 | Thursday Open Thread: The "What Have You Done with The Press Release?" Edition | The Oil Drum | The more things change, the more they stay the same |  |
The Politics of Oil: The Discourse Must Change
Posted by The Oil Drum Editors on April 28, 2006 - 2:36am
Leaders of both political parties are expressing concern about the high price of gasoline. President George Bush announced yesterday that he was suspending deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to make more oil available to consumers as well as putting on hold the traditional regulations requiring additives to make fuel burn cleaner during the summer driving season.
Meanwhile, Democratic leaders have had their own response to rising gas prices. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has announced his support for the Menendez Amendment, which would "provide more than $6 billion in relief directly to the American people by eliminating the federal tax for both gas and diesel for 60 days." Senator Charles Schumer recently called for a federal investigation to determine whether oil companies are withholding gasoline production, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has blamed high gas prices on the administration's cozy relationship with the oil companies, price gouging, and royalty relief.
The editors of The Oil Drum are ideologically diverse. Over the last year, we have created a forum at www.theoildrum.com to encourage an open, rational, and fact-based discussion of energy issues. While individual editors frequently express an opinion on a subject, we have never felt it necessary to take a unified position on any specific issue. That is, until today.
Public statements by political figures over the past several days would seem to suggest that oil companies and their record profits are the sole factor determining the price of gasoline. Not only is this untrue, but it is dangerous to give the American people the impression that only oil companies are to blame. The American people need to understand that the phenomenon of high gas prices cannot be attributed to a single source. They also need to understand that no one political party will be able to fix our current woes.
The major factor that determines gas prices is the price of crude oil from which gasoline is derived. When crude oil prices are high, so are gas prices. The following are just a few factors that affect the price of a barrel of oil:
- Oil companies do not single-handedly determine the price of oil. The price of oil is set on the crude oil futures market. Simply put, these prices are affected by supply and demand because, at present, oil trades in a global commodity market where increased demand or reduced supply in one place instantly translates into price shifts everywhere. A variety of publicly available information sources show that supply is relatively static at the moment, while world demand continues to grow as economies grow.
- We have provided evidence many times at The Oil Drum that the output of major oilfields is declining and that we may now have reached a peak or plateau in global oil supply. Oil companies have not been able to increase production for a number of years, and it is unclear that OPEC is accurately reporting their reserves. Even if there were significant sources of high quality oil remaining, it is getting increasingly difficult and expensive to drill. These factors, along with aging infrastructure for oil exploration and a retiring workforce are also contributing to high oil prices.
- The geopolitical situation is volatile, and an astute citizen may notice that every time there is news from Nigeria or Iran, the price of oil goes up because of the potential and real effects of these situations on world oil supply. Again, oil traders are fearful that the supply will not remain stable forever.
- Countries like China and India are industrializing at a great pace, and while we are accustomed to obtaining oil at a comfortable quantity and price, it will be impossible (and immoral) to deny similar resources to these countries. China is working furiously to secure new oil supplies, and they're content to negotiate with countries we're reluctant to deal with, like Iran and the Sudan.
Demagoguery and grandstanding are not strategies for addressing our energy problems. As an alternative, the editors of The Oil Drum put forth the following recommendations:
- It is nonsensical for political leaders of both parties to eliminate the gas tax temporarily or permanently as this will only worsen our dependence on oil by disincentivizing the innovation of oil alternatives and oil conservation efforts.
- Both mainstream American political parties are doing their country a disservice by accusing convenient scapegoats of price gouging or price fixing instead of educating the public about how the price of gas is actually set.
- Right now, governments should be focused on helping us cure our "addiction to oil." The answer does not lie in lowering gas prices, which will only encourage people to drive more and further waste our valuable resources. As the Department of Energy funded Hirsch Report on Peak Oil laid out, the consequences of not taking steps to transition away from oil could be dramatic to our economic system. Appropriate solutions include large-scale research, development, and implementation programs to improve the scalability of alternative sources of energy, other projects geared towards improving mass transit and carpooling programs across the country, providing incentives to buy smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, and promoting a campaign to increase awareness about conservation.
The only solution is to educate the public about the most important problem we face as a generation. We, the citizens of the US and the world, must move our attention to this the issue of energy more than any other. We must hold our representative governments accountable for having an open and honest debate on the subject.
Simply put, we must learn more about where our energy comes from.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
All that we can ask of all of you is that you send this link or the .pdf to everyone and anyone you believe can help us get this perspective out into the discourse. Post it on blogs, media outlets, discussion fora, you name it.
This is an opportunity, a teaching moment. We have to seize it.
RR
Send it to the DOE ..
Send it to the Senate Energy Committee
Jim Bunning R (KY) is chairperson
Send it to the MSM .. CNN/FOX et al
Triff ..
You can find your congressman's web site here:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Dig around and find their PR person, email directly to them.
The other way gets lower priority. Even better is to call their office.
help get this link out , like this
http://www.buzzflash.com/contact/
I saw some guy from a Cambridge, Massachusetts think tank/online-publication yesterday doing just this yesterday. I think his name was Mac Johnson. He could have used some coaching from more moderate voices here. It seems that the only ones challenging the notion that it is not about gouging are primarily righties. Moderates and lefties need to get on board.
You guys are a shining example. I give this press release 99 out of 100 points. Keep up the good work.
When in the course of modern events it becomes necessary for one people to assume greater control of their energy needs through indigenous sources provided by the Creator, a decent respect for humanity impels them to explain the rationale for their decision.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sources of energy are not created equal, that some are endowed with indisputable flaws, most especially fossil fuels. ...
Excellent idea! We do need a Declaration of Detritus Independence! Biosolar habitats and protective Earthmarines--Here we come!
Consider this blurb of mine I just reposted from the previous thread in a reply to AlanfromBigEasy:
Hello Alan,
Checkout this EnergyBulletin link:
http://energybulletin.net/15325.html
Chris Miller is running on a Peakoil platform!
Some of his comments: "We need to kick this growth habit before it is too late, while Maine still has the strength of community and rural infrastructure to do it with thought and grace," he states in a campaign letter. "Every day the sun shines on 21 million acres of Maine. That is our energy income.
Rather than send Maine's National Guard to another war to find the cheap energy and natural resources that feed this growth, Miller said he would call the Guard back here to lay rails to build an interurban railroad, if the steel is available.
Alan, here is your entree' for railroading--He will need an expert on his staff to explain the advantages, costs, savings, and building timeframes to sell to the public. Go for it--email him now.
Another article excerpt: "Miller talks in environmental terms about bioregions, or regions sharing a common geography, culture and climate, such as Casco Bay and the St. John Valley."
This sounds to me like he understands the need to build large and distinct sustainable biosolar habitats just as I have speculated about in numerous postings. After the soldiers finish building the railroads they can be transformed into the initial vanguard of Earthmarines to keep the hapless detritovores from invading postPeak.
The following links illustrate the growing political movements in New England to secede from the Union. If they can join hands with Peakoilers and biosolar survivalists tremendous progress towards Powerdown can be achieved:
http://maineindymedia.org/newswire/display/2134/index.php
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4695553
http://www.freestateproject.org/news/media_archive/0090.php
http://www.cumberlandmaine.com/cumberland%20legislation%20revised%202-17-06%20Including%20SAD%2051.p df
I think the growing drive for secession is directly related to the growing revulsion to infinite growth, environmental degradation, and ever-rising detritus prices. Everyone in the US should be encouraging the secession drive of the NE & NW areas of the country.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Toto,
This is not my work at all but rather appears to be that of one Jack Coleman as posted in the link I provided above.
I agree that it is a great idea to make a Declaration Independence, which is why I posted the link and some of the initial text. But no kudos to me. Give it up for Jack.
Thxs for responding. No problem here, Full Credit to Jack Coleman. If we could somehow get the biosolar habitat idea rolling, I think thousands of Peakoilers will sell everything they have for a chance to relocate to these Powerdown areas. I know I would ASAP. Just imagine living a 'Tuscan' lifestyle as hypothesized by Jeff Vail's EnergyBulletin link:
http://energybulletin.net/14902.html
I encourage all TODers to study his article. I think even Kunstler would agree that this is the better alternative to continuing our present paradigm. I feel strongly that this should be the direction of future 'truthful discourse'. Secession of the NE & NW US does not require that all the unwashed masses have to understand Peakoil; it provides a political mechanism for those that do to isolate themselves from those that will never give up their 'addiction'. Time will tell if we can incorporate Entropy into our lifestyles.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
A most excellent piece! Where has it been sent so far?
PDFs are meant for printing, which means those nice blue links won't be clickable.
Sadly, snail-mail still carries a lot more weight with politicians than those new-fangled "computer letters." Not least because it takes more time and effort to send. And it proves you're willing to shell out for a stamp - which gives you more credibility, at least according to some. ;-)
http://www.theoildrum.com/politics_of_oil_printable.pdf
Applause for oildrum.com pushing a united agenda, but I have reservations about the statements conservatism. I think our situation so precarious and course so fixed that the program advocated would have no hope of succeeding in the time available.
Would new energy techs still have to compete against extraction-cost fossil fuels? Would culture still promote hyper consumption and material accumulation thru misreprentation? Would we still tax effort more than resource use? These are not details that can be worked out later, they are the first real turns of the ships wheel and the measures you mention would have little prospect of making a difference in the 2? decades we might have without them.
Of course you weren't laying out a program, just trying to improve the debate, ahem, soapbox stowed. But i do think underselling the effort reqd is a mistake. People will say its unthinkable, till gas goes up another 50%. Local radio last week had a talkback dj frantic with "well what will we use??" when Royal Auto Club flack told her oil will peak sometime 2008-2020 (he hasn't said it again). There are teaching moments opening up all over.
BTW I'm wondering whether it's a problem that the press release is, in a way, anonymous. People who are familiar with TOD know it has a lot of credibility; but for someone who hasn't heard of it, the impact might be lessened quite a bit by the fact that it's an anonymous press release.
Senator Chris Dodd (CT)
Congressman Chris Shays (CT)
Triff ..
And give the poor an income supplement, not a fuel supplement, so they see the need to conserve just as strongly as everyone.
"Just my voice can't shout to make them hear
Just your voice can't shout to make them hear
But if two and two and fifty make a million
We'll see that day come round, We'll see that day come round"
Pete Seeger.
But then... why would they deliberatly course for a disaster?
Why, oh why, must one think, would they??
In a sense it's criminal, in another sense it's our own fault, and in yet another sense, very restrictive term limits would do a lot of good.
Neither party can afford to be the bearer of bad news because the other party will benefit by saying that we aren't REALLY running out of oil and that it's those bad corporations and bad countries who are causing these high prices. Result, windfall profit taxes and more war. That's where we're heading in any case.
Our system just isn't set up to deal with this kind of situation. Even though I understand how speculation on futures can drive up the price in advance of shortages, it's a bit hard to take. Watching Jim Rogers make all that money is almost as repulsive as watching the government take it.
Very restrictive term limits could easily be worse than what we've got - though it might be worth a try.
I wonder if it's legal to take Occam's razor on a domestic flight?
