DrumBeat: June 17, 2006

Update [2006-6-17 9:50:44 by Leanan]: China's first strategic oil reserve is due for completion by August. It will hold 5.2 million cubic meters of oil. They expect it to be filled by the end of the year, though they won't say how they plan to do this. Three others are expected to be built and filled in 2007 and 2008.

In Russia, the Duma votes for Russian gas export monopoly:

A law that will reinforce Gazprom’s monopoly on Russian gas exports gained preliminary approval in Russia’s lower house of parliament on Friday, in a snub to European demands for Russia to open up its pipeline network.
In the U.S., NIMBY still rules:
A quarter of U.S. residents oppose any energy plant or facility in their hometown, including solar plants or wind terminals. A survey of 1,001 people by RBC Capital Markets also found that respondents in that 25 percent group are also more likely to believe that high energy prices are temporary, RBC said Friday in a statement.
Meanwhile, Uganda is optimistic that their new budget will solve their energy crisis:
The east African nation has suffered crippling electricity shortages for months. Residents in the capital Kampala receive power for just 24 of every 48 hours and almost every business has been forced to run costly, diesel-powered generators. Under pressure to end the blackouts as quickly as possible, Suruma said the government had set aside sh202b to tackle the power crisis.
They will be building more hydroelectric dams on the Nile, as well as more thermal generators (presumably fossil-fuel powered).
Re:  The Iron Triangle

There is an interview with the CEO of Shell USA in the Dallas Morning News today.  He is doing a 50 city tour asserting that we can produce our way out of the current high energy prices.  He explicitly makes the point that he is trying to ward off a Windfall Profits Tax.

"Iron Triangle" Reference:  http://www.energybulletin.net/15126.html

Here's the interview:

Shell strategy leaves room for alternative fuels

It's been syndicated, and is appearing in papers all over the country.  

Oil giants plan to cut exports

China, formerly Asia's biggest gasoline exporter, plans to cut shipments of the fuel for a fourth consecutive month to meet domestic demand, contributing to a shortage that boosted prices in the region.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

China, formerly Asia's biggest gasoline exporter, plans to cut shipments of the fuel for a fourth consecutive month to meet domestic demand, contributing to a shortage that boosted prices in the region.
PetroChina and China Petroleum & Chemical Corp, which exported an average of 466,386 tonnes a month last year, may cut shipments to as little as 130,000 tonnes this month, according to three traders involved in the transactions who asked not to be named.

Reduced supplies from China helped to drive benchmark 92-RON gasoline to a record US$90.55 (HK$706.29) a barrel in Singapore on May 15. Soaring demand in the world's third-biggest vehicle market is trimming its gasoline surplus, prompting Beijing to impose restrictions on exports.

The number of civilian vehicles on China's roads rose 21 percent last year to 43.29 million, the National Bureau of Statistics said in February.

"Exports from China are likely to drop significantly in the coming months as the government orders refiners to boost production and limit exports to meet peak summer gasoline demand," Ravi Narayanaswamy, a Singapore-based analyst at Purvin & Gertz, said last week.

While gasoline has declined 8 percent from last month's record amid increased supplies from Taiwan, the price remains 28 percent higher since March, outpacing the 14 percent gain in the price of crude used to make the fuel, according to data.

Taiwan has displaced the mainland as Asia's biggest exporter of the fuel. Gasoline shipments from the island last year averaged 298,000 tonnes a month. The average in the first three months of this year fell to 150,000 tonnes as Formosa Petrochemical shut a crude oil distillation unit and one of its two 73,000 barrel-a-day gasoline- making fluid catalytic crackers for maintenance and upgrading from February 10 until April 19. Supplies have rebounded since the plants restarted.

"Taiwanese refiners are cashing in on this opportunity to export more volume to meet the strong demand in Indonesia and Vietnam," Narayanaswamy said.

China Petroleum & Chemical, Asia's biggest refiner known as Sinopec, exported a 30,000-tonne cargo each this month and last, down from about two cargoes each month in March and April. PetroChina halted exports this month, after selling a 30,000-tonne cargo last month.

West Pacific Petrochemical, or Wepec, jointly owned by PetroChina, Sinochem and France's Total, has kept exports steady at about 100,000 tonnes a month from its refinery in northeastern Dalian.

In April, the mainland exported 237,186 tonnes while importing 13,414 tonnes, according to the latest data from China Administration of Customs. In March, it exported 386,122 tonnes while importing 4,876 tonnes.

