DrumBeat: June 25, 2006
Posted by threadbot on June 25, 2006 - 9:15am
Chinese move in on world oil supplies:
The Chinese Government has been in talks with Saudi Arabia about producing oil and gas in the Desert Kingdom.The news, which emerged last week, is the latest evidence of an expansionary Chinese energy policy driven by Beijing's concerns over assuring future supplies of energy, and the ambitions of the country's three main oil and gas companies to become global players.
Greenland's Ice Sheet Is Slip-Sliding Away:
The massive glaciers are deteriorating twice as fast as they were five years ago. If the ice thaws entirely, sea level would rise 21 feet.Iran rattles its oily saber again: Iran repeats oil is potential weapon in atomic row. Samuel Bodman is not worried, saying the U.S. has healthy stockpiles.
The San Diego Union-Tribune says you should have your own personal energy policy. It quotes Matthew Simmons on food-miles:
Matthew R. Simmons is a Houston-based banker to the oil industry and an adviser to President Bush. So it's a shock to hear his Al Gore-like message of looming oil shortages and the need for creative conservation techniques.One of the most creative: chart your “food miles” and buy local produce, meats and dairy products.
This is a global issue. This summer, Simmons notes, 80 percent of the apples in British markets will come from New Zealand.
“That's 22,000 miles of travel,” he said.
But Americans, in particular, are accustomed to supermarkets stocked with Chilean nectarines, South African grapes, Mexican tomatoes, Australian wines. What one scholar calls “the journey from field to fork” consumes growing amounts of fuel – a 50 percent increase between 1977 and 1999.
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.
Korea
How does this relate to Oil. I have no idea. I just found it extremely interesting. It relates to us.
Prediction: Ecuador wins, English fans riot, skilled German cops with tear gas neutralize threat. [hahaha...you can't be serious]
Question: Brazil or Germany? Who takes it?
On an oil related topic, my niece's husband is visiting Kern County from Texas. He works for an energy related company. He tells me about an experimental program in phases that uses steam to inject in depleted fields in Kern County in the hope that it will yield increased production. The program is in the early stages and is expected to take up to at least 5 years before real results are seen. I know little about the specifics, but it sounds like its quite labor and water intensive. Not sure where they will get all of the necesary water here in So Cal for all the steam??
I don't quite understand the bracket foxsports.com has. It moves England and Portugal to the quarters on July 1st on the opposite side of the bracket from which they started.Is this correct?
Could we see an all-Portugese Final? That would be grrrreat!
-pop
This has been the first World Cup I have really paid attention to. Every game is televised here, and when the Costa Rican team played, many schools and most businesses closed or didn't open till after the game. Those that didn't, brought in TVs. Pity they played so badly, though the loss to Germany was at least a good game.
Kind of nice to be able to take my mind off of peak oil, climate change, Iraq and other endless resource wars, the incompetent/corrupt government in the US, the looming US economic collapse, and all the other doomer stuff for a few weeks. It has been a refreshing vacation. Soccer will survive post peak. It's the people's game. All it takes to play is a ball and a field.
Johns in Costa Rica
Note to Discovery Channel - you guys used to be good, almost as good as PBS. Now you suck. The Gulf of Mexico series you did on Oil Rigs - Good Stuff. If you have problems coming up with ideas, try asking us here at TOD, there is no way we couldn't improve your ratings.
Otherwise it just looks like you are grasping in the dark for ghosts.
I would gladly exchange the millions in revenue you will earn from my input for a chance to meet Paris Hilton. I know you can arrange that. My sister wants to meet Nicki, too. We could do it all at the same time. And given the fact that I am extremely rich, the Hilton sisters will not be dissappointed by my grasp of the Greek shipping industry or my sense of humor.
I TIVO'd it. At least I hope I did. You comment "the Discovery Channel had other intentions" has me concerned. Did it show when it was supposed to? Because if it didn't, maybe I don't have it recorded.
I intend to watch it, and do a review on it. But I will be hiking all day today in the Rockies, so it will have to wait. :)
RR
And why did they say the automobile was an American invention?