It's more complicated than that. When propaganda was developed into a science in the early 20th century the political class seized on it quickly and they haven't looked back. By being able to manipulate a majority of the public with relatively small amounts of money (for them) they've removed the "risk" from democracy. Among the citizens those who understand even partially what is going on are largely disenfranchised and have either given up or cynically fight for one party or the other. Free speech can even exist without restriction, but as long as a majority of the citizens can be manipulated, it doesn't matter.
The last election provided a good example: the two candidates both went to Yale, are both from wealthy families, are both pro-corporate, and both are pro Iraq war. There was no difference between the candidates. Any real difference was largely an invention of the media who presented both candidates from a marketing perspective - presenting the framework of choice in terms of personal taste or style. Basically, choose your brand of jeans. Look at the subject of this article - both parties are saying almost exactly the same thing.
I agree, though, that allowing everyone to vote regardless of background brings with it its own set of risks and benefits. If we tried to roll voting rights back to, say, people with college degrees because we think (for example) such people are better informed and not as prone to emotional manipulation, they'll still vote for their own interests first, as they well should. The problem is, of course, it leaves everyone else with nothing.
I have a solution to this quandry, however: I'm going to invent a better version of humans!
Democracies do not deal well with life boat scenarios, which is what Peak Oil is in a way. I think the standard response is just a protracted stalemate and attempts to ignore the problem or propose small fixes and hope for a miracle, which is more or less what is happening now.
I noticed that too. It's fun to take Rawl's veil-of-ignorance procedure and theory of justice or Habermas's "ideal discourse situation" and try to apply them to a ship/lifeboat/swimmers-in-the-water/musical-chairs example. They don't apply very well.
I think Bush represents this attitude/trend. He uses populist rhetoric to criticise the nasty oil companies for high gas prices. Apportioning blame like this is not a good sign for the future. Can Bush or anyone else from his 'class' present the public with 'truths' or 'facts' that, in essence, begin a process of fundamentally questioning the foundations of the current economic/social/political model? I don't think he can or will do this. Whaterver the 'reason' for high gas prices is, it will not be 'framed' as problem relating to 'the Amercan way of life.'
My guess is, the 'system's' 'reply' to Peak Oil will not be all that dissimilar to many of the other problems we face. Simply put the 'model' is Hurricane Katrine and the Iraq debacle, but on an even larger scale.
This may sound cruel, but I take issue with the use of the word 'democracy' to describe the American system. It's a seems one can call it a form of reprenstative government, but just using the term 'democracy' seems rather loose and imprecise. Looking at the last Presidential election, one can see that around 55% of the total electorate bothered to go out and participate and vote. Of these just over half voted for the Bush ticket. So he got around 25% of the potential votes, how 'democratic' is this in reality? I'm not saying I know the definitive answer to this question, I just think it's worth asking. A truly democratic society is not the same thing as having nominally democratic elections.
If almost half the voters feel disenfrachized for whatever reason and don't vote, how 'democratic' is the system? One could argue that the American system has evolved or degenerated into something close to a 'democratic tyranny' where a minority in practice rules over the majority. 'Democracy' has a number of fundamental problems associated with it, and on many levels. Some are pratcial, others are philosophical, theoretical. Democracy is not a panacea for society's problems or a miracle cure. There's the funamental problem, for one thing, about how one deals with the rights and interests of the minority which looses. Does the 51% majority have the right to walk all over the interests of the 49% minority, just because they have 2% more votes? Exactly how 'democratic' is it to give so much 'power' to those 2%? The voters who tip the scale one way or another. That President Bush was effectively 'appointed' on a split vote in the Supreme Court, also somewhat undermines the contention that America is close to being the world's shining example of 'democracy' in action. And didn't Al Gore actually receive more votes than George Bush? So the candidate with the majority of votes in a democratic election ended up losing? Can this really be defended as a democratic system? I don't mind calling it something else, or qualifiying the terms of the debate, it's just this continual crowing about how 'democratic' the American representative system is, that get's slightly annoying sometimes. Not only that, today, when we really need effective and qualified political leadership, the flaws in this system appear rather dangerous and at the very least seem to require fundamental reform and modernization.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that blaming the 'people' for a political system which is so flawed, and has become so 'corrupted' is in it's practical application, is unfair. To paraphrase Ghandi, "What do think of Western Democracy? - "I think it would be a good idea!"
Excellent point.
We make many noises without stopping to think about their precise meanings. They are used as emotional trigger words rather than as rational descriptors. The full demographics of "We the People" are not the 'crats or rulers of America. Instead a small minority of highly manipulative personalities direct the herd to stampede one way or another.
Right now the herd is out of control. The "pain o' the pump" noise is making them run scared.
Via the CIA
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic;
I don't think democracy is the real problem nearly so much as people's willingness to trust corporations to do the right thing. These entities never have, and never will. As long as the sheep continue to allow big business to run the world, democracy will simply be bought and sold. Free enterprise would be fine when guilded by ethical principles but it never has been. When they started to treat corporations as having the same rights as people, they should have also enforced that they abide by the same ethical and moral rules as well. These issues have far more to do with greed and human nature than any particular political system. All systems can be abused if not watched over - and by and large people don't want to bother with that mighty effort, whether under democracy, dictatorship or other variants.
Our present day systems are not much removed from that concept. He have Congressional Oversight Committees and Panels upon Panels of Experts at all sorts of alphabet soup agencies (FEMA, SEC, FTC, FCC, FDA, DOE) who are in charge of the hard hard thinking stuff.
The sheeple march forward in lock step, "staying the course" as we say, like a pensive but happy herd under the benevolent watch of our trusted shepards.
Anyway, wherever I went to school, I didn't get much Plato. My fault, not theirs. To me, Plato is a crater on the moon. ;-)
It seeems to me, though, that one of the things we were taught is that the American system of government places a high value on individual freedom. Most other Western democracies do as well. With this individual freedom comes a personal responsibility for each individual's actions or lack thereof, even if many of us would prefer to dodge it. I would also claim that we have a collective responsibility for our collective actions or inaction.
So when I consider what could come of the current actions and policies of our elected representatives and their designated oversight (hmmm, there's more than way to interpret that word) committees and panels, and as the result of our individual and collective behavior, that's how I come to my remark: In a democracy, the people get what they deserve.
No disrespect Captain sir.
Not that I mean to rock the boat sir.
But let me ask a few simple questions sir.
When ye was a born, sir:
- Did you have "freedom" to choose your parents?
- Did you have "freedom" to choose the language you first spoke?
- Did you have "freedom" to choose the religion you first practiced?
- Did you have "freedom" to choose which flag you first saluted when you started school?
- And where did you get that line drilled into yer head sir, you know, the one about "the people get what they deserve"? Seems like I've heard it once too often and it gets me nervous that maybe it ain't true sir.
- You ever stop to think that maybe the people didn't get what they "deserve"? Did they have freedom to choose the system into what they was born into sir? Did they have the freedom to not have that line drilled into their heads, over and over again until sometimes you just wonder if there is some brain washing going on here? Probably in Russia they tell 'em the Comrades get what they deserve. And in China they tell 'em the masses get what they deserve. It's all fair and balanced. Almost everybody is gettin' what they have comin' to them.
- But speaking of fair, aside from "We the People", shouldn't it be fair maybe once in a while that the "un-people", you know, the politicians who run the system be at least partially responsible for the system they dish out? Not just the "people" being totally desrving of it?
Sorry sir.I have a weird head sir.
Sometimes I question stuff.
Won't happen again sir.
1 - 4. Some things just happen. These four things happen to kids, and there aren't many societies in which the kids enjoy the same rights and freedoms, or have the same obligations, as the adults.
- I came to that conclusion myself, of my own free will. Didn't I? Hmmm, I thought I did. I don't know if the idea is particularly original, but I can't recall having heard it expressed in those words by anybody else. But I didn't know about Plato's philosopher king either. Where did you hear it so often that you have to call it into question?
- "Did they have freedom to choose the system into what they was born into sir?"
As I wrote above, some things just happen. I have always considered myself to be very lucky to be born in the USA. My remark doesn't apply to Russia or China; neither is a democracy. But the USA claims to be a democracy, and I think most of its citizens believe it is one.7. I consider the politicians to be part of the people, so of course they should also be responsible for what they do and what happens as a result.
I maintain that the people have made the system what it is. The mechanisms are there for changing course if the ship is going the wrong way.
Individuals do have the freedom to decide whether to come to TOD or watch American Idol, to drive a Hummer or a Smart, buy lots of junk on credit or live within their means. Collectively, though, they seem to be making choices that could have enormous negative consequences later.
remember it as "People get the form of government they deserve".
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve." -Adlai Stevenson
"Every nation has the government it deserves - "'Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.' "Lettres et Opuscules Inédits," (1851) vol. I, letter 53 (15 August 1811.) Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), French writer and diplomat.
"In the long-run every Government is the exact symbol of its People, with their wisdom and unwisdom; we have to say, Like People like Government." -Past and Present, Thomas Carlyle
Stupidity about one of the most dangerous challenges facing global civilization is one thing. Lying is quite another. Impeach them all!
The peak-oil concept and the diminishing exports that will result of this, are known for quite some years now.
Nothing is done, nothing is told, nothing is prepared..
Welcome to the new world order of Bush & Co.
APF,
There is no way to be certain about what "they" KNOW or don't know.
Just because Roscoe Bartlett (Rebublican) was blabbering words into Bush's face --and maybe Georgie was nodding yes to all of Roscoe's words about PO-- that doesn't mean that Georgie understood their import. Maybe he was thinking all along about how it turned out for Billy the Goat. A good classic movie to revisit is Peter Seller's "Being There".
For those too young to remember, Peter Seller plays a bumbling gardner who stumbles onto the Washington scene and accidentally is mistaken for a genius in politics. He talks about getting back to our "roots" and harvesting that which we sow, and all that good gardening talk. Politicians assume he is talking at that deep, philisophical level when in fact this guy is totally clueless.
Point is: you cannot tell what another human being understands simply from the fact that words or pictures were thrown at them.
G WWW B means Wee Waz Warned
"By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?... Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world's economy."
Don't you think he could have set little George on his lap and explained this.
GWB doesn't appear clueless to me, it just appears that he is marching to the PNAC. So who is calling the shots in our government?
(He's dreamin' of Rumfull Donald and his atta-boy Brownie jug if you must know.)
I don't get a sense that Duck'n Dickie is an introspective scientific kind of guy. I get the impression that he is a short tempered Alpha Male who wants to charge into every situation with both guns blasting and killing as many towel heads as he can rather than coming to grips with the math, science and sobering economics of Peak Oil.
We may never know what happened in those smoked filled chamber rooms of Dickie's Energy Commission, but I have this worrisome feeling that they weren't talking Hubbert curves. They were talking power, profits and taking the gunsmoke "over there" before "they" bring it on over here. In other words, Preemptive Petro grab.
Obviously minds of a same quailed feather flock to the same bar room conclusion together.
Taking shots ... drinking shots ... it all goes together when you're part of "the club".
"It was my fault sir, I shouldn't have run into your buckshot sir."