In March, Beijing extended the suspension of export tax rebates for motor gasoline and naphtha to discourage refiners from exporting. Withholding the export rebate of 11 percent for gasoline and 13 percent for naphtha will make it more expensive for exporters to ship the fuels overseas, the State Administration of Taxation said on March 21.

On May 24, Beijing raised retail fuel prices for a second time this year to pare refiners' losses and boost retail supplies.

Last summer, provinces such as Guangdong had fuel shortages when gasoline exports jumped 51 percent in August to 856,223 tonnes in July. BLOOMBERG

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=10&art_id=20674&sid=8376047&con_typ ...

 Now where have I heard about this B4?


Must be bitter-sweet to nail it that good, westexas?  I told you so's usually feel kinda good, I bet this isn't a jump for joy occasion.
Business Week has a brief review of Twilight in the Desert, which is now out in paperback:

Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons (Wiley, $16.95) has a controversial thesis: ``The risk is high that twilight may soon descend on oil production in Saudi Arabia.'' The author, a Houston investment banker and longtime energy Cassandra, bases his arguments on a reading of more than 200 technical papers presented by engineers from Saudi Aramco, the national oil company, and its predecessor, Aramco. He reports exhaustively on instances of increasing water encroachment into the oil -- a sign of aging fields -- declining reservoir pressure, and depletion of the oil in the kingdom's most prolific rock strata. If Simmons is correct, the global economy, which gets 11% of its oil supply from the country, is in serious danger. However, even if his interpretation is too dire, noted reviewer Stanley Reed, the book contains ``many valuable insights'' and a basic truth that the world needs to rethink its energy assumptions.
Leanan, thank you for posting all these news articles up top every day.  I am enjoying this new convenient format and your work is much appreciated.

In 2009, Shell announces "Renewable American Oil"

Shell will build a series of large wind farms in Colorado.  They will sell "peak power" to the grid and sell "spinning reserve" the rest of the time,  (*Spinning Reserve" is off-line power that can come on-line very quickly in case of an unexpected problem. Usually a large power plant goes down.  Rarely needed, but essential for grid stability).

They will use most of the wind output to heat oil shales for decades, produced a mix of natural gas and a waxy oil.  They create "spinning reserve" by offering to turn off the heaters and divert the power to the grid on a moments notice.  Another income stream.

They also offer to buy any momentary surplus power from any other wind turbine producer on a minute by minute basis for 1.25¢ /kWh (up to a limit), preventing any shut-in & wasted wind power.

Shell oil shale output stabilizes at 120,000 barrels/day + NG in 2022 and turns a decent profit despite spending 1/6th of the total project cost on PR.

Any comments ?

What's PR?  Spending 1/6th of the entire cost on public relations seems like too much.
Not if it prevents a Windfall Profits Tax !

And what is NOT to love about this project ?  IMHO, Shell PR & DC lobbyists would be drooling over this !

The average American would think that it is producing 10% or 15% of the oil that we need.  The "Light at the end of the tunnel".  Proven reserves would skyrocket (since this was making a profit), it is just that the production rate was quite low and it scalability depending upon wind saturation of the local grid.  Return on capital would also be low but profitable.

Seems a great use of windpower,but, considering transmission losses and conversion of electric to thermal energy has conversion costs too, whats the real EROI? I suspect a lot less than 1.
  Weren't these shale experiments funded from Deoartment of Energy grants?
   And a small aside-the Cistern and Muldoon fields in Fayette County Texas were produced with windmills as pumps years ago. They were very shallow Yegua(Eocene) fields. It strike me that very shallow fields in other areas could profitably be produced with windmills to and save the energy conversion losses. Won't add much to the US reserves, but it might make some good ol' boy a buck or two.  
I know that Eastern Colorado is basically one big wind resource, and spots of Western Colorado have good wind as well.

I am unsure where the oil shale is.  Perhaps they could be dual siting with no transforming or transmission losses, perhaps not.  Worst case 5% to 6% T&T losses.

If Shell got a 5% return on their invesntment when all is said & done, the political & PR return would make it a wise investment.

The oil shale is in north western Colorado, SE Utah, and Wyoming in the Green River formation. Folks have ben trying to figure how to economically produce the stuff for twenty or thirty years.
    It can be done, but not cheaply. Thar's plenty o' grease in them thar hills,  but not cheaply extracted. At least global warming can't raise the oceans that high.
Re: "Shell oil shale output stabilizes at 120,000 barrels/day + NG in 2022..."

