode option is for PHP boards (like  Use the HTML or XHTML options for blogs like TOD.

The easy way is just to use asterix put at the beginning and end of a phrase and that's the way it shows up.  Try it in a new comment, and just "preview" (not "post") and you'll see it.

The oil drum already has a list of these easy ways:

I'm an old programmer (started making web sites in vi) so I just type the HTML in-line.  That's really easy ... but it might take a little bootstrapping to see how easy it is.

best wishes

"The easy way is just to use asterix put at the beginning and end of a phrase and that's the way it shows up.  Try it in a new comment, and just "preview" (not "post") and you'll see it."

I just learnted that by accident.  *Thank you *for you for confirming evidence *of confounding experimental results. *I say again  == THANK YOU....

I kinda like bold... Bold is Bea-U-tiful??...Back in Black, Black-n-Blue... back 2 U Mother...

SuperG, can we please ban bold in comments? Thanks :)
SuperG, can we please ban Peoplez Who Request BANS in comments? Thanks :)
Best just to ignore them.  In no time they get bored and drift  away.
Best just to ignore them.  In no time they get bored and drift  away.
[ Parental advisor sore-ly needed maybe Ma ??? ]

YES AN IGNORE FEATURE would be helpful.  To allow sorting of thoughts and ideas for Easy to Follow Threads ...

so as NOT to disrupt or interrupt This Important Message from Our flockers next nest.

{(Yes.  They do get bored don't they mother. They always gat a board, sometimes with nails even.  And a rock, and a torch, and pitchfork for poking out Eyes that Might not look, sound, smell, feel or even TASTE like them.

So, as you were saying Mother...)}

Found all this in Talking Points Memo:

Bob Novak pretty much put us on notice a couple weeks ago that the White House and the RNC were going to make a habit of using uniformed military personnel as props at Republican political rallies. This despite the fact that it is a plain violation of military regulations banning politicization of the armed forces.

I've gotten a few emails on this point so I want to clarify lest there be any confusion: violation of the ban on uniformed military participating in partisan political events isn't some technical violation like not filling out a form or not following some obscure protocal. And pointing it out isn't just some blog gotcha.

The existence of this ban and the enforcement of it are hugely important both to good order and discipline within the military and to preserving our democratic republic. The military can't be made into an arm of one or the other political party. Nor can the executive be allowed to enlist members of the armed forces, either individually or en masse, willingly or not, as soldiers in his domestic political battles.

This is about preserving a professional military and preserving our system of government. It's a big deal. We need to find out a few more specifics about what happened at the Musgrave event. Perhaps the newspaper account is deeply misleading about what actually happened. But if this thing that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is a duck, then it needs to be nipped in the bud.

I've heard from a number of active duty and retired members of the military, including a number of JAG lawyers, and unless there's something very different about Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) event in Colorado than the description of it that appeared in her local paper, it clearly violated the law.

There's another little detail one retired JAG officer brings up, however.

The uniformed member of the military who appears at such an event can be court-martialed for the violation. It's not some technicality in UCMJ terms. But there's no law against a politician or party leader putting them up to it or facilitating it. So there's no risk for them.

So Musgrave and whomever else organized the event is putting this guy's career on the line as well as encouraging this misconduct for their own partisan gain.

Another step closer to a banana republic.

The Legions enter the gates of Rome.
Forget about the old ways, we are no longer a nation of laws - we only ever were occasionally anyway, but at least we used to pretend.  Whatever is done is by definition legal, and if it isn't, we'll just change the laws after the fact so it is.  There is only one party now, and you're either with them or against them.  

Which side are you on boys, which side are you on?

I recommend watching Faux News with the sound turned down, and Billy Bragg turned up loud on the stereo.  

Why is this relevant to TOD or peak oil? The comments section here seem to have deteriorated to the point that any whine is OK as long as the theme is Bush is evil, the world is coming to an end or the media is conspiring against us.

It seems that there are thousands of sites where people want to hear and discuss these ideas. Why do commenters want to post off topic opinions here?

Sorry if this sopunds rude, but I really don't understand this. Donal is a serious poster on this and other sites with a lot to say that is relevant. But this seems to be at about the same level as me deciding to share what I had for lunch.

Well, I gather many of us expect, or fear, political changes due to depletion (at least I do).  We had discussed democracy/republics transitioning to empires recently, and trotting out uniforms to sway voters seems to me to be a precursor of empire, not a sign of democracy.  Since the actions seem to be illegal, it will be interesting to see if the laws get ignored.
I do share your concern about the uniform issue, am a regular reader of TPM, and apologize for picking on you.