So, it was a real disappointment. No discussion of the situation (an economy based on cheap oil, infinite growth, food supply dependent on agri-business). No discussion of the high stakes involved (overshoot populations). No pointed dire warnings of the eminent, short time frame to begin to address this problem with electrified light rail, conservation, massive deployment of solar (passive home heating, domestic hot water heating, photovoltaic).
I mean, think about it - if a person is convinced we're going back to the stone age or Amish at best, really, utterly, convinced, what would they do? Would I be sitting here typing on my 2 mos. old computer? I'd be working to get as close to the huntere gatherer lifestyle I could. Declare bankruptcy, walk away from it all, and live as close as possible to the land, get good at improvising/gathering/scrounging. The general theory calls for a big nasty die-off and there will be lots of scroungable stuff for the next couple of post-dieoff generations. Right now one has to be a millionaire to buy land, but one can work on how to live on it, as a gatherer nomad.
But there's that small sliver of chance that things won't go kerflooey all at once, the decline may in fact take generations or even hundreds of years, in which case bargaining with the monster seems to be the better path. Bargaining with the monster involves still having a car because the system's set up such that you almost need one to live at all, so at least you get a thriftier one. Bargaining with the monster means working hard to pay off your debts because short of total collapse, paying them off in an orderly way can sure beat being put in a work camp or army uniform. And bargaining with the monster means getting to continue the way we're used to, and maybe just maybe, some new lukewarm fusion technology or something will enable us to live in the way we're accustomed, with 120 channels and Hot Pockets, anything, anything, rather than have to walk everywhere and chop wood.
So, if we fear The End Of The World As We Know It, this blog is dedicated to Continuing The World As We Know It.
Right now, at this period in my life, I have a unique chance through education to exploit a comparitive advantage I have over the crowd of millions that will, on the remote chance of a soft landing, leave me in an above average resource position. I have issues about this greedy nature in myself, and whether it's a productive instinct, but I've chosen to sidestep that question. Faced with the alternative, die-off (50% chance, IMO) or powerdown (75%), I have to weigh the opportunity cost of foregoing preperation for these possibilities with foregoing my opportunity for future wealth (and, yes, I do see them as mututally exclusive.) I keep weighing this, and at this point, I find betting on my future wealth is the better possibility.
I suppose the reason I figure this is because in dieoff or powerdown, the skills that will be necessary to survive (food production, community building, hitting people's heads with rocks...) are relatively low skill, and people have been doing them for the length of human existence. So, I guess I just don't feel much preperation is needed for those cases, apart from preparing ones' self mentally.
Or am I completely off track?
We are not really that smart (depite our knowing about PO). and "they" are nowhere near as dumb as you might imagine. We are all just people, doing as best we can for the moment.
90% is an interesting figure, since that seems to have been the die-off rate among American Indians, Pacific Islanders, etc when Westerners came on the scene. It's not just a figure pulled out of a hat either, it shows up everywhere, for instance search "peak oil" on google video or youtube and you'll find an interesting movie about some of the lesser-visited Pacific islands and there are figures like, 6000 people used to live on this island, now there are 600.
Now we Westerners get to enjoy what we have imposed on others.
And yes, the other guy is NOT dumb. The American/Iraqi kill rate has been something like 50:1 in this latest war, but that's because we have all this neat hardware and gas etc to run it on. On an equal footing, if someone were to wave a magic wand and eliminate humvees and helicopters etc. they'd kick our asses. When we're ALL scrawny and hungry and canny from years of survival, who knows, after all we European-extraction types have been through as harsh a winnowing process over the centuries as anyone, and the ways we've treated each other through centuries of wars and famines etc make most indigineous groups look like lapdogs.
The other guy is definately not dumb though. Soldiers in Vietnam were amazed at the intelligence, resourcefulness, and creativity of the Vietnamese, whether it was in their farming technology, fish traps, or soldier traps. The Polynesians have cultures that emphasize being the brutal badass but their crafts show that the only reason these guys didn't come up with something like the Space Shuttle is they lacked the fuel etc lol.
If there's one major leap forward for us Western cannibals over the last 100 years, I'd have to say that 100 years ago we had utter contempt for anyone who wasn't a workaholic, pleasure-denying, type A person. We're the ones who justified genocide against the Indians because we saw them as lazy and hedonistic, and therefore "animals". This attitude is still prevelent, but now it's not absolute. There are a lot of us realizing our Westerna culture involves working perpetually harder for less, and killing the Earth in the process.