Sorry, Alan, I can't stop laughing.  


News release 2017 -- After decades of effort to develop the oil shales of the Western Slope of Colorado, Shell announced today that it will discontinue it's work there due to lack of a profitable return on such production....

And thanks for your kind e-mail yesterday about Thailand.

best, Dave

News release 2017 -- After decades of effort to develop the oil shales of the Western Slope of Colorado, Shell announced today that it will discontinue it's work there due to lack of a profitable return on such production....

I have got a story on this in the queue. Should be posted today or tomorrow. Your "news release" probably isn't far off the mark, although I don't expect this experiment to last that long.


You fail to fully understand the "American Way".


(AP) October 30. 2017

The Shell CEO, Ibriham al-Tikriti, explained before Congress that the shale oil production was too low for the valuable electricity inputed, that $2,120/barrel was just not enough to give an adequate return on capital and that oil taxes of $16/gallon should be waived for any "Renewable American Oil" (TM) or ShellExxonMobilBPChevronTexacoConocoPhillips would have to, reluctantly, sell their electricity on the open market and pump whatever oil continued to seep out during the next year or so before abandoning the project.

The loss of the 120,812 barrels/day would reduce US oil production by 4.8%; oil that the US could scarcely buy elsewhere with it's limited foreign currency reserves "especially after the recent limited wheat harvest".

He pointed out that the other oil company, Aramco North America, has shown no interest in developing a comparable project.

He called questions about his salary and perks "irrelevant" and "pandering".

Yes, , I've still got a lot to learn. Don't we all?

Shell's in situ oil shale idea is to finish off the job nature walked away from and make newborn oil appear in selected patches that have been electrically frozen off (to keep ground water from flushing away the liquid) and electrically superheated (to transform the kerogen).  It's then pumped out normally - no site restoration needed (since the earth was not disturbed, unlike Alberta) - and the crew moves on to the next four-year-roasted patch.  The advantage over conventional drilling is that companies know exactly where the kerogen is - no mystery at all.   The disadvantage is the freezing and superheating routine, but that doesn't seem weirder than the science fiction stuff going on in the tar sands.  Shell's problem is of course to keep science fiction cheap.  Almost all the electricity in this area now comes from coal strip-mined and burned on the spot, which is pretty cheap and very dirty, but there is also wind if you want to pay a premium for it.  Wyoming has plenty of wind.  It just costs more than coal.  I don't see why Shell would need to get in the electricity business itself when other people will sell it wind power now - but it needs to make a profit of any kind first.

The other problem is that oil shale country looks like this:

There is no water, and features on the map like "Green River" would simply be called large creeks anywhere else, and every drop is already spoken for, many times over (and global warming is just going to make this worse).  If Shell could conjure up a lot of water without taking it from Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and local tourism one might begin to see how it could eventually follow (thirty-five years behind)  in the footsteps of the tar sands.

Shell's in situ oil shale idea is to finish off the job nature walked away from and make newborn oil appear in selected patches that have been electrically frozen off (to keep ground water from flushing away the liquid) and electrically superheated (to transform the kerogen).

Ah, you guys are stealing my thunder. ;^) I have had a story sitting in the queue on this for 2 days, but there were several stories ahead of me. I think mine will be the next to be posted, and I took a close look at Shell's process.


What do you mean "sitting in the queue?" Don't tell me you guys are holding back on us. 2 Days?

More importantly, is this a voluntary cut in production, or is  it a sign of "peak stories?"

Yeah, there is a story queue where stories sometimes sit for a couple of days after they are submitted. That can happen when several stories are submitted close together, to give each person's story some time in the spotlight. I submitted the story on oil shale on Thursday evening, but Stuart, Dave, and Khebab already had stories in the queue. I think mine is up next.


The NREL maps for solar thermal and PV both look relatively favorable for NW Colorado and environs.  The solar sources would provide additional electricity in the late spring and summer, when many wind resources decrease.

At any rate, Shell plans to use the natural gas produced to provide the electricity once the project gets going.  At that point, coal fired generation would not provide a significant amount of the electricity needed.  

The natural gas generation would be a good fit for any intermittant renewable, as a peaker turbine can come online rather quickly, to be followed, perhaps by a combined cycle gas plant.

Perhaps Shell's use of renewables in the production of cooked kerogen and natural gas could be used to offset CO2 emissions elsewhere, making the renewables more attractive.