"OK You are forgiven my meaningless minion just as long as you remember who the Tony Soporano around here is." :-)
cheers
giving us ethanol and hydrogen <g>
Triff ..
Welcome to the new world order of Bush & Co. "
eg. Katrina. eg. offshoring of labor. eg. Iraq. All just warm up for their biggest and best trick, the disappearing government.
If you deny the idea of increasing production as part of the solution, then you are really just using the peak oil issue as a front for another agenda (environmental, political, or economic).
If you really believe that peak oil will be a big problem, then increasing production, as Barton suggests, will help reduce that problem, and will lower gasoline prices below what they would have been. Reducing consumption will also mitigate peak oil, and at the same time also reduce gasoline prices below what they would have been.
If peak oil is truly a crisis ahead, we need to work both ends, supply and demand.
The only real problem here is that we've committed to a low density civilization (suburbia) which needs individual transportation to be effective. If we reorganize into higher density complexes and support those with electrified rail and other transportation systems, we can keep our technological civilization. But if we do not, we will lose it. It's that simple.
The changes we must make as a civilization are not so large as to be impossible. Look at how far we changed from 1900 to 1950. How far could we change yet again and yet still keep our quality of life if we tried to do so with a plan in mind?
I'm not sure that the American 'model' is relevant anymore in a world moving towards constricted supplies of vital raw materials and energy. Perhaps the Chinese 'model' is the way of the future? The lack of 'democracy' in China and 'freedom' notwithstanding.
Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
For comparison the annual additions of spent nuclear fuel (aka nuclear waste) worldwide are about 12 000 tonnes.
Outstanding point! My speculative proposal of choking back production delays as long as possible the eventual opening of the last of the detritus fields; it gives us the maximum opportunity to build biosolar habitats and wean as many as possible from addiction. Detritus is going forever negative, but biosolar's upper limit is the supermassive harnessing of daily sunshine. Like Edison said, "Will we learn to harness the sun's energy before the fossil fuels run out?"
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
A: Preserve ANWR.
B: Preserve my SUV.
I think 'B' would win by a landslide. Sad.
In my experience the people pushing those (few) domestic reserves are not showing me the numbers. They are not showing me the barrels per day (or cu. ft. of natural gas) that will significantly change the supply and demand equation.
Now, the cynic in me sometimes thinks that even if those reserves are not enought to move gas prices (or home heating costs) on a national basis, the reserves ARE big enough to make specific companies or individuals a lot of money.
So, is it pork, or is it an energy solution? You've gotta show me numbers to prove it is the latter.
I've never been able to find figures for the total oil produced from e.g. Pennsylvania. Do you? If it was a lot, then CO2 injection (as part of carbon sequestration) could bring up a lot of oil from those "empty" fields which went dormant before 1960. Maybe some of those pumpjacks working across Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri could get a new lease on life.
None of this is going to make oil last forever, but as a means of improving our balance of trade and cutting the world price a bit while we make the changeover, it would have value.
I don't have at my fingertips the amounts, but my understanding is that in the areas now off limits (in Alaska, Florida-GOM, off the east coast, off the west coast, all told quite a vast area) there is a considerable amount, especially in a situation where a small percentage increase helps a lot. And of course every little bit contributes, and lots of little bits can add up to a big bit.
The wind farm being considered (and opposed) off of Marth's Vineyard would not considerably increase the nation's energy, but I am for it because it helps. I feel pretty sure that some companies would make a profit off of the wind farm, but that's OK too. Is the wind farm pork, or part of a solution ? I submit that any public energy project will be both pork (profit for someone) and a contribution toward our energy system.
Whatever amount the domestic reserves have, we only get to use them once, and when oilaholic said the following, he nailed it:
Of course in "addiction" it's hard to slow down and think about the future ...
What you fail to realize is that peak oil will happen sooner or later. While I agree that we should work both ends. You almost sound as if you don't believe that there will ever be a crisis!!
We aren't going to increase production, we are going to produce what we can, but an increase is not going to happen. On the down slope we might have up days or years, but after the "top of the hill" its all down hill, even if we go back up a little on the way down to the ground.
Save the gas, walk to work, just because you live 50 miles from work don't let that be an excuse. Set up a hammock in your cube, Tell your boss you have to sleep somewhere and still get to work on time the next day. Promise your wife you will be home once a month. Get your congress persons to do the same, the Captiol building could second as a Motel for congress, they could safe money on food for cooking their own meals in the office microwave. The only time they get to use a cr is when they go back to the states to talk to people, but they have to use a train or a bicycle to go to all those places. We could make this work if everyone just took the plunge and walked to work.
This has been an ad for the Walk to Work foundation, and can be freely given to all those folks who question why you have laundry hanging from your office door.
Thanks, that is I am advocating on the supply side.
Of course peak conventional oil will happen at some point. But I don't think we should stop looking for it because of that (quite the opposite).
Thanks, see my comments to Ben on this below.
To summarize, if we really are about to enter a crisis stage as people on TOD envision, in the 10 + years it takes to develop these areas gasoline may very well be $10/gal and the new cars may very well be 100 mpg.
Exactly right--let's work both ends! My speculative proposal to allow energy companies to choke production achieves this goal. It vastly increases their profits thereby incentivizing them to continue looking for the ancient sunshine, but the billions or trillions of energy tax is strictly devoted to the building of large biosolar habitats and Powerdown.
Those people willing to self-deplete their detritus lifestyle, but wanting to quickly grow a biosolar lifestyle can save billions of gallons of detritus fuels. It will create a tremendous impetus for PV panels, solar water-heating, super eco-tech housing, walkable and bikeable communities, mass-transit, permiculture, windmills, and on & on. It is nothing more than leveraging Jevon's Paradox to help drive Powerdown.
Those NE & NW biosolar areas wanting to gradually decrease their daily usage of detritus from the current US average of nine gallons of crude/day to the Bangladeshi avg of two cups/day can divert massive amounts of energy to the detritus areas, yet the biosolar upside potential is unlimited; i.e. :Chris Miller's "21 million acres of Maine's daily energy income".
The big question: Does America have the political will to take this course in time to avert disaster?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
If I've been reading this right, 'Denying the idea of increasing production' is the thesis of the oil drum, not the 'politically-incorrect' solution that PO advocates want to steer you from. Not insisting that we 'shouldn't' produce more, but that it will simply be impossible.
I think it's described in various terms in response to your post, but at this point I see ANWR and other restricted fields as more important than ever to protect, to leave us some energy potential available if we just HAVE to use that for a desperate lunge towards building new infrastructure, that we do everything possible to keep certain areas off-limits.
There is another version of effectively increased production, which is efficiency and restraint, and we have to figure out how to do that in as many ways, as fast as we can.
Sorry, I should have written more clearly -- by "denying the idea of increasing production" I don't mean total output will necessarily increase, I simply mean "denying that we should continue looking for oil where we can". Output may or may not temporarily increase, depending on depletion rates and how much new oil we find ... eventually of course, total production will stop increasing no matter what we do, due to finite resources (I could have truthfully made that statement 100 years ago).
Pick up Dr. Seuss's "The Lorax" sometime. This story is being played out right before our eyes.
Personally I don't have a problem with drilling ANWR, Miami Beach, the White House Lawn.
The senators (and many others) who are jumping up now and saying "if so-and-so had let us have our way, we'd be drilling Alaska now and prices would be lower" are really focusing on the last bit of the sentence - keeping prices low.
Not in keeping oil available for use.
See the difference?
If I have a gallon of ice cream and a house full of kids who want it, I can use one spoon and dish it out carefully, or I can give eight kids a spoon each and watch it be gone in three minutes. Either way, there's still only a gallon of ice cream. Drilling off the coast of Florida is 1) only putting off the inevitable, 2) of limited return on investment (or it would have been done already), and 3) a proposal aimed at placating a public alarmed by price, much as the stopping the SPR fill for the summer (as I pointed out elsewhere, we were putting 2 million barrels a month into SPR, we consume 20 million barrels a day. What difference will that make?)
As the world runs out of fossil fuel, Alaska and Florida and anywhere else WILL be explored, I'm certain. Besides, we've been picking tar balls off our bodies here in Texas for decades, why should we have all the fun?
However, it takes a decade or more to find and begin producing offshore, and the consensus here at TOD seems to be that things are going to start to get dicey in the 10-20 yr time frame or sooner. (Or maybe not, but then if that is the case this board may be overstating things and we don't have an impending crisis after all ?)
So, if we start now, by the time we get it into production, we may really be needing it, to help us bridge to the next great thing(s).
Senators and the like are busy running their mouths, saying what they think we want to hear. They aren't concerned with a decade of exploration and setup before meaningful production is reached, they like sound bites like "Up to X barrels a day!"
Here's my position: if we are going to drill federal lands, let's be totally up front and transparent about what is about to happen and what is likely to be the result. Don't do any no-bid contracts, don't just say "OK, go drill" -- let's hear all the details. If it's gonna be five years before a drop of oil gets to the domestic production stream - tell us. If we're hoping to export the Alaskan crude to S. Korea or Russia instead of paying to ship it all the way to Louisiana to process it - say that, too. (I'm making this up based on all the various things that have been said in the last ten years, I don't know what is true anymore)
It's a different reason, but I wonder about what all my neighbors think who sold all the oil under their land when it was $18/bbl. I bet at least some of them wish they waited.
Kids, we only have just so much. Every drop is precious, nothing gets wasted, and we might just have a chance...
Every 'Mirage' cartoon I saw as a kid is spinning through my head, now. Won't get fooled again..
No, the irresponsibility is, once again, the refusal to see where the energy is, and where it 'was', and adjust course accordingly. We keep saying solar and wind 'just aren't there, yet'.. Germany's at 10%, right? Panels on every new house. You don't get there until you start in that direction, and don't stop and fool around on the way. There are just ridiculous ways to save, from heating by the sun, cooling from tubes in the ground, carpooling, trains, bikes.. 'Political Infeasibility' is the defeatist's rallying cry.
I don't care who's to blame. Leadership, Consumers, Capitalism, Oil Companies.. blaming any of them, it seems clear, is like blaming some cog in the middle of a clock, because it's running late. All the parts push and interlace with each other. You have to be a bad cog and get the hell out of that clock!
"I am the USA and I am an Oilaholic.. and the first step is admitting I have a problem.. then, to start fixing my 'problem', I have to get clean, I have to get away from the source, the dealer, the belief that this and only this drug will assure my survival. "
You seem to be new here, but are at least clued in, so don't take this the wrong way. You have every right to your opinion. I disagree with it. At this is only my opinion.
For the record, I am 100% opposed to drilling in ANWR, but I am fairly certain it will happen anyway. The Alaskan's themselves will decide the issue. The rest of America will just help them along.
But here is where I disagree with you. ANWR will in absolutely no way, exploration-or-not, stave off any crisis. The potential crisis we talk about here will steamroll Alaska along with Alberta next door. If Alberta solves all our problems, then we don't even need to consider ANWR.
This is a near-term liquids production problem, not a reserves problem. Production, always, always, being the key word. What is irresponsible is not addressing this issue at the expense of believing we can prepare ourselves by looking for more oil.