We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per combat soldier per year. The cost of training, the cost of technology, the cost of support, the cost of salaries and benefits and pensions, it adds up.
We are taxing Americans out of having children. Think about how much a second child costs, even, let alone a first one.
That would mean we've killed less than 30 combatants since the war began and only three hundred civilians. I personally know a guy who has killed 6 combatants and has pictures. We killed more than three hundred civilians for sure in shock and awe. Our kill rate is WAY above 1.0. Yes we have had casualties but comared to Vietnam or Korea or any other war?
Or am I completely off track?"
Ummm.. I think you are off track
Case: Food production
Can you milk a cow? Raise a flock of chickens to slaughter weight? Kill, clean and butcher an animal? Manage a 4 field rotation scheme? Build a barn? know how to correctly store hay and grain? Help a goat give birth? Manage pest problem in a field of soybeans? Harness a team of draft horses or oxen, or repair a wonky tractor engine? Weld a broken disk harrow, or fix a leaking irrigation pump seal? Understand which type of soil is better suited to potatoes and which to cabbage?
Like I said, there was a point in time that 90% of the population knew how to do exactly what you described. Some not sucessfully, but each one of them had to learn it at some point in their lives. I think it will be easier to learn how to farm after powerdown than it will be to learn how to, say, combine chemicals into productive substances. Or, I could just be off track again.
The first para of your post is one of the most arrogant short statements I have ever read.
Time to start giving some respect to the skilled, accomplished hard-working people, your equals and then some, who make your pampered existence possible.
Go read one book on animal husbandry and then try to yoke a team of draft animals. Read a mechanics text and try to repair a tractor engine. What a laugh.
"At some point in their lives" is not where those skills are learned. It takes a lifetime. Just like doctoring or engineering. And doing those jobs while coping with disrespectful know-nothings.....You, Descolada, should always drive a new car, 'cause your mechanic ain't ever gonna work hard for you.
What do you think a Dr. does? Hmmm....yep mmmhmm. Interesting then steps out of the exam room and opens a reference book. When he comes back in he gives you a diagnosis. MUCH easier than farming. I love to garden but never want to depend on it for my livelihood. They work from 5 am to 9pm.
If that was the case, you wouldn't have people getting 4 year degrees in things like soil science and animal husbandry.
Best,
Matt
Growing food is not as easy as scattering seed, waiting a few weeks and munching on the produce. Weather, pests, diseases are unpredictable and make years of practical experience invaluable. You have a much better chance at 'learning' your 'highly skilled' and well paid job from a book than you do subsistence farming. The pressures are different, too: if your job doesn't go well you can probably get another, if you fail at your subsistence farming there is a fair chance you will starve to death.
If you can I'd suggest allocating a chunk of your time to experiencing a bit of plant growing, even if only in pots outside your window or in a small yard. Perhaps holidays working on organic farms? You can learn many things from books but there is much to learn that books can't really teach. Best you discover that sooner rather than later ;)
I have the experience to usually see something going awry almost immediately, only a small part of that skill could come from books. No doubt it is similar for animals, and just as many crops are different so will be animals.
Raised a 1/4 ot 1/2 acre garden in my childhood (rented ground usually), planted 400 azealas ($20 hole for a $5 bush was my father's motto), 100 camellias (grafted onto sasanqua, over 90% success rate).
I got turned off of gardening and came to like trees much better. I learned enough to know that I do not know enough about growing outside my childhood home in Alabama. And even then I was not so curious (mainly hoped for a smaller garden NEXT year since we gave so much away this year).
And my father knew what to buy from the store (too much trouble to raise, or not the right climate to raise quality with good yield. Potatoes for example).
So I would be desperate for the first couple of years trying to raise (and preserve) my own food till I got the hang of it.
if a person is convinced we're going back to the stone age or Amish at best, really, utterly, convinced, what would they do?
Yes, many of us (myself included)have one foot in the peak oil world and one in the current order. I keep coming back to this site not bc/ I'm unsure if PO is real but to try to figure out how bad will it really be and how soon. It's like a cancer patient who has a diagnosis but isn't sure yet of the prognosis nor how painful and toxic the treatment will be.