China's strategic oil reserve makes very good sense.

It was also interesting to note that on Bloomberg yesterday, during an interview with Gore, he said he was in favor of nuclear power plants, though he wanted smaller ones and more advanced in designs.

While discussing my parents shopping list, I had this idea for a story for the future.  The world is in energy collapse, nothing is being made and nothing is powered.  Two guys look in a window and gaze at a horde of something and go in and steal it all.  

Toilet paper.

The become instant millionaires.  Alternative SciFi story line, a guy from the future goes back into the Civil war past and sells tones of Toilet paper in a general store refusing to let anyone know his source of the fine Soft Wiping Paper as it is called in his new time.

As others have said, horde money no, Horde Toilet paper and massive amounts of it.  You will be richer than you can every imagine.

Dan Ur,  Aka  Charles Owens Author at large.

Dried leaves of tobacco as well.  In areas where it does not grow.  Worth $2/lb now.
Its in the first stages of a SciFi short story, I've added it into the Alternatives Anthology.  Where past meets present meets future and all points on the timeline in between.  You will just have to wait for my "Poems from the edge of mirror" to get finished first.

But the world could be in a bad place if we reach Peak Toilet paper"  Sad but true.


There have been a number of articles in the last year or two in our local ag magazines that have tended to curl my hair and make steam come out of my ears.
The latest was titled "Why should we punish the oil companies?" was published in The Land magazine June 16. 2006 edition. (www.thelandonline.com) It takes a month or two before these things get to the web site.
These articles are all coming from an organization called the "Center for Global Food Issues" which is a part of the "Hudson Institute - a Washington DC based think tank".
These people are VERY good at getting their "messages" into many publications - especially ag publications.
Go here:
 and look at any.some of their stories on global warming, ag, peak oil, etc..... Guarenteed to make your hair curl and steam come out of your ears.
With a few possible exceptions (e.g. hydrogen-fixing bacteria and hydrogen-generating titanium dioxide solar panels), hydrogen has to come from some other energy source. And it's not a very good transportation fuel, which is what it's largely being billed as. And it's not a very good energy storage mechanism either, which is its other stated purpose.

What it is good for is turning heavy hydrocarbons into lighter hydrocarbons. Liquid transportation fuel may become scarce pretty soon... and "unconventional oil" will go a lot farther if hydrogen can be added. A hydrogen-generating nuke plant, for example, might be a very useful addition to the tar sands.

Is it possible that the whole "hydrogen economy" research push/fad is aimed at improving hydrogen handling and generation for the oil refining industry?


Smithsonian removes electric-car exhibit

Funny stuf, the Smithsonian removes the EV-1 to replace it with some High Tech SUV! Perhaps they are right, that car will be history soon and electric vehicles will make a come back.

I was going to make a joke about GM figuring out that they let one slip through the cracks and that they needed to pull some sort of switcheroo so they could crush that one too and get rid of the evidence.  Then I read the article...and I'm not sure if I'd be joking or not.
Saudi Arabia's Growing List of New Friends


Concerned over the increasing calls for protectionism in the US and the recent Dubai Ports imbroglio, Saudi Arabia isn't sure how much longer it can count on the US as a favorable destination for its investments from oil revenue. Likewise, the recent call by President Bush to reduce America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the coming decade explains the Kingdom's new links with China and India as a logical progression after9 /11. American imports of Saudi oil have been falling since the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In his State of the Union Address in January2006 , Bush called for a need to minimize America's dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia is seeking new markets for its oil and new opportunities for its trading outfits, while China and India are on the prowl for new sources of oil and new customers for their accelerating industrial output. It was not without reason that the King Abdullah made a concerted effort to forge cooperation in energy sectors in both the countries during his visit. This in turn would have the long-term effect of putting into place a steady crude-supply chain, providing some measure of security to Saudi Arabia's crude markets.

Pretty scarey stuff,WT. It seems that the old American-Saudi-Kuwait unwritten agreement for the US to prop up their regemes in exchange for their investments propping up our bonds and deficit financing-has finally come apart. This arangement is detailed in John Perkins "Confesions of an Econommic Hit Man". The dollar seems to be collapsing against the other currencies of the world and this together with the imperial ambitions of the Neocons seem to be making them awfully skittish about the US economy.
   I think we have seen worse times in the USA than are starting right now, but only because the Civil War was such an unmitigated disaster for everyone.At least in the Great Depression everyone still had relatives living on the farms and could go back to the country to avoid starvation
"A quarter of U.S. residents oppose any energy plant or facility in their hometown, including solar plants or wind terminals."