And it didn't take long for the fools to do exactly what I said:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.
However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.
(end quote, link has full article)
This is not about money, or even the oil. This is pure greed. Somebody stands to make a buck.
On the ANWR issue, I understand what y'all are saying. But if letting somebody drill a few wells will shut everyone up about it, then let 'em go. We've screwed up pristine wilderness before, we'll do it again. I agree it will have no effect, in the long run. But we need to make sure everyone knows that, or it will keep interfering with getting things done.
Hell, I thought everybody knew that New Orleans could not survive a direct hit by a hurricane intact. Lookee there, lots of folks seemed shocked that the levees started leaking. Hello? Are they on the same planet as the rest of us?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html
Great, that's a mature level of discourse. Let's give the commoners (and billionaires alike, I suppose) $100 each to spend on more gas. I really can't blame the politicians for groveling and being scared enough to do stupid things like this - and after all, it may even work on the electorate - but where is the MSM to question the idiocy of this?
This is pure politics - tossing crumbs so there is less inclination to protest.
Meanwhile, I don't know if y'all picked this up already, but some local governments in Texas are jumping on the XOM Boycott bandwagon.
Idiocy abounds...
The government seems to be running scared, desperately throwing out ANYTHING to try and appease the populace as we stare over the top edge of the roller coaster to come.
Yes - supposedly.
When the congress drafts and passes a Constitional Decleration of War, then you have a war.
Right now you have a bunch of people calling other things a war. War on poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on budget overruns, et la.
It's really messed up how this 'war' word is used.
Also messed up is the fact that our "Free Press" just happily plays along with this nonsense.
Certainly no one solution by itself will solve the dilemma.
What seems clear to me is that the solution will involve MANY small things in EACH category:
- Reduce comsumption growth
- Develop alternative sources
- Keep producing oil and other hydrocarbons
I think it is pretty obvious that if we stop progress on any of these, the adjustment will be that much harder if not impossible.The high prices we have (and will see increasing) will cause tremendous growth in 2), and have a big effect on 1).
Without 3) as the bridge, we will not have means or the time for developing 2).
The responsible thing is to promote ALL of these three.
I also think one of our really big problems, is, that oil and gas supplies are going to have great difficulty keeping pace with rapidly increasing demand, which should also be a cause for great concern.
Not quite.
Consumption rate = production rate.
Why? Because every barrel produced gets consumed.
Consumption rate = person X personal consumption rate
There is a 3rd variable that you lumped into another variable, that is population. If you don't think one human won't kill another to better their resource position, you havn't been paying attention.
then you are really just using the peak oil issue as a front for another agenda
Yea, that must be the lack of oil tankers adjenda. Or the lack of drilling rigs adjenda. Or the retirement of oil workers adjenda. Or the lets have a war adjenda (like Nigeria).
Looks to me like you have come to the table not liking some of the alternatives. Like less affordable energy. Like personal sacrifice. Or extreme positions like dieoff.org
If peak oil is truly a crisis ahead,
IF?
Tell ya what. Go back and read 6 months of TOD or peakoil.com. Ponder what oil means in terms of goods/services. Then, if you still don't believe, cite why. You might just be able to inform us why it is not a problem.
Beacue the majority of TOD participants see it as a problem. Many of us have ideas that would work. But the majority can't convince the lawmakers to set things up to avoid the big fallout issues that the end of cheap oil will bring.
I'm not convinced that we have so much disagreement ...
As I wrote above, we must do three things:
- Reduce consumption growth
- Develop alternative energy sources
- Keep producing oil and other hydrocarbons
Not working on any one of these will assure that the situation to come will be worse. I think people who are against doing any of these three will, if they have influence, make the effect of peak oil worse.High prices will contribute to all three of these, so in that sense high prices are good.
We have had a lot of very cheap energy ($3 for the equivalent of a month worth of human energy output?), but now the price is rising and that will both force and enable the transition to alternatives to oil.
RedRiver,
What you say is common sense.
And once again, common sense is dead wrong. Sorry.
But then again, this is what makes the study of Peak Oil frustrating and fascinating at the same time. It is not as simple a problem as it first seems.
Just when you think you finally understand PO, you drill a little deeper and discover a whole new level of complexity and intractable problems.
So let's step back to one of the fundamentals of PO theory: the planet Earth is a finite solid and thus it has a finite volumetric quantity, Q of extractable crude.
That finite quantity, Q can be broken up into a sum of field subtotal quantities, Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + ... where Q1 is a King size field (let's say Gawhar), Q2 is somewhat smaller and the values shrink as subscript j of Qj increases. Not only does Qj decrease with the increase of j, but the fields are harder to get to and further apart. They are deep offshore. They are up in frozen ANWR. Basically it gets more expensive and more dangerous to get each next drop after you have "extracted" or "recovered" (not "produced") the slightly easier to get at, lower hanging of the fruit.
Once we are over the Peak, the faster you extract from the finite Q, the steeper you make the slope of the decline. So you are not making the effect of Peak Oil felt less, you are making it felt more. It's sort of like digging snow away from the downhill side of a snow pile and wondering how come it keeps getting steeper and steeper.
Another 2 points while I have your attention: Human beings do not "produce" oil, we "extract" it from between whatever rocks we find it trapped under. Only Mother Nature produces oil (well, did produce it, over the course of millions of years). Second point: There are no alternative liquid fuels that match up to oil. If there were, we wouldn't be in such a PO pickle.
What you say here is obvious, except the second to last paragraph.
You write "Once we are over the Peak, the faster you extract from the finite Q, the steeper you make the slope of the decline."
The question is, decline of what ? If you mean decline of oil in the earth, I agree, and that is what I think you mean.
But is the goal to keep as much oil in the earth as possible, no matter what happens to humans by doing that ?
If so, we should turn off all of the world's oil pumps tomorrow and go cold turkey.
I'm going to assume that you do not believe that is the best approach. So the goal is to find the right level of oil production to "keep us going" (whatever that means) and yet spur enough conservation and innovation to move away from oil as our primary transportation fuel. To make as smooth a trasition as possible. What is that level ? It really depends on how long you think it will take to develop the alternatives, and how price levels spur conservation and innovation, and a multitude of other things. I don't know what that optimal level is, and don't believe anyone else does either. However, I do believe that it is a mistake to stop searching for and learning where the oil is and how much in the various spots that remain.
Will you do the rational thing and hold back until you absolutely need yout next fix? No way. You are a ravished animal. Your moment of crisis is here and now. The last bags will be gone in a second. The only thing that would have you slowed you down is NOT knowing where the last few bags are stashed.
By the way, in reference to your post one level up ... my Webster's dictionary includes the following in its definitions of "produce": "to make available for satisfaction of human wants" and "to bring forth". It gives as examples "to produce a witness" and " to produce a natural product". So the term "to produce oil" fits nicely within that definition.
The problem is your 3rd bullet point is a long term dead end. And, if the fealings are right about Ghwar and the other kings combined with the decline of sweet light crude means the 'continued production of oil and other hydrocarbons' isn't going to happen.
Your 3 legged object lacks a leg. So without some form of dynamic feedback, the segway is going to ack like it does with people who choke on pretzels try to use it.
Of course the continued production, excuse me, extraction, of oil and other hydrocarbons will happen. They will at some point decline, but they will continue to be extracted and used until long after you and I are dead.
To say as you do that "the continued production of oil and other hydrocarbons isn't going to happen" is simply delusional, intellectually dishonest, or a silly rhetorical flourish, and is certainly not the sort of statement the more serious TODers (the TOD editors for example) would write.
Just because it will decline doesn't mean oil won't contribute to our energy mix as we develop other methods and learn to be more efficient.
Oil is contributing to the mix, and will continue to contribute to the mix at some level, at an increasing price. The question is only what level we produce to support us until we can add those two other legs, the ones that are really missing.
Far from being the missing leg, oil is really the only leg at present for transportation, and that is the problem. Current and coming oil price increases will change that, both on the consumption side and in the development of alternatives.
"Pickens says his central message to oil investors and consumers is that the industry is simply not capable of producing more than 85 million barrels per day. Global demand is preciously close to that at 84 million and by the end of the year it should top 85 million. "Blood, guts, and feathers -- that's all you got," he says. "Everything is squeezed as much as it can be squeezed."" -- Businessweek
(There were one too many www's in there. Ya know what they say, all it takes is one W to spoil the pot.)
Yes, isn't that just so predictable of these pandering politicians? Every time there is a price spike, the drill in Washington is the same. That Barton would peddle such mararkey either 1) makes him out to be an uninformed pinhead; or 2) he knows it's crap but has to try to demonize everyone who stopped opening up ANWR out of political opportunism (and in doing so, does the entire nation a disservice by hiding the underlying causes and igoring any viable solutions).
Lets face it, everyone. They simply cannot and will not level with Americans over our energy conundrum. They remember what happened to Jimmy Carter. They are too gutless (Roscoe Bartlett excepted).
I hope gas prices keep going up, and without apology. This is the tough medicine this country requires, like it or not. Eliminating the federal and/or state gas taxes is so breathtakingly counterproductive, it nauseates me just to think that this is all which some can find as a "remedy". Their ignorance boggles my mind.
Have a nice night.
There's a good lesson there in promoting the wrong solution.
Where's Richard Rainwater when you need him? ;-)
I just a got a nice note back from him wishing me luck with the proposal, but he said that he is seeking less--and not more publicity.
I think that his Fortune interview is going to be the extent of his public involvement. Of course, IMO the Fortune interview was invaluable.
Indeed. Before reading that story, I was already aware of the issue. But that really got my attention. Sort of an "Aha!" moment.
A national ad campaign--Great idea! We need Richard Rainwater to step up to the plate with an initial donation, then we can kick in as much money individually as we can. Does TOD have the required software and bank account ready to go to accept member donations? The sooner we get started, the fewer the number of detritovores that will have to confront the Earthmarines.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Right click and "View Image" for bigger
nation will have to face the facts. Soon we will be
yelling TIMBER.
Your press release is fine. One suggestion is that you could've included a simple, two-sentence explanation of "peak oil." Remember, you are trying to reach NEW customers, who aren't already part of the discussion. So, it's always useful to repeat the ABCs.
Keep up the great work!
This trend continues with the baby boomers, but there has been a post-gen-X generational switch -- now the cities, where petroleum use is minimized, are trendy. This will only get worse as gas prices go up. Rising gas taxes down the road will be like rising food prices -- everyone will pay, but it'll hurt the poor the most.
Kunstler is right -- the ghettos of tomorrow will be the suburbs and McMansions. We need to focus not on taxation, or really on efficient cars, but on reforming the suburbs with what resources we have, while we still have them.
I couldn't agree more. I'm a gen x'er who grew up in the burbs, trapped in the cul-de-sac and hated it. Kunslter's "geography of nowhere" and DPZ's "suburban nation" made me a true convert. AFter finishing school, I moved into a small city, I walk to work (I put 87 miles on my pick up last month). Seems like a few years ago, mostly everyone I knew in my generation lived in town, but as they had kids and got steadier into their career, many of these same people are building their dream home in exurbia and have two SUV's.