Wish I could say it so well!
Yeah, a foot in the Beast and a foot..... I dunno maybe in my mouth lol!
I spend a certain amount of time these days wondering how I can bring my own life nearer to the H.G. lifestyle. No, I can't go out and dig for nuts and berries, at least for a full occupation, yet, but what can I do? For instance, can I make a living without having to have a computer? That's a big step ahead I think, a huge step behind where behind is good! OK, so how can I do that? I could go around and wash windows for cash, that's one way. I could go out and wash windows and do sign painting for cash too - cash or checks really, the first step is to get rid of the computer the bank can come later. Can I sharpen knives? A guy locally built quite a biz doing that. Could I learn to be one of those quick-draw portraitists like you see at amusement parks and fairs? I was originally destined to become an artist, but in the US unlike Europe there is NO art training for the working class, and a strong Puritan dislike/distrust of artists - the same factors that scared me away from it then, attract me to it now. Could I buy a van, live in it, and go around selling wooden spoons and spatulas I make?
Of all the possibilities, I like the artist one best. I'm thinking of giving that one a go, honestly, when I get up the guts.
TOD is all about "bargaining". Most here have passed the denial phase, and it is just the next logical step.
Speaking of TV, did anyone see the "Tar Sands" segment on "60 Minutes" tonight (Sunday)? Is it a rerun? My work schedule up until only the last few weeks had me at work on Sunday night, so I didn't know if it had been aired previously or not....
Either way, it was a glowing piece on how the tar sand oil will save the day, but actually did hit on at least some of the environmental issues, and had some real film of the landscape disfigurement, and the stacks belting out the greenhouse gas.
T. Boone Pickens was on of course, and if people actually listened to what he said, it should have sent shivers up the spine of the average TV viewer...."If you took a tablet and wrote on it all the optimistic prospects of where new oil can be found....it would be a blank tablet."
At least Boone is making no pretense that tar sand will bring back cheap oil, saying as a statement of fact, "Those days are gone."
The truth is, if anyone wants one of the greatest "facts on the ground" in support that we may be at or near peak on conventional oil production, the desperation in the tar sands field are it. If there was conventional oil available out there somewhere, there is no way that anyone would touch this high risk, low return, very damaging scheme (no one, NO ONE, really tries to claim that Canada can make anything close to the Kyoto Accord GHG targets if they attempt to ramp up tar sand production, it simply defies all known physics to make such a claim.)
The equation seems to break down like this:
Will tar sand save us? No, not by themselves.
Will they buy us some time? They have to.
Wil it be damaging to the environment? Almost certainly. (T. Boone Pickens, despite his other shortcomings, is usually direct. To quote him..."There's no denying it, it's a mess up there right now..."
Wil we go after the tar sand oil? We have no choice.
The voices in the tar sand fields have the edge of fear in them.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Mr. Pickens, I need to throw you in a basket. It's gonna be the same one I tossed Soros into. Do you have a problem with that? OK, then fine. I'm glad we can agree.
I note that Friedman repeated the myth that Brazil is getting "almost 50%" of their motor fuel from gasoline. It is hard to kill a good myth.
I have a slide from the National Petroleum Agency of Brazil. The breakdown in 2005 (by volume) was:
Diesel - 53.9%
Gasoline - 26.2%
Anhydrous Ethanol - 8.7%
Hydrous Ethanol - 8.3%
The rest is natural gas. Note that by volume, only 17% of the vehicle fuel was from ethanol. But by BTU equivalent, it is about 10%.
My suspicion of where this myth originated is that they are comparing the ethanol to the amount of gasoline they use, ignoring the fact that over 50% of the vehicles are diesels.
RR
There were a couple funny lines that caught my ear, as if some of the throw-aways said more about what Tom thinks than the main text. But I don't think the main text was bad at all.
The hydrogen and ethanol alternatives were covered, but their drawbacks were at least given a fast mention.
Interesting bit on China. Despite all their problems, they have the engineers and the low cost production to make a significant dent in things like conservation and solar energy. Kudos to the show for talking about more sustainable and energy conservative building techniques. It's good that they didn't just talk about supply.
The part on ethanol was weak, but what could one expect from a five minute segment?