Doesn't that mean that 75% don't care or are favorable? Sounds good to me.

I find it odd we don't hear more about oil production in Iraq considering how many have been killed because of it. I've been wondering if the Cheney/Haliburton gang have been stealing oil. It doesn't seem that we know any more about Iraq's reserves than we did when Saddam was in charge.
It's not about the oil.  It's more like trying to get rid of pigeons.  All you have to do is put a plastic owl on the highest peak.
The invasion of Iraq was never about anything but the oil. Although it doesn't supply a majority or even a large fraction of the world's oil, it could produce enough to influence the market.
The number I see is 108 Gb of remaining reserves. I'm sure Saddam lied just much as other OPEC members. I don't trust Cheney any more than I would Saddam. Iraq's production could be ramped much higher than the numbers we are seeing. I don't trust the numbers. I also think somebody decided not to ramp production. Why would a bunch of Big Oil guys want to increase supply?
That's pretty much the theme of an excerpt from Greg Palast's book that was recently linked from TOD recently. Palast thinks the Iraq war is a deliberate attempt to *prevent* Iraqi oil from reaching the marketplace. — to keep prices high, of course.

I'm still wondering how much of it is evil machiavellian planning and how much is just stupid incompetence.


To find this you just have to look. You might not like the source though. Exports in March 2006 were 1.41mbd. it brought into the Iraq govt. 1.82 billion dollars.

Check this out: erves+2006&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari

It was easier to read from the original pdf at
http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RS21626.pdf. (The Italian embassy??)
A key excerpt:
If the export pipeline to the Mediterranean were to be repaired and kept operational — and the oil fields around Kirkuk to produce as they have in the past — substantial revenues would likely result. At current world oil prices, now over $60 per barrel (bbl) for oil of this type located in the eastern Mediterranean, monthly revenues of up to $1.8 billion could result.
And the conclusion:
Northern Oil in the World Oil Market: A Concluding Note. World crude oil prices have been extremely high since the first months of 2005; at one point they reached $70 per barrel. The pricing situation reflects — among other factors — the balance between robust global oil demand and a tight supply situation, with little spare capacity. The addition of an incremental 800,000 barrels per day into this overheated market could have a substantial price impact, even though it would represent only about a 1% increase in total world output. This increment, were it to become available under current circumstances, might result in a noticeable decline in crude prices.
Whoa. George "Zapata George" Blake during an interview on the Financial Sense News Hour during hour three [yes I recognize the non sequitor] at about 1 hour and 50 minutes or the third hour ["yes" non sequitor again] is talking about an oil find at 32,000 feet. 32,000 feet!!!

Zapata George is veryyyy skeptical and stopper just short of hollering "bull shit"., but has apparrently talked to some of those directly involved. The link to the third hour is at: http://netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2006-0617-3.ram Maybe this "find" was discussed earlier in the week. A hell of bit of good news for the cornucopians if confirmed. If this location does not work, go to financialsense.com then click on the newshour [incorrectly identified as June 10, 2006.] then the third hour, then fast forward to 1:50 minutes or just listen to the discussion as Puplava among other things makes fun of the Fed's official view of the definition of inflation among other things.

Has this discovery been discussed?

One has to read between the lines here.  This (geologically improbable) "discovery" could be the setup for an abiotic oil hoax.  In the past few months, the abiotic oil meme has been pushed by dodgy characters of all political stripes.  Kerry basher Jerome Corsi and Bush basher Greg Palast are both pushing abiotic oil to counter the influence of peak oilers Matt Simmons and Richard Heinberg respectively.  In the 9/11 truth communities, both Texas homophobe/xenophobe Alex Jones and New York yuppie Richard Andrew Grove are pushing abiotic oil to counter the influence of peak oiler Michael Ruppert.  A lot of someones want to steer politically passionate people of all sorts AWAY from peak oil.  Some controversies are non-threatening.  Let the masses argue about American Idol, Gay marriage, "chemtrails", area 51, abiotic oil, or Mexican immigration, just don't let them focus on the reality of peak oil.
There was a tiny article in the Houston Chronicle yesterday in the business section mentioning that there is plenty of oil discoveries, but not enough production. I can't seem to find it online. see: http://chron.com
Anybody see that small article?