Re: "The political discourse on this topic is simply so devoid of fact, and constructive discourse so buried and out of the mainstream, that we felt we needed to raise a voice of reason. Public officials will continue to misinform and obfuscate if we allow it"
It seems that the structural constraints under which the government, corporations and the MSM operate are hopelessly inadequate to the supply/demand imbalance now at hand. I hope this post gets widely publicized.
best to all, Dave
Peak oil is as much an issue of education on a complex topic as it is a physical, economic and long term survival issue. The problem is, you have about as much chance of educating Joe Hummer about energy matters as educating religious fundies about science.
I could write a book, but suffice it to say that I fear for all our futures.
It would end questions about how one can simply assert that the change in the price of pump is justified by the price in oil markets.
Perhaps best would be to include both spot and futures prices.
Government's incentive is to grow; the coming energy crisis may well serve them far more than us.
Perhaps WE should incentivize Government based on the percentage by which they DECREASED Government.
Sadly, there remains a ratchet phenomenon in Government's size and accompanying taxation levels which allow change in a singular direction... larger.
And with this increasing largess, we'll you know...
However, I do think there is a component of a solution that has to do with regulation of energy. There is gouging that goes on anytime oil goes up without the converse when oil goes down. I realize this is not a major component in a strategic plan, but it just frosts me that the oil companies (all of them from drillers to gas stations) take advantage of the situation and get away with it.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/04/politicians-profits-and-inventories.html
He drives 2 blocks from his office to a press conference to decry the high price of oil. He gives incorrect information on profit margins, and then when correct, his office says "Oh, well, the actual numbers don't really matter." But the kicker is that he would take the windfall profits tax and rebate it to the people who drove the most miles. What a crazy political solution to the problem!
RR
I just re-posted it at Energy Bulletin to give it more visibility:
http://energybulletin.net/15370.html
Any ideas about next steps?
How about a place people can sign up -- a petition?
Great work, TOD!
-Bart Anderson
Energy Bulletin co-editor
but what is the "tag line" that the populace will remember:
POLITICIANS PULL OUR LEGs INTO THE PETRO PLUNGE ?
Ever notice how CNN or Fox News tries to get all that good alliteration into their tag lines: "Pain at the Pump", "Pump Politics" ?
Being in the oil business, and having been through the last "energy crises", I think plank number 1 should be re-introduction of the 55 MPH speed limit. It would immediately lower consumption and that is what is needed!
The ethanol import tariff pushed and passed by the Corn Lobby should also be repealed - why shouldn't we be able to buy Brazilian ethanol to help reduce the cost of gasoline?
There's my two suggestions and my two cents...
Still Drilling in Houston
and then there's the whole idea of the Republicans actually taking on the corn lobby.
Sadly, I'll not be holding my breath.
We can change the discourse, but we also need to throw them options that they can fix or implement via new legislation and especially OLD LEGISLATION that exacerbates rising prices or that inhibits new investment in alternatives....
It's one thing to start and steer discussion - but you need to have some arrows in your quiver BEFORE you go hunting big game....
RR
Adhering to it would cause a lot of gritting-of-the-teeth for me, but it is obviously a very pressingly needed course of action to take.
on Dailykos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/26/184925/156
on eurotrib: http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/4/26/193537/093
with the permission of the editors of TOD.
(except that with European Tribune, Energize America and my normal life I've already had to cut down on sleep significantly...)
Higher taxes raise the price, cut demand and assuming constant supply, prices then decline, cutting into vendor margins. If the additional government revenue is redistributed among the population(Europe), income available for fuel consumption is increased, demand is boosted pushing prices up and restoring some part of vendor profitability. In this scenario, though, government has the opportunity to optimize revenue from fuel consumption and to use same to construct alternatives and people usually have the option of spending the additional disposable income that, for example, public healthcare provides on something other that endless driving.
doug gabelmann
ottawa
The federal politicians deserve further criticism regarding the initial addition of ethanol to gasoline, followed by its replacement by MTBE which, in turn, has recently been replaced by ethanol. Ethanol cannot be transported by pipelines but requires the use of tank cars. It's possible that this will cause future shortages in particular areas of the country. Another reason for possible shortages is the use of "boutique" versions of gasoline required in different areas.
astronomer1
I posted my comment there and here again.
Dear Harry,
I am in total disagreement with this admendment. Please read Peaking Of World Oil Production:
Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management* by
Robert L. Hirsch, SAIC, Project Leader. This is a DOE- sponsored study.
Harry, in short, neither "Big Oil" nor OPEC can any longer control the price of oil. We need to face the fact that in the not too distant future, new production will not be able to meet decline from mature oil fields. $4 gas will look cheap. We need conservation, not efforts to spur consumption.
Paul
On the positive side (for us TODers at least), is that the political class is obviously scared shitless about the public's anger over high energy prices.
(Here in Delaware, our local utility will be raising rates almost 60% in May, and people are ready to lynch our state legislature for deregulating the utlitities and, allegedly, cutting cozy deals with same. I've never seen such an ugly mood among us normally complacent Delawareans.)
Thus, the political class will do and say anything, and I mean that quite literally, to assuage and deflect that anger. Big Lies are guaranteed.
In this battle to capture the Oil Issue for November, I think the Democrats have a strong edge. The Repbulican's argument that it's those tree-hugging, pot-smoking, eco-faggots that won't us drill for all that good oil that's right here beneath our feet is quite weak in contrast to the Democrat's solid argument that the Republican Party, and George Bush in particular, is of, by, and for Big Oil. Hell, Bush even ran an oil company for a while (ran it into the ground, that is). So, the Democratic will relentless harp on the connection between Bush, Cheney, et al, with Big Oil. I think they are going to do well in November.
While this is a recipe for a successful Democratic takeover in Congress come November, we all know that it is all smoke and the basest kind of political pandering.
Can we expect such people, be they Democrats or Republicans, to seriously and effectively address our pressing energy issues? As I have said before, we are ruled by swine.
If they can't even comprehend 3rd grade arithmetic, how are they going to comprehend PO, Global Warming, and economics? Scary.
And thank you for being a voice of sanity. We so desperately need that right now.
Unfortunately with the President, members of Congress, and State Governors blaming high prices on 'price gouging', a diservice has been done. The average Amercian will quickly conclude that yes, indeed, gasoline prices are high because of price gauging.
Unmentioned is the fact that even if ANWAR and continental shelves could be further developed, that this process is not free, nor quick. Further, the public has almost no awareness that both Saudi Arabia and Mexico need to spend roughly $50 billion each over the next five years just to keep up oil production.
I'm afraid that the public in general is much more resistant to changing energy consumption than I previously thought, and more governmental micromanagement will likely be counter-productive the desired lower prices and greater supplies.
Why has a copy of this post been sent to my work email address, here in NZ?
The paranoid part of me is shouting "WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET MY WORK EMAIL ADDRESS FROM?"
This could cause some sticky questions here at work about my Internet usage. Please explain.
I could see the signal-to-noise ratio increasing exponentially as thousands of trolls came to TOD to stick their oar in.
As you were. :-)
Just ignore me. :-)
You guys are the hippest nerds on the internet. I am glad you are here. Keep up the great work.
Your most humble servant,
Subkommander Dred
My Congressman (Vern Ehlers) is having an open hour meeting on Saturday. I'm going to take a copy and see if I can give it to him. He has been on the floor with Rep. Bartlett when the discussion was oil. He is the one that wears a purple tie because he wishes that energy being used was purple, so we could see it.
Any chance of a "one page" hot points version with a web link to a "full" version.
Thanks again...good job.
Rick
I put all the PO talks here:
http://www.xecu.net/thorn/PO/
HELL, YEAH! I wouldn't change one word.
I've draw this to the attention of the president of the NRMA (Australian equivalent of the AAA) asking that his organisation take a more fact-based line in the media.
Maybe it will help.
Cheers.
Do not limit it to China and India. The world economy is growing at 4% which is GREAT for third world countires, BUT, and it is a very big but, GHG are going wild.
Politics is the "Art of the possible." I can not get elected saying vote for me and I will raise taxes on gas.
Finally, SF Chronicle had an article today talking about those in Houston who are buying SUV's. Oil executives who have plenty to spend!
Careful lumping us all into the same boat.
Oil company exec here who owns a Prius, a 40 mpg VW and who is building electric car with his son. I might add that on my floor at work, 4 new Prius owners have appeared since seeing and/or driving mine in January.....
Geopoet
Thanks for the comment. The Chronicle article interviewed a car dealership selling SUV's in the Houston area and it was not a serious study.
Your words are truly inspirational. Nothing less than what the Founding Fathers put to paper during the birth of this country.
When Truth is revealed and presented to the world, as you all have done, I can only offer reverence and a prediction. Many artist's work are not valued until their time has passed. Such will be your legacies.
World...take notice...stop listening to the talking heads on your TVs...start listening to the wisdom of TOD.
[do not insert sarcasm]
http://www.shoutwire.com/shoutstories
someone should get it onto buzzflash if possible ...
I submitted the article to Financial Sense and they've alreay posted it on their energy page.
anyone on metafilter? they pick us up now and again...
What will be the first set of data that will conclusively signal that a peaking of global oil production has occurred?
I suggest the following definiton:
- The growth rate of weekly EIA oil production numbers is zero or negative over a "rolling" 7 month period. (you need about 30 data samples to have a statistically significant data set).
- No significant, and temporary circumstance impedes global oil production during that same 7 month rolling period (e.g. war)
Based on this definition, Stuart's graphs of EIA data start to look scary.....I will offer only this small criticism - I'm not sure enough linkage between the price of oil and the price of gasoline is established. It is stated before the first numbered list, and as I read through I kept waiting for the reasoning. OTOH, I'm not sure how to do that without having it become too complicated. Perhaps (as someone else suggested) a companion graph would be the simplest way to do that, and would not require changes to the text.
In regard to the political posturing, it's it hardly surprising. And as I've said before, the profiteering will make it close to impossible to convince people that there is a real problem.
I think the yeast and lemmings are winning at the moment.
stepsstrides ahead of you.The start time for the graph spike should probably either be before the Iraq war, or mid-2000 to early-2001.
This may be your finest work. Very simple, but powerful, and completely logical. Don't know if this will be the right time for people to hear this kind of message, but kudos to you for putting it out there. Will spread it around as much as I can...
Thanks for composing this well-written letter. The credibility you've earned for your site allows your words to carry weight, and you speak for a large, and growing, number of people. I think it's only a matter of time now before our federal politicians get the clue that intelligent, forward-thinking citizens are paying close attention to what they say and do on the energy front.
I've forwarded the link to your pdf to Mayor Nickels of Seattle, who has impressed me with his actions relative to global warming, and who has the ear of other prominent politicians. What he does with it is, of course, up to him. He's taken the initiative before where federal leadership has lacked, and clearly if our federal officials continue to lag behind in this arena, leadership must emerge from other quarters.
Again, good work.
progressives can adapt to new rules and ideas.
conservatoids can't.