At leat they made it clear that even if hydrogen is the future, it is the future. Don't expect anything of use for 20 years. They showed a big bank of solar panels and pointed out that it would take a week of production to produce enough hydrogen for one 190 mile range fill up of hydrogen. Don't know how many kw were in that solar bank, so couldn't compute the cost.
The part on solar implied that one could get payback in 8 years. Sounds dubious to me, even with available credits.
They can't do as we do, and greenwash everything as we hope for the best.
I lived in LA for a while and I can say I have never breathed anything like the air in parts of China.
Based on those facts, I'm doubtful they're going to sort out peak oil any better or earlier than us.
And the greenwashing done here is absolutely nothing compared to what goes on in China.
China: first in everything!
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm
QUOTE
"Coal fires are a global catastrophe," said Associate Professor Glenn Stracher of East Georgia College in Swainsboro, USA, told delegates. But surprisingly few people know about them.
Coal can heat up on their own, and eventually combust, if there is a continuous oxygen supply. The heat produced is not dissipated and under the right combinations of sunlight and oxygen, can trigger spontaneous combustion. This can occur underground, in coal stockpiles, abandoned mines or even as coal is transported.
Such fires in China consume up to 200 million tonnes of coal per year, delegates were told. In comparison, the U.S. economy consumes about one billion tonnes of coal annually, said Stracher, whose analysis of the likely impact of coal fires has been accepted for publication in the International Journal of Coal Ecology.
Once underway, coal fires can burn for decades, even centuries. In the process, they release large volumes of greenhouse gases
UNQUOTE
I read that Chinese underground coal fires make as much CO2 as all the cars in the USA.
and a link for Pennsylvania coal fires
http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm
If that isn't an ignored super important topic I don't know what is. Get some of you intelligent analysts with industry knowledge to put some numbers together on total global CO2 from underground coal fires then see that if we stopped burning and conserved absolutely everything to meet environmental targets we would end up getting nowhere because we cannot put theese fires out ever(one in Australia has been burning for 5500 years).
I predict that China will become a major force behind exotic technological fixes for global warming - fixes which conveniently won't be ready to be applied for several decades. I am talking about stuff like this:
http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/231636.pdf
Space based shields, or upper-atmosphere engineered particles to block UV radiation, or biotech/nanotech enhancements to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, etc. All these are on the drawing board and might be able to solve the problem in theory. This will give China an excuse to keep on polluting and a story to tell, that China will become a world leader in scientific and technological innovation and will save the planet in the 21st century.
This ties in to China's ambitions in space development, and its general goal to become the acknowledged world leader over the course of this century. I believe most Chinese people see the latter as a foregone conclusion. They are eager and willing to take on the mantle of world leadership, and pushing for exotic technological fixes could fit right into that ideology. Think of the can-do American spirit of the 19th and early 20th centuries combined with an Oriental sense of inevitability.
See Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" for an interesting discussion on how this fact has shaped China's history.
Maybe Discovery could put it out on a CD for use in our schools?
For the most part truthful, but definitely designed not to alarm the couch potatoes. They went for the, " technology will solve everything, but we have to start know", option.
On the other hand, how do you make a show that J. Q. Public won't click away from, while at the same time not appearing alarmist.
My biggest beef was allowing the auto executive to trash the electric car as an unmitigated disaster that nobody wanted to buy. I tried for years to get them to sell me one, and the little S.O.B.'s refused.
In today's NYT, Ben Stein cited a study which suggested that if the US sold 100% of all assets, around $50 trillion, and invested it at about 5%, it would not pay for just the estimated cost of Medicare for the balance of this century. What cannot continue tends not to continue. Ben Stein, a Republican, is calling for higher taxes. Rating agencies have put the feds on notice that if nothing changes, federal debt will be reduced to junk status in a few years. As I said the other day, politics is going to become a blood sport.
IMO, the biggest sin committed by the Baby Boomrers was in not confronting our political "leaders" regarding the biggest fraud in history--the Social Security "Trust Fund." The Social Security "Trust Fund" is "invested in Treasury bonds. In other words, the feds own both the asset and the liability. This makes the Enron fraud look like stealing a piece of candy from a store. Younger worker are going to be taxed to build up the "Trust Fund"and then taxed again to pay off the same bonds.