On Tuesday, the International Energy Agency reduced its forecast for growth in demand during 2006 to 1.24 million barrels a day from 1.25 million barrels a day -- down about 30 percent from its growth estimate in January. The agency said inventories in the U.S. and Asia are at 20-year highs.

But i see Bodman last month said that he regularly presses OPEC oil ministers to do more to expand production capacity. Claude Mandil, executive director of the International Energy Agency, an adviser to 26 oil-consuming nations, said new production will only keep pace with rising demand until about 2010.
(Which is only 3 and a half years away.) YIKES!!!!!

Then i see that:
 France's Total estimates global oil production will peak around 2020 if output growth continues at current levels and has advised governments to cool demand to avoid a supply crunch, its chief executive said.

"The capacity of raising (oil) production is a real challenge ... if we stay with this type of production growth our impression is that peak production could be reached around 2020," Thierry Desmarest told the World Gas Conference in Amsterdam on Wednesday.
as seen here: http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-06-07T114812Z_ 01_L07762836_RTRIDST_0_ENERGY-TOTAL-PEAKOIL.XML&rpc=66

So USA and Asian inventories are at 20 year highs and new production will only be able to keep up with demand by 2010?
DUDE, we are in deep "kempshi"!!

So what do you do when you're newly-married and your wife is ready to have kids and talk about the future and you yourself are happy to talk about it, albeit with Peak Oil in mind?  My wife says she believes that Peak Oil will happen - just not for a while.  She's tired of hearing me talk about it and thinks I dwell on it.

To my mind, Peak Oil impacts EVERYTHING.  Now that my eyes are open to it, I understand that it's not just the latest fashion or fad.

My brother also says he believes Peak Oil will happen, but that technology will take care of much of it.  We'll have a cocktail of replacement fuels and life won't be that much different.  Of course he's got kids and I'm sure he doesn't want to think about a hard life for them.

So I'm living my life today, all the while aware and thinking about the future and how best to prepare for it.  I have to avoid talking about it too much for fear of aggravating my wife.

Sending e-mails to my local community listserv gets no response, but for complaints that I shouldn't post "environmental" issues on a community listserv.
I guess I'm wondering how I prepare for Peak Oil when everyone around me pays lip service to it, but doesn't truly think it's a big problem.

My sympathies to your wife.

It makes sense to prepare for trends that you think will happen in the future. However, none of us knows what will really happen.

In many ways the concept of peak oil is a great psychological litmus test. Exposing people to the concept separates them into a set of different groups based more on internal make up than facts or evidence.

Maybe you are right that peak oil will destroy mankind, but maybe you are afraid of having kids and this is how you have reacted.

My guess is that if dwelling on peak oil is impacting your marriage the issue is you and not peak oil. I think the risk that you ruin your marriage and wife's dreams is greater than the risk that peak oil does. I know others will disagree.

Apologies if this sounds harsh or if I have misinterpreted your situation.  But this is what I feel on reading your post.


Ditto on what Jack said.

Your wife is a human being.
Like conversation with any human being, when your wife asks you to tone down the PO talk, do it. You can't shove this down anyone's throat --and especially with your new marriage, you should not be shoving it into her ears 24/7. There is a lot more to life and to this world than just PO.

Getting married is scary.
Having a first child (Happy Father's Day in advance BTW) is a scary thing.
If you are scared, it means you intend to do it responsibly.
It means you will probably be a good father.
Raise a PO-aware child.
Go for it.

The future is going to come no matter what.
One child is barely replacement rate.
Po has nothing to do with having your first child.

OTOH anyone who has read 'Twilight in the Desert', Seen 'An Inconvienient Truth', and then followed the work of Albert Bartlett on 'Steady Growth in a Finite Envionment' has plenty to give them pause about the future.

Many of us have made choices that, had we seen the economics and the environment even 5 years ago, the way we see them today we'd have made them differently.
Nobody can tell you that you are wrong to consider such things in your personal decisions IMHO.

Although there is something to be said for 'keeping your cards close to the vest' especially in a small town like where I live. After having done your 'civic duty' to try and 'let others know' there is a great benifit to 'keeping your personal options open' in this current environment.

There are some occurances like ,higher energy costs, increasing financial volitility, and decreased employment security that have upward probability.
It is silly not to hedge against these things when its possible to do so.

I'm not buying any SUV's anytime soon, or investing in a large home. Many 'peak oilers' are staying physically fit and growing a garden. We're considering how we'll cook, commute, and care for ourselves in a resource constrained environment. It only makes sense.