There is much to be said all over the world on this subject (energy, politics), and I will link to your editorial on other forums where useful.
However, I'd like to share my disappointment with how some of the otherwise excellent TOD articles attract some rather emotional, and in my opinion rather deleterious to TOD credibility, comments from individuals who are on their own anti-{Bush, free market, Republicans, Democrats, etc. - it's a long list} kick.
As an American living abroad perhaps I take a slightly different look at things now, and for all the issues you folk deal with on oil and politics many of you are always overlooking the fact that you live in a country where your dissent is not only allowed but part of the national heritage, yet some of you scorn they very system that bore you.
As an example of what is happening elsewhere, here are a couple of links from today, of news you are already familiar about:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060426/46944934.html
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060426/46946048.html
There is some interesting information in those articles, which emphasize a few things that the brief blurbs that appeared in Western media probably glossed over. However, what is just as interesting is to note the source, en.rian.ru .... It operates as essentially a "news source" that tells the "news" as the Kremlin sees it. While Putin may not be an absolute dictator, he is nonetheless a "strong man". That news source will not post damagingly strong critique of Putin or Russia.
Note that the thrust of Putin's decisions is to maximize revenue coming into Russia from oil - he and his friends have embraced the idea of markets.
Note too, however, that essentially nothing is said or done to propose a future in which Russian oil would not be needed.
Being in Japan I am aware that the Japanese would love to get some of that oil, vice it going to China. However, I'm also aware of how difficult it still is for Japanese to deal with the outside world - they aren't so good at it, even after 150 years. Putin will play off the various asian nations to get his best price.
Anyway, enjoy the liberties that bring you sites like TOD, and a society which encourages you to be different, and for individuals to pursue their dreams. I hope my fellow citizens there will embrace the fact that the US society does allow for change, peaceful change through a political process, even if it may seem agonizingly slow to some.
InJapan
I see an increasing level of that contrarian groupthink here, as each thoughtful initial article degenerates more quickly into mean spirited jabs at our society. I question whether theoildrum will soon become a victim of it's own success in a self-reinforcing groupthink view of our society as inherently evil.
The articles and subsequent discussion 6 months back were more focused on oil and what were the facts we could reasonably discover and understand.
It reminds me a lot of a "This Modern World" (Tom Tommorrow) cartoon, with a big black speeding sedan heading for a "bridge out", and while the passenger tries to point this out, the driver just laughs and says they have a map and there is no bridge on it. And over they go.....
Maybe it's no fun being a pessimist out there on a pessimist site ...
But I hope that newcomers can see that within the wide peak oil "community" there are ranges of optimists and pessimists. The Oil Drum has that box on the right that lists "Peak Oil Primers" with the humorous "Defcon" level for each.
My personal feeling is that this discussion still takes place at as high a level or higher. I think things have evolved to keep pace with the times. Events move very quickly. It's not about Hurricanes now, it is about Iran and Nigeria. Will those two still be prominent a year from now?
The great thing about oil is that discussions about it can go in almost limitless directions.
Oh, we are. I think the problem is that many of us see that, too, as a product of cheap oil, and already see the end coming.
To put it briefly...yes, we had those things before cheap oil. We also had a lot fewer people. It's easy to have individual rights when there are a lot of people rattling around in an empty continent.
You seem to think we need cheap oil to maintain our current population, so would it not follow that after cheap oil (ACO) we will have both reduced population and increased rights? I maintain we will develop other energy sources (nukes, solar) with current or near current tech as oil price rises, which will not avoid a reduced standard of living - individuals may pay 2x what they are paying now for energy - but no disaster; and, I further maintain that, just as we had individual rights in regions of high density BCO in both first and third world countries, we can again.
That's a possibility, but I don't really believe there will be a fast dieoff.
I partly agree. I think we will do as you say, but it won't be enough to avoid a sharply reduced standard of living for most of us.
Hence the need for more draconian government. Tainter found that as resources decline, societies become more and more coercive. The government enforces strict behavioral controls, in hopes of increasing efficiency.
We do have a fascist gov elected by a minority, but there is no reason to believe that this will continue, or that a future majority would wish to continue the trend - potential revolt ranging from dems to generals is fairly widespread. I expect the nation to move away from fascism in 08, regardless of the nominees or, indeed who wins.
One sign of this is today's announcement that Roberts, the new chief justice, sided against his fellow conservatives (and the administration) in returning a judgement that when the state takes property on account of, say, unpaid taxes, they make a legitimate effort to contact the property owner. So, here is an example of turning away from a dictatorial gov.
Jared Diamond points out in "Collapse" that grassroots control works only for very small societies. For large societies, strong central control is needed to avoid collapse. Medium sized societies - too small to support a strong central government, too large for grassroots control to work - are doomed to collapse into internecine fighting, and Diamond suggests that large societies with weak central control face a similar fate.
The results of not enough societal controls can be ugly. Montana has gone from being one of the wealthiest states, due its rich natural resources, to being one of the poorest - due to over-exploitation. The forests have been clear-cut, and what's remaining is poorly managed and therefore prone to devastating fires. Mining has poisoned the land. Arsenic and other heavy metals leaching from mines will poison the lakes and streams for 100,000 years. 90% of the fish in the rivers and lakes are dead. Once fertile farmland has a crust of salt over it - the result of years of irrigation. Some wells that used to produce fresh water now produce water seven times saltier than seawater. There's not enough water to support farming any more, and farms and ranches are being replaced by vacation homes for rich people. Montana used to export food, timber, and metal ore; now they are net importers of all three. Diamond argues that Montana has already collapsed.
they probably just want to contact him in order to detain him indefinitely without charges and torture him.
okay that was supposed to be funny, but on a related note, i recommend the radio show "this american life." every week is a different theme so their stories are all over the map. they recently did a show about the detainees in guantanamo bay. most of you have probably heard of that, but did you ever hear an interview with actual detainees? has the MSM in the U.S. ever bothered to actually find these guys (hundreds have recently been released) and ask them to tell their stories??
yes. this american life did.
listening on the internet is like tivo for radio. without the added fees.
Goverment isn't going to assist us. You may send this excellent missive to every member of Congress... in the end, you will have farted dust in their general direction.
What will you have accomplished? Very little in my opinion.
Government is a predator, not merely politically, but in every substantial way. Government will not cope with climate change, the impending energy crisis, or Iraq. IF you doubt this... see Hurricane Katrina.
Goverment is indifferent to the problem of competence and therein lay the problem with expectations for change in discourse.
It's politics with zero alternatives. Simply recognizing that in a world of predators, all parties are beholden to the corrupt in whole or in part.
If we're going to ourperfrom "yeast" we need to think long and hard at restoring the possibilities not only for progressive social action but also for private economic activity.
We need to answer some serious questions if we are to have an effect upon our circumstance.
It is irrationale to expect to effect change from the top top down in my opinion.
THE effort needs to become far more of a bottom up, apolitical, unilaterally obligated commitment to actions.
I think your comments have a blind spot in this 'Government is a Predator' idea. To dehumanize Politicians, or CEO's, or those people on 'The other side', is to shut off your own ability to see what's really going on in their sphere. Just like we're asked to vote for some guy (in this case a Teetotaler) who we'd like to have a beer with, instead of saying "What does this job require?" "What kind of experience, perspective and skill really has to be present to get the job done?".. says we are not really aware of what a "Politician" needs to be. Beyond the sad facts of our distorted leadership as it stands right now, we do need politicians, people who will get in the middle of competing forces and work out a solution with each other, and be the pivot around which our communities revolve. We do also have to have a more aware electorate, which, in this convenience-addicted society has been seen as far too onerous, particularly with our history of ambivalence towards the 'educated' class (still too close to the old Aristocracies) and hence, education itself. Bush even campaigned on "I'm not a Politician", and "I don't trust Washington".. if I had the time, I'd look up the (2000) campaign speeches, but alas!
As the saying goes..
"If you can't see eye to eye with someone, try walking a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away from them, and you have their shoes."
independence, liberty and self reliance/sustainability.
bravo~!
As individuals we feel, and are often, powerless.
But we change. We can change. It is our constant.
We have peak oil scientists.
We have peak oil writers.
We have peak oil websites.
We have a peak oil politician.
We have a peak oil comedian.
We have a peak oil billionaire.
We have a peak oil movie...
There will soon be a peak oil - pop-star, soap character, artist, computer game, advert...
Don't underestimate what you are doing.
Good Luck,
An un-lurker xxx
Cost of a gallon of gas last year average. 2.60 would that be fair. Someone might have a real figure.
average miles per car pe year. 13,500. Average car getting possibly 20mpg. therefore number of gallons for year per car average = 675
Number of cars that go the averge miles. According to the data I found, their are 107 million households, with 1.9 cars per household and 1.8 drivers per household. So they say that the amount of cars =204 million and there are 191 million drivers.
So the number of drivers is the number I'll use. I would assume the average of 13,500 is for all drivers. However, to be fair wel will round down the number of cars in the average to 180,000,000. So if gas cost 2.50 per gallon, and the average car is consuming 675 gallons a year, then the cost of all gas for all cars is 180,000,000 x 2.50 x 675 = 303,750,000,000. Now, if my numbers are right, then 100,000,000,000 / 303,750,000,000 = 33% profit. So they aren't paying taxes on 33% profit, so there must be something wrong with my math. Is the 100,000,000,000 profit from World Sales, or U.S. sales? Ok, here is information from the first web site on Google that suggests we use 400,000,000 gallons of gas a day. that would mean 146,000,000,000 gallons per year. The gallons I figure we use are 675 x 180,000,000 = 121, 500,000,000 so to be fair, we will use their number, so 146,000,000,000 x 2.50 = 365,000,000,000. This means that the percentage of profit based on gross sales would be
100,000,000,000 / 365,000,000,000 or 27% profit. So it would be easy to determine how much taxes the big guys paid and see if was based on that number. However, I am not sure again, if they are talking U.S. profits or World Profits, we also have to be careful because they talk in barrels of oil, gallons of gasoline, and as I understand it, they can produce about 60 - 65 % of gasoline from 1 barrel. So that would be what, around oh, 43 gallons per barrel, times .063 = about 27 gallons. Now the web site I went to said gallons of gasoline used per day, not barrels of oil, so according to that website we use 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day, and that is what I used to base my figures on. So maybe someone can point out to me the error of my math, so I can understand why they make such huge profits, because 27% taken away from a single gallon would give it a price of $1.82 per gallon. So if they only made say 8% profit the cost would be 1.08 X 1.82 or $1.97 per gallon. Remember, taxes were already considerd as we took average cost of $2.50 and subtracted from that. So obviously there is a factor I don't understand. I just saw this, barrels of oil consumed in U.S. in 2005, 21,930,000 per day. so lets say they get 23 gallons per barrel, just to be fair, then the total number of gallons would be 21,930,000 x 23 or 504 million plus gallons a day. So we will stick to the 400,000,000 gallons used, which would indicate that maybe less gasoline is produced per barrel than the figure I originally found. So anyway, 21,930,000 barrels per day x $60 a barrel x 365 days = 480,267,000,000 which is their total cost for all those barrels. So, they actually use all the byproducts in the barrel, their is gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc, etc. So if they base profit on total cost of oil not cost of gasoline, then it would be 100,000,000,000 / 480,267,000,000 or 21% profit from each barrel. So how much taxes did the oil companies pay last year. Wouldn't that be a good guide to see if they are gouging or not.