I was giving my "Get out of the borrow and spend" cycle talk to a guy last year. He thought about it for a moment and then asked what would happen to the economy if we stopped borrowing and spending. This gives you an idea of how far we have fallen--that to suggest that we live below our means is viewed as somehow vaguely Un-American.
A few weeks ago, I was making a similar pitch to a Dallas resident. She thought about it for a moment, and then said that I must not be from Dallas. I said no; I was originally from West Texas (surprise!). She said that no one raised in Dallas would talk about living below one's means.
In any case, times they are a-changing. I predict that "Cheap" will be the new "Chic."
Thought you lived in Addison. :=) I was there a couple weeks ago for a two-day corporate-culture-indoctrination thingie (in Plano), and thought of suggesting a RL meetup to hoist a beer or something. But the planners of the event managed to cram every minute. I barely used the hotel room to sleep.
Addison is probably one of the best run communties in the country, and they are making massive investments in New Urbanism. I have known the City Manager for 20 years, and he is doing a first class job. I think that a new DART light rail line will come through the middle of town connecting Plano to Addison and then to the DFW Airport and Fort Worth.
The Red Line to Richardson is already open and the Green Line has broken ground to go just East of I-35E. Farmers Branch station is scheduled to open December 2010 (if FTA funding comes through).
The more interesting issue is the DART Master Plan for 2015 to 2030. Staff plan (Dallas-centric) had a line going to DFW north via LBJ Freeway and then jumping onto the old Cotton Belt ROW to DFW (DART bought the old ~12 mile spur from Cotton Belt years ago to preserve it).
Several northern suburbs committed over $100,000 to lobby DART to build out almost the entire length of the Cotton Belt ROW (basically DFW to Richardson from memory). This would create a partial loop around Dallas to the North without entering Dallas. With the staff plan, a "Y" would be created with the three terminii at DFW, Dallas CBD & Richardson (from memory) and Addison would be on Cotton Belt ROW extension that the northern suburbs are lobbying for.
If Federal matching was 55% instead of 50% this would not be such an issue for the 2015-2030 plans, but, ATM, funding projections and project plans are "tight" and the issue is still unresolved.
Many transit activists say the northern Dallas suburbs paying $ to lobby for a light rail plan connecting them together as a sign that "the Second Coming is nigh". Ten years ago this would not have been believed.
Hope I got the details right.
http://www.dart.org/transitsystemplan2030.asp?zeon=transitsystemplan2030map
At the bottom is a "click on larger map" Green is light rail scheduled to be open by 2015/17.
http://www.dart.org/transitsystemplan2030map.asp
The Irving branch (Yellow) will go to DFW using the stub of the Cotton Belt ROW and 50% of the Cotton Belt is still "under discussion" (i.e. red and not black).
The Cotton Belt Light Rail Line "under discussion" would go East by North East from DFW through Farmers Branch, Addison to Richardson and connect the Yellow (Irving), Green (Carrollton) and Red (Plano/Richardson) lines and feed into an approved Cotton Belt extension going due East of Richardson towards the north end of that big lake.
I lived in Abilene, so we were far enough to get the gist of city politics, without actually being in the city. It's amazing though, that with dozens and dozens of distinct cities, people fluent in DFW culture can pick out traits of that city. For instance, everybody knows exactly what Plano feels like, compared to Arlington, Irving, etc etc. And God forbid that you ever tell someone living in Fort Worth that they are from Dallas. =D
Maybe somebody with more experience in the metroplex explain to me that culture a bit better?
OTOH, Mary and I like to stroll that New Urban project in Addison whenever we visit Dallas. Nice townhomes, ready access to the ND Tollway among other transportation options, they have an outdoor theater, pubs, restaurants, shops — all within easy walking distance of the townhomes. Even before the new area was built out, it had more restaurants per capita than Dallas, and that's saying a lot.
Plano, the next city over, has very few of these amenities, btw. Lots of pretentious McMansions but not much soul. It's an interesting contrast, in adjacent cities of similar affluence.
The CSPAN retirement, social security, etc. show was pretty interesting.
It highlighted a major flaw in privatized social security: such programs have always been stacked along actuarial lines, and are a form of death pool (forget the better term). Older retirees share the benefits of those who drop out (as it were) earlier. When you privatize, and make retirement funds part of someone's estate, you break that mechanism. When someone dies at 60, the excess funds do not go to help someone living to 100. Instead, the 100 year old person has to have savings to cover all their own costs.