However, I do think that TOD suffers because commenters allow political biases to lead them to wander off topic. While I am no fan of Bush, I am bored by the fixation some people have on him. I think this site would be better if we could focus on the subject at hand, peak oil, and save purely political topics for other blogs.

I think the uniform issue is interesting, which is why I read about it elsewhere. I did say that you are a serious posetr and I enjoy your comments. I just get annoyed because relentless and oppressive Bush bashing seems to have seaped into and diluted just about everything.

IMHO, "oil" and Peak Oil are intertwined with almost everything that goes on in the world, including wars and corporate re-alliances. That is what make PO so fascinating. It touches on everything.

You are of course correct that Bush is just a small cog in the machine and he personally is not responsible for the situation our civilization finds itself in today.

However, as emotional, irrational creatures, we sometimes have to bash and lash out at something or somebody; and Bush is just so available as a scapegoat for our chimp-based emotional outlets --not that Bush bashing really helps anything.

...scapegoat for our chimp-based...

Hahaha. You said it, not me.

Why the Ha Ha?
It's true, isn't it?
We bash Bush while complaining about some issue (PO, Global Warming, FEMA-Katrina, etc.) and then the apologists for the incompetent administration (oops, I didn't mean to say "incompetent", it just accidentally slipped out) pop in and change the subject from PO, GW, etc. to that of defending king and country.

The more things change, the more we chimps stay the same old chimps. :-)

No, I was just laughing because I thought at first you were mixing metaphors, then thought it was just animals, then I realized I didn't even know if a scapegoat was actually a type of goat or something else entirely. In the end, I'm just laughing at myself. Easily amused, I guess. But still, you said it.

Main Entry: 1scape·goat
Pronunciation: 'skAp-"gOt
Function: noun
Etymology: 1scape; intended as translation of Hebrew 'azAzEl (probably name of a demon), as if 'Ez 'OzEl goat that departs--Leviticus 16:8 (AV)
1 : a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur

Use of scapegoats is universal. Originally an actual goat was left tied to a peg at the outskirts of a town in order to appease the gods. Actually it was lions or hyennas that would kill off the poor creature, but the villagers thought the angry gods had taken out their bad temper on the animal and therefore won't bother the villagers for a while.

You see the same idea in the King Kong movies: Just give the big ape one blonde a month and he will be appeased and leave the rest of us alone.

We have it in our evolutionary makeup to "sacrifice" a few of our herd so that the rest can make it. Read up on the Mayan ritual of sacrificing their most perfect children to the mountain gods.

I see nothing wrong in scapegoating Bush. After all, he is the one who calls on everyone else to make that "ultimate sacrifice". So this Bush bashing is simply a turn of the tables; a sauce for the gander instead of for the goose.

No, my friend, you are correct. I didn't list the #2 meaning from Mirriam-Webster, which is of course the one we all know. I'm even looking for further elaboration on #1.

It's word of the day for me. What made me look up this post 6 hours after I wrote it is that I'm listening to the BBC now and they are using the word alot in coverage of Moussoui's(sp?) death sentence hearing(trial). Can we call you prescient?

I'll have to read back to see if Bush bashing is warranted in this example. step back and stay tuned. It's great we can discuss this word. This is a William Safire moment.

Click on image to link to Wiki definition of "scapegoat"

Don't worry, I don't mind being challenged.  (Just don't bore me.)

Actually, this concerned a Rep. Musgrave, I think, not Bush, although Novak opined that it will become more widespread.  I'd like to think that I'd be just as appalled by all this if Dems were behind it.  Back in the 80s, I had girlfriends that considered me way too conservative.

An Energy Pearl Harbor?
A Near Miss in Saudi Arabia Hints at Future Shocks

By Gal Luft
Sunday, March 5, 2006; Page B02

"We call our brothers in the battlefields to direct some of their great efforts towards the oil wells and pipelines. . . . The killing of 10 American soldiers is nothing compared to the impact of the rise in oil prices on America and the disruption that it causes in the international economy." -- A jihadist Web site

Read the full interesting article here:

Apparently, all is well in the OPEC world: 03542028_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-OPEC-OIL.xml

OPEC President Edmund Daukoru said on Friday that the global oil market is oversupplied by about 2 million barrels per day.
Note To Self... and as well 2to2 Soon-To-Be-2nd Worlder Friends and Relatives whose ... ad·ju·di·cat·ing lacked the necessary educating to be Informed Enough to Count... and BE COunted BY..AND may NOT pass The Mother's Testz of TimesUP... (... almost ??? tick...tick...tick...??)