Oil companies' current production is a result of investments made years ago, in many cases decades ago. As prices go up, the profits of almost all energy producers go up. The problem is what to do with the profits.
In my "Mainstream Media" article, I described an "Iron Triangle" of groups that were dedicated to perpetuating the myth that is possible to have an infinite growth rate against a finite resource base. One of the legs of the triangle consisted of some major oil companies (e.g. ExxonMobil), some major exporters (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and the energy analysts working for them (e.g., Yergin & CERA).
My opinion for quite some time has been that the biggest threat to the US oil and gas industry is not the US Congress, but ExxonMobil. And in some respects, I think that Congress is somewhat justified in their anger and concern, because hasn't the largest oil company in the world been loudly proclaiming that we have "trillions and trillions" of barrels of remaining oil reserves? It we do have, as ExxonMobil, et al proclaim, trillions and trillions of barrels of remaining reserves, then it follows that higher prices must be a conspiracy.
My theory has been that ExxonMobil is adamantly opposed to the Peak Oil concept because they are afraid of punitive taxation, if they admit that they can't replace their conventional reserve base, and there may not be room for everyone in the nonconventional plays. Ironically, their denial of Peak Oil may help bring about the very punitive taxation that I think they were afraid of.
The most logical thing for major oil companies to do with their discretionary cash flow, IMO, is to build wind generators, but that would force them to acknowledge that they can't replace their reserves.
In regard to crude oil and product prices, IMO the US had to bid the price up to bring in more supplies, and I suspect that some importers around the world are going without all the petroleum supplies that they wanted. This will be the trend for the indefinite future, as importers bid against each other for declining net export capacity. The irony of Congress complaining about high prices is that high prices are the only thing keeping the US market (temporarily) supplied.
What the mainstream media are not telling you about the run up in oil prices
http://www.energybulletin.net/15126.html
CERA's (Yergin's group) testimony before Congress on 12/7/05 (Regarding total liquids):
http://www.cera.com/news/details/1,,7777,00.html
Excerpt:
Are we running out of oil? CERA's belief is that the world is not running out of oil imminently or in the near to medium term. Indeed, CERA projects that world oil production capacity has the potential to rise from 87 million barrels per day (mbd) in 2005 to as much as 108 mbd by 2015. After 2015 we see further growth in capacity. Our outlook contradicts those who believe that peak oil is imminent.
I still do not know the anwswer to this question. Probably some are sincerely mistaken and others are intellectual prostitutes. Rich firms and well-bankrolled political parties can hire very clever people to tell beguiling lies, to tell people what they want to hear, to find scapegoats so as to deny the existence of unpleasant facts.
However, I think it is best to assume that wrong ideas are honestly wrong, because it does no good to yell, "Liar, liar, pants on fire . . . ." even when the accusation is true. The way to combat error is with debate based on facts and reason--and here TOD is a beacon of light, clarity, and hope.
Higest praise to the creators and sustainers of The Oil Drum.
Sailor,
Hard as it may be to believe, almost no one gets out of bed every morning saying to themselves:
"Today is another day in which I will do the Devil's beckoning for yet another 30 pieces of silver".
Except for the rare psychopath, almost everyone "believes" that they are on the side of right. GW Bush believes he is on the side of right. Osama Bin Laden believes he is on the side of right. Daniel Yergin believes his cornucopian ideas are right. Peak Oilers believe their cob-without-corn ideas are right.
Each of these people come to the stage with pre-framed ideas of how the world works.
We're probably all wrong.
Some more than others.
Senators to push for $100 gas rebate checks:
Under proposal, every U.S. taxpayer would get one
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html
Expect more of the same...
Wonder who's footing the "Bill?"
More idiocy complements of the predator class.
"The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries."
"Give" the DOT authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles?
Please correct em if I am wrong, but were the CAFE standards not in place to accomplish this desired result? We apparently now need more Government in order to tackle this issue.
Is someone cheating?
Please explain to me who exactly foots the bill for the "tax incentives" for hybrids?
Is it not fact that these types of solutions have really only encouraged more consumption? There is a mountain of data as well as the price elasticity of crude to support this?
"Alternate fuel" expansion?
You'll have to please forgive my less than stellar assumption that after the MTBE fisaco, the on-going E85 debacle and the ever present and NON-exsistence expansion of refineries...
In all fairness, one could assume Government's handling of energy matters has been nothing short of an epic disaster.
I'm betting on yeast.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I 100% agree with your statement above.
I wasn't saying any of the things in this proposed amendment are going to help the situation short of a slight PR boost for BushCo, just that at least there's a need to do something more than giving everyone a $100 to fill their tank.
And by the way, with my commute, that's about a 2 week supply for my car.
It is merely the illusion that our government is doing something and cares about its people.
The entire thing is absolutely absurd.
Fair enough, I want to thank you for all the hard work that you're doing, it is deeply appreicated by this individual.
It is important, in my opinion we take steps to protect ourselves.
I'm new to the TOD as a member, but have been a lurker from day one, this place is simply the best forum I have come across in 14 years of riding the waves.
Keep up the excellent work~!
But jeez, $100 divided by $3/gal times 23 miles/gal = 767 miles. That will last the average single person 18 days. The average family with teens 9 days.
http://odograph.com/?p=451
How long can our government ignore science or keep science "truth" from the general population?
Take tax money and give it back to people so that they feel a bit happier as they continue to spend it on more gas... hmmm, who benefits from this lousy idea?
They must sit around the fire at the ranch laughing their heads off.
190 prrof eh, is it for human consumption?
:~)
This is a rather simplistic approach but since I am neither a geologist nor a subsea engineer, this is a very rough estimate of the lift cost in the GOM. Dividing 22000 by 900 times 2.5, oil should sell for between $61 and $83 per bbl.
This probably why the US is heavily subsidizing the GOM operations.
This revelation makes me wonder whether deepwater drilling even has an EROEI above 1. Maybe government subsidies are concealing the fact that it is essentially a net energy loser.
Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said on Wednesday that the establishment of Oil Stock Exchange is in its final stage and the bourse will be launched in Iran in the next week.
He told reporters, upon arrival from Qatar where he attended the 10th General Assembly of International Energy Agency and consultations with OPEC member states, that registration of the Oil Stock Exchange is underway and the entity will operate after being approved by by Council of Stock Exchange.
He rejected a statement attributed to him saying that Oil Stock Exchange will bring to the ground the US economy and said, "I don't know who has speculated that I've not talked about US economy."
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_15158.shtml
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_15158.shtmla
and this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/markets/currencies.html (Currently US Dollar for June at 86.44)
be related???
Could this:
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_15158.shtml
and this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/markets/currencies.html (Currently US Dollar for June at 86.44)
be related???
Love the Press Release. Congratulations to the editors for putting it out. Keep up the excellent work.
I will spread it around in my local press and politics arenas.
Only when all the more palatable but wrong avenues are tried is there a chance to even look at a significant change in lifestyle.
In the print edition of the Financial Times today there is an Op Ed column by Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, which is very common sense and seems to make similar points. Well worth reading. Heading is "PETROL-INDUCED STUPIDITY ON WHEELS".
It finishes with arguments in favor of European level petrol taxes and concludes "Are politicians too stupid to understand this, or just smart enought not to say it aloud?"
Sorry, don't have a link for the column.
A search of Google News on "The Oil Drum" only yields links for this story at Alternet and The Energy Bulletin.
Despite the truth and quality of this editorial, we can't seem to crack the MSM. Is our traffic up?
we emailed this to just about every single blogger and MSM, etc., etc., that we had in the email box. it takes a while I guess.
any ideas?
I sent a copy to Steve Balogh of Groovy Green
whom I know is covering the extravaganza.
I'm sure many of them will be swinging by The Oil Drum this evening to catch up on the latest in energy decent information but for those who might not, how might we best get it in front of them? Sounds like the whole choir will be there. These are folks sure to help disseminate this well written piece. Great work guys.
You say that gas prices are based primarily on oil prices, and somewhat on other factors like how much refining is going on.
Since, theoretically, a 10% rise in oil prices should produce less than a 10% rise in gas prices, how can a 10% rise in oil prices create a 30% rise in gas price, without somebody manipulating something somewhere?
Anybody have an answer to this that isn't smoke and mirrors?
As a simplified binary example, suppose there are two oil companies serving two different customer bases, bidding on the same fixed lot of petroleum. They bid against one another (driving up the price), and eventually one of them wins-- passing along his higher price to his customers. If the bidding war causes the price to rise 10%, then gasoline prices for that firm's market will rise by something comparable to, but less than, 10%.
The loser, however, has to pass along his scarcity to his customers-- he can't meet all their needs. He can either keep his prices fixed and allow his gas stations to run out of gas, or he can raise prices by whatever amount is needed to cause sufficient demand destruction to rebalance supply and demand. Rationally, he's going to select the latter, since he'll earn more money that way. (In some cases last week there were reports of stations running out of gas, indicating that they should have been pricing higher.) The amount that the price of gasoline needs to rise to balance supply/demand in a regional market may not precisely correlate with the amount that oil needs to rise to balance supply/demand in a global market, due to imperfect information.
In a situation where prices change slowly, pricing inefficiencies like this won't occur very often, and the costs associated with scarcity will be distributed equally. In a situation where both demand and refining capacity is harder to predict-- as has been true domestically since Katrina-- inefficiencies will be more common.
On the RHS of this page, near the top is the commodity graph widget thingy.
Change it to show the 3 year graph ("3yr"), and then select the second commodity, "Crude-IPE".
From the resulting graph (wait a few seconds for it to appear) you can see that the price of a barrel of oil has gone up by almost 400% in the last 3 years.
Now select the last commodity, "unleaded-nymex".
That graph shows that the wholesale price of unleaded petrol (or "gas" as you americans call it) has risen only 200% in the last 3 years.
Now, what were you saying about smoke and mirrors?
"The great irony is that a very good case can be made for the argument that high gas and oil prices are the best possible thing that could be happening to the United States, and the world. High gas and oil prices encourage investment in renewable energy technologies and discourage consumer spending on gas guzzlers. Gas gouging at the pump is an ideal kick in the ass for motivating Americans to prepare for a world of increasingly scarce fossil fuels and increasingly devastating climate change.
Of course there are some downsides. High gas prices are a regressive tax that punishes working people far more than the rich. High oil prices also make turning to environmentally destructive energy sources such as coal and Canada's oil sands much more attractive. It is also annoying almost beyond comprehension that a company such as ExxonMobil, which vigorously obfuscates the science of climate change, ridicules the potential of renewable energy, and pooh-poohs the threat of peak oil, is raking in record profits on the back of consumer pain.