Ben was actually the most conservative voice on those cable (business) news shows, and stressed savings stronger than the others testifying before congress (CSPAN). For what it's worth, Ben and others stressed annuities as the vehicle of choice as one approaches advanced age. That puts you back in the actuarial pool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_%28US_financial_products%29
Ben also stressed doing one's homework on annuities. That might relate to the "Compensation for advisors or salespeople" section at that wikipedia page.
One comment that should be made about Social Security is that the problem is more one of funding than of benefits. Figure II.D5 in the Trustees' report shows SS payments stabilizing in the long term at about 6.2% of GDP. The Boomers affect how quickly we get there, but not what the long-term level is. I claim that as a society we can afford that, but acknowledge that the current tax arrangement doesn't raise that much revenue.
I did find it amusing the other day when I read a piece by an acknowledged die-off type who believes Peak Oil is now and that society will collapse by 2020 writing about problems with meeting SS obligations in the 2040s...
I'm a Boomer.
There were certain things that got drilled into our heads as we grew up:
Now I am a physician at the peak of my career living in a low cost small city in a OECD country. (I previously made more money in silly.con valley in the USA, but the high cost of local housing eliminated the benefit.) It would take 10,000 hours of my current gross income to buy a local house and nearly 700 hours to buy the car. Even after the recent fall in gold prices, it takes over 17 hours of labour to buy an ounce of gold bullion. I am on my own for retirement.
Despite having even more education than Dad, I have by any measure less than 1/3rd of his buying power, and less than 1/6th the buying power of a US physician in 1971. By forgoing children, marrying another highly educated professional, doing without lesiure time, and living in (uncleaned) modest housing I was able to live a shadow of my parent's peak lifestyle during the 1980s and 1990s. How on earth the boomers could be expected to save for retirement while earing a fraction of their parent's real income beats me. The media is now blaming the victim by pointing to the boomers as wastrels. Boomers worked harder and longer than their parents for much less reward.
(Being peak oil aware, I have built more retirement savings recently as a part time commodity speculator than in 20 years of long hard hours serving human needs as a physician. That tells you all you need to know about what Catherine Austin Fitts calls "The Tapeworm Economy".)
IMO, "The Long Emergency" in the US began with US peak oil and going off the gold standard in 1971. The corporate media have LIED about the relentless 35 year decline in living standards. BTW, the 16 year old Hubble has just broken down, and the 3 remaining US spaceships are unsafe 25 year old models.
I gave up on retirement myself, I will be working till I cant work any longer, then take my chances I guess. I grew up in the 60's and 70's, I was taught much of the above mentioned baby boomer things to do and lifestyle to strive for, but all my life it always just seemed wrong, kept thinking this is unsustainable, but never knew why........PEAK OIL, the great equalizer I call it. We live in interesting and tragic times, and I most certainly do not have faith in the mainstream fascist leadership to be able to steer the US through this mess, if anything I think they will ride it out till the last second and then bail out. In the end, we reap what we sew, and democracy combined with the warped version of capitalism we use guarantees both lowest common denominator leadership and corrupt finances, more icing on the cake when TSHTF.
I think boomers should be awful happy of what theyve been able to enjoy, but they should also beware of the angst carried by those like me that at some point will have to deal with their mess. Its like following a herd of elephants, eat everything in sight and trample everything else. Maybe Bob from Az is right, we arent any smarter than yeast. I know the pot is starting to boil and this dumbass frog is just now finding out about it !!
And yes, Micro is right, the amount one gets for X hours of work in the US has plummeted. My grandparents were quite well off from the sound of it, could send their kids (my parents) to college no problem. No loans, just send 'em. My earlist memories are late 1960s, Dad worked, Mom was at home, Dad was home for Cronkite and Mom's cooking, we all had our Schwinn bikes and the station wagon, big yards front and back, Boy Scouts, all that. By 1975 that was a memory. By 1977 mom and dad were irreversibly split up and we were on welfare and food stamps. 1978 saw us eating dinner because I went out and worked all afternoon at whatever work a 15 or so year old could get and buying basic food and cooking it up. Early 1980s saw me working full time at back-busting work and all that would pay for was a room in a rooming house, a bus pass each month, and basic, cooked at home, food. And clothes from Goodwill. Working full time! The plunge has been so swift over the generations that people even 10 years older than I am can't relate at all, much less a generation earlier.