Intra- and InterpFamilial WarFar During the Here-n-Now-When-U-Leastest-Expected-IT ...Traumatic Stress Syndrome


    Positively 4th Street


Y[G]ou've got a [Am]lot of nerve to [C]say you are my fri[G]end
Wh[G]en I was down [C]you just stood there gr[D]inning[Dsus4]        [D]
Yo[G]u've got a [Am]lot of nerve to say you g[C]ot a helping hand to l[G]end
Y[G]ou just want to be [C]on the side that's w[D]inning

You see me on the street, you always act surprised
You say 'how are you, good luck' but you don't mean it
When you know as well as me you'd rather see me paralysed
Why don't you just come out once and scream it.

I know the reason why you talk behind my back
I used to be among the crowd you're in with
Do you take me for such a fool to think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide what he don't know to begin with?

No I do not feel that good when I see the heartbreaks you embrace
If I was a master thief, perhaps I'd rob them
You say you're not impressed? with your position and your place
Don't you understand, that's not my problem

I wish that for just one time, you could walk inside my shoes
And just for that one moment, I could be you
Yeah, I wish that for just one time, you could walk inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is to see you....

Complacent MENTAL TERRORIST Assult Intelligence of Brown Cow Alone out in da field dare... ya you betcha!

asres... Froggive Them The Mother... For They Know NOT what the Hades they are doin' out there... >whew<

"What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America."
--George W. Bush, May 2001

I like that Quote.

I wonder ... did They Drop the ball along the way...
;;;;  (remember that game centipede...???)
OR did the

    Ante-Up Bushites simply realize - "No,... no... the TITBABIES,
... they will just Burrow Deeper looking for MORE Federal Teets With hard Nipplez to suckle from as usual... that's all they'l do an' you know it... that and POIT FINGERS .. mostly a themselves of course (but they won't notice THAT ... that The Mother Expected EACH and every One of Us to be REsponsible for OurSelves ... maybe...

Just ONCE in this Time and Place... just Once would be nice.  

(yes mother, i know youse is gittin' hungier by the minute... and a minute in Your timezUp... well, a mintue for You is a Very Long Time (times infinity even...).

Is there a way for an individual to block a particular contributor?  I'm sure sendoilplease has a few good points to make but between the length of the posts, the overuse of typeface and the cryptic prose, it's just not worth the hassle of scrolling through, let alone reading.
Yet another example of Greshams law in real time.
Hey, I know someone from greshams place i think - or usede to maybe ??? which lifetimenowisthisagin....hmmm

Okay GRESHAM Stole That Quote.

Just so you Stupid Saps who-think-they-know-they-think-therefore-play-and-fiddle-as ROME burns agi'n and agi'n AMen said The Mother.. ah those menz thingys there... ><chuckel><  (oops - wipe that smile offa yer face bud !)

Okay, that's it buddy... My 7.5 acre farmette formerly for 2 and 2.5. --- Roman KnuckleHeadLocking Mania ? One more Round for the self-proclaimed undefeated champ then and Now.

This Fourth of JULY (ok titbabies, i won't block black post... {{MA!!! They sai*WHAPupSIDEtheHEAD}}))

Okay.  I will play by babysaps titbaby rules.

BUT The Mother says Rome won't be ROME MUCH longer so [put that in your Grass-free pipes and Smokeit.

Also - MA said you kin NOT tell me how close is close enough to stand when speaking, and which way to kNod to say, "YESSA MAssa" and Which way to KnoB to say, "No."

No flock like Home... featherless twit-eaters... no wait.  that didn't come out right... okay, wait aminute.

Competition is heating up.

CNOOC, one of China's largest state-run oil and gas producers, has agreed to buy a stake in a Nigerian offshore oil and gas field for

$2.3bn (£1.3bn).

It will buy a 45% stake in the license covering the OML 130 field, which is owned by South Atlantic Petroleum and is in deep water near the Niger Delta.

From Intelligence Press

"Looking at the 2006 Atlantic season, Weather 2000 said its research, along with atmospheric and oceanographic parameters, are pointing towards a lot of activity. The company said it would not be surprised to see 15-22 named storms, eight-13 hurricanes and four-seven intense hurricanes."

YEEEeeeesssssssstthhhhhhh  my preciousesssss...." Says The Mother... latherupCooldown234-A-OOmphA 234 indeed little injuns.... indeed.  Which sidesup and done and Now ready to be eaten my pretties ?????

You know, I think bold is beautiful.  It makes your posts stand out from everyone else's.

(bill)massa tossin' one at a sailor ???

(Billy"SOB" ??? the Honest and Real Sap I presume ? )

regUardless ... so thanks for the stick 'em up post... titbabies pick-pecking their disordered little flock.

soooo many picker of lint and soooo few thinkers left now dayze.

too bad really.  skeered straight too late maybe?

thanks again naked friend birdz ;p)