It would have been far better to have achieved the gas prices we currently have by levying a hefty tax on every gallon of gasoline sold in the U.S. and then using that money to fund research into renewable energy technologies, instead of the curren absurdity in which the working class suffers and Big Oil wallows in riches. But that's not the world we live in.
One can only hope that voters listening to Bush's energy pandering now see it for what it really is: hypocritical desperation. But nothing is more frustrating than hearing Bush conjure up his latest bogus boogeyman -- the vexing conundrum of "boutique fuels." In his speech Tuesday to the Renewable Fuels Association (which, despite its green-sounding name, is basically just a trade group for corn-based ethanol agribusinesses) Bush said, "We also need to confront the larger problem of too many localized fuel blends, which are called 'boutique fuels' ... The number of boutique fuels has expanded rapidly over the years, and America now has an uncoordinated and overly complex set of fuel rules. And when you have an uncoordinated, overly complex set of fuel rules, it tends to cause the price to go up."
Respectfully disagree.
Another "tax" is not the answer. It simply continues the game.
Capital would have been invested already had information flowed freely. The signals sent were erroneous at best.
If a free market for captial is given the proper information, it acts accordingly. Malinvestment occurs when signals are illusory.
The proper signals are the seen, but by those closet to the proper informationa and data.
We do not need additional taxes, nor larger Government to solve this particular problem, we, as individuals need to particpiate less and less to avoid an ill-toward dependence.
However, a "free" market is never free.
The 'invisible hand' will not save us.....it is a significant contributor to the present situation.
You must have indentified with somthing contained in his missive to have posted it no?
Free is relative to the principle of freedom.
Principles matter, markets are as free as we decide. It merely requires the rule of law be applied equally and justly.
It's quite simple actually.
Do you believe in choice, yours, mine and ours?
If 3 of us were stranded on a raft and 2 of us voted you off, would you leave? Would you feel compelled to?
Or, would you assert your individual rights?
Taxation is a mandate, there is rarely a choice, unless it's propped as California seems to be in favor of using.
He was well aware of the usefulness of government control of markets, because business interests are often afoul of the public interest:
Yet that is precisely what the crony captialism/kleptocracy projects.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations... an excellent book, Smith understood the proclivity of our nature, the good, the bad and indifferent.
Fully socializing the cost of ANYTHING guarantees the establishment of moral hazard, corruption, and inefficiency.
That includes wealth transfer in my opinion and is absolutely axiomatic. Socializing the cost of financial dislocations and creates a monumental moral hazard that guarantees an eventual systemic collapse.
It is our way, perhaps one day we'll come to realize we'd all be better off if we held up our obligations to one another instead of chasing "wealth."
I don't think the "Robber Barrons" were anything but a manifestation of the above, yet they didn't bother hiding the fact they were out to corner markets.
The point I was poorly attempting to inflect was this: it is our decision, not Governments.
There are no free lunches, but there are some good bargains, a full plate for a fair price. Markets are no different. There are some leftovers that hadn't ought to be served.
I'd suggest to you we agree on your points above and that it takes a high degree of discipline to focus on what are problems, not the obfuscated "truths," but facts.
M. King Hubbard spent a geat deal of his latter life attempting to discover/promote an orthodoxy in which mankind could use as a base of reference. He believed that "technology" had the potential to create far more problems than it solved.
An amazing fellow.
But I do agree that the question comes down to us, using the method of government, attempting to identify what are actual problems and devise solutions to them. Sometimes the solution should definitely involve us, using the method of government, interfering with markets in our own interest, lest our interest be run over by business with a steamroller (or an SUV, if you wish).
Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are competing with our Government.
Forgive me, but I do not understand what you mean by:
"...Socializing the cost of financial dislocations and creates a monumental moral hazard that guarantees an eventual systemic collapse..."
How does one socialize the cost of financial dislocations? Do you mean spreading the financial pain to various strata of society, or to society in general, or what?
I am NOT trying to be difficult or cute - I truly don't understand what you mean.
And why should a 'moral' hazard guarantee an eventual systemic collapse'? Has not the human race lived with moral hazards since its very beginnings? So
why should a moral hazard at this time guarantee a systemic collapse?
I'm sorry, but I find your statements highly ambiguous and vague.
_
How does one socialize the cost of financial dislocations? Do you mean spreading the financial pain to various strata of society, or to society in general, or what?
<no, i do not. Do you understand how our monetary/credit system functions?>
And why should a 'moral' hazard guarantee an eventual systemic collapse'? Has not the human race lived with moral hazards since its very beginnings? So
why should a moral hazard at this time guarantee a systemic collapse?
<they compound much like harmonics, eventually the amplitude is anle to shatter glass. ever hear of john law, the south sea bubbles, the venetian crisis, rome's demise?>
I'm sorry, but I find your statements highly ambiguous and vague.
<Perhaps you found something that didn't agree with you?>
Capital would have been invested already had information flowed freely. The signals sent were erroneous at best.
If a free market for captial is given the proper information, it acts accordingly. Malinvestment occurs when signals are illusory."
I sort of agree with you. The problem is that the system is so manipulated now that what else can we do ? The highway system was built and continues to be maintained by huge tax subsidies, access to oil is maintained with the help of military presence (and action) by huge tax subsidies. Our whole suburban existance is based on illusory signals that have be promulgated for 60 years, and the situation is probably about to inflect very soon. Maybe some guidance is needed.
On balance, markets that disseminate information freely are rare. Perfect information is a neo classical assumption, a poor one. As Damek stated, the rentier class will manipulate "signals" in order to gain further control.
We have a bastardized form of Kleptocracy within our "capitalistic system."
Simply prefer our money isn't debased so that surpluses may actually accumulate.
Prefer competition.
Prefer individualism.
Prefer ZERO Government meddling in markets.
Guess you could say it's my Utopia... err myopia.
Why not tax taxation, make it a public good and tax the crap out of it.
You don't like mojo? Well, let's have a tax on that as well.
Perhaps we can tax wiretapping?
Great article -- my concern is that "The editors of The Oil Drum" does not comport the gravitas that it richly deserves.
It really makes me crazy to hear so-called oil experts (such as Max Schulz of the Manhattan Institute) on the West coast megawatt AM station. They bring these guys on from think-tanks and they distort, and gloss over, and sugar coat, and spin -- all without any critical questioning from the host. "Oh there's plenty of oil left, and you must know because you're from an institute and all... Great News! -- Tomorrow's show we'll talk all about American Idol!" (Those in the SF Bay Area know exactly who I'm talking about.)
We all know that to get noticed at TOD you'd better have some data that can be sourced and reviewed (A bit over over my head, I'm afraid) which is a far cry from the pre-determined research from the mass-media gotos.
Maybe I'm not saying this well, but I wonder if there isn't some way to present "The Oil Drum" in a way that would put it on an equal media footing with the "think tanks" and self-styled "institutes".
You know ... lately I've noticed that Ronn Owens of the Disney Freedom Channel (oops, guess I do know who you're talking about) ... well anyway that Ronn is having more and more of these conservative Institute experts on his show.
I'm listening to the archives:
http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?PT=Archive&id=49920
trying to figure out which hour Shulz was on and whether this is a repeat of an old show 'cause I distinctly remember Shulz being on before and poo poohing the oil crisis.
Fat chance that Stuart S will ever get an hour on with Ronn to help Ronn along with his ... yeaaaah, sound logic. That said, that said, that said, ... I still haven't found the hour slot where Ronn Headroom talks with the fair and balanced experts ... I've listened to all 3 of yesterday's archive hours (9am-11am) and no Max Shulz Headroom there. You're probably talking about that old show.
BTW, couple of nights ago, Gene Burns was pontificating on the same channel (7PM-10pm show) about how today's oil crunch is just like the 1974 crunch. Been there. Done that. Know what the outcome will be: plenty new oil gushers and a return to commodity low pricing after "they" take us for a phony ride agian. I didn't even bother trying to call in. What's the use?
P.S. Don't let "them" drive you crazy. Drink the Idol Koolaid and be happy. Sing. Dance. Simon says there is no oil problem. Just flashing lights and new stars tomorrow. There will always be tomorrow. Bet your bottom dollar. Tomorrow. ;-)
Ah, gomenasai
Yes, it was a show that ran in early March. I'm afraid it still sticks in my craw. Sorry to make you drag through the recent archives. My bad. Won't happen again ^_^;
Anyway, it still begs the question. How was it that particularly uninformed guest scheduled? Was it a "push" from the network saying WE have an oil expert for YOU" or was Shultz simply in the poverbial Rolidex, filed under "Oil"? (And what would it cost to slip a TOD card in there?)
Ron was in Washington DC that week, broadcasting from the capitol. He could have tracked down Roscoe Bartlett...
The Mainstream Media is a very odd place. I had a minor brush up a few years back which left me befuzzled. I'd received a request from "The Institute of Physics" to republish one of my paper airplane designs in their press release. They too were only a website, but since it was educational in nature, I gave them permission. (I'm a sucker for education.) Anyway, they reprinted the instructions and made up some copy about it being the ideal design, and that it took years of research, and sent out a bunch of press kits. The next thing you know, I'm getting an Email from ABC radio in Australia wanting to do a Radio Interview with thier morning drive guy - and when I talk to him he's asking about my claims about the performance. I don't make any such claims, except that it's a lot of fun.
This all leads me to think that should The Oil Drum find the impedance match to the media front door, it may well help get the message out. If the editors of TOD want to print a glossy release, and do a mass mailing, well count me in with $20 PayPal to help pay for postage.
I'm no longer so sure about getting the message out.
Getting it out to whom?
Last time I looked the statistics suggested that 98% of the American public is not involved in science. Only 2% work in science and engineering.
Maybe this is it. Maybe the people who visit TOD is all there is and they already know the message.
I Smell Gas
A subject that makes congressmen stupid.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2006
http://www.slate.com/id/2140613/?nav=mpp
Mineta wrote.
"Along with other previously announced energy policies, the president believes these actions are critical to promoting our nation's energy security and independence."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee called it "a bold package ... that will give consumers relief at the pump and help to bring down the price of gas over the longer term."
"Indepence" and "over the longer term" . ROFLMAO!
My suggestion to all is to leave the car at home. Bicycle, walk, use Mass Transit. I got rid of my second car 20 years ago, and I've been commuting by bicycle, year-round, ever since. I'm in great shape - knock on wood, and I love the riding.
Jim
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/opinion/28fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The EPA is offering a research grant opportunity that I believe is a perfect fit for this idea. I have sent an e-mail to a hand picked list of university professors who have experience with government research projects. I'm looking to form a research team to apply for the EPA grant, conduct a social-economic experiment and surveys to determine to what extent the American public will support it, project the economic potential of WPH, and identify logistical, social and political obstacles as well as opportunities.
All government grants are awarded based on merit of the proposed research. I believe WPH has merit but your help is needed to verify it. You can help by posting your feedback. Let the professors and the EPA know what you think about WPH. Do you think this idea is worth pursuing? We need to know if Americans will support a plan like this.
Do you have any ideas to improve the plan?
Share any and all of your thoughts.
Tell your friends and family about this Blog post and ask them to post their thoughts on WPH
http://wepayhalf.org
Thank you
Craig