The Boomers are indeed spoiled, greedy, etc but even their world is/was radically different from their parents'.
My generation and later = cynical Depression kids. They may not show it and wear an iPod on their sleeve, but we're cynical bastards and proud of it.
I don't think this is a situation where people of different age groups can't relate to your situation, but rather one where people in different circumstances cannot relate (older/younger/whatever). The truth is some of us have bad luck, others good luck, many of us go through periods of both. That doesn't mean we can project our own experiences onto the whole society with any accuracy whatsoever.
"Money is the one thing that people say they argue about most in marriage, followed by children (Stanley & Markman, 1997)."
I'm not sure about the veracity of this graph (posted on more recent 6/26 thread), but:
(Right click & view Image)
relative costs for your grandparents were much lower --while yes their incomes were also much lower as measured in dollar amounts.
As a Boomer and a resident of New York City, I went to the essentially free, NYC College System --tuition was like around $500 for the year. The campus was right in the middle of the city. We didn't have dorms or frat parties. We took the urine-perfumed subways to school everyday & lived at home with mom & dad to keep costs down. I used to spend about 3-4 hours everyday inside the subway tunnels. Did my homework on the train. (Sometimes I would ride backwards to the end station to make sure I had a seat.) So were things so great for the Boomers & their parents? I'm not sure. It was the time of Cold War nuke scares. The Vietnem draft was on & no end was in sight in the mid 1960's. Woe onto you if you pulled a low number in the lottery. We thought it was TEOTWAWKI. Luckily, we were wrong.
Are things much tougher for Gen-X, Y, Z?
I think the current, in-college group has it rough in terms of competition because, as Tom Friedman said, 3 Billion new people just stepped onto the world subway platform to push and shove for the few jobs left.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767900464/102-4798220-2746546?v=glance&n=283155
Personally, I think PO is a symptom that is symbolic of our society's inability to see major problems, admit to their existence and tackle them.
Global Warming is a much bigger problem IMHO because who cares how much fossil energy is left if there is no more life left on this fried planet.
(To my surprise, the Shrub admitted on TV this morning that Global warming is a problem (IOW, Ozone Boy was right) and that the Shrub-miester is getting behind Clean Coal to solve our problems --did anyone else see that news briefing?)
One of the unfair "boosts" that our parents got was the 1970's ramp up in house values due to hyper-inflation and population growth.
If you were lucky enough to own a house around 1970 (before the 1st oil bust) and you bought it for say $30K at 4% interest, then in the roaring 80's that same house was suddenly worth $300K and you're thinking to yourself what a wise investor am I. Of course, if you parlayed your brilliant real estate gains into dot.com stocks and hung on to them till after the 2001 bust, suddenly you weren't that brilliant anymore. That's life.
The one thing we boomers don't get is the dramatic ramp up in world population over these last 50 years. In 1960, the world was at about 2 Billion. Today we are over 6.5 Billion. That's triple the people fighting for the same limited number of resources and burning them up faster than ever.
(A slightly obsolete graph --we ar now 6.5B strong)
(Click for article)
p.s. another graph (marks 1960 as 3 Billion)
Yes, I can see a different path had those things not happened.
Great comments.
How would you suggest somebody tap into this generational rage in order to fuel their political ambitions?
Just curious.
Best,
Matt
At one point, I would have suggested shooting an iPod-esque, matte-on-matte video with some catchy, poppy Kelly Clarkson song and someone going in to vote, because that would surely catch our attention. Now, I'm more cynical.
I assume you are talking about California politics? There is an easy answer to that. Start a campaign to repeal *Proposition 13! it is so obviously generationally unfair that I can't believe it has endured 28 years to screw a second generation. I was devastated when that travesty passed. I was a 22 year old student deeply in debt at the time, looking forward to another decade of low training wages and high interest (12% student loans!) ahead of me. It was a pre-emptive strike on people in my situation. When I finally got out of the massive student loan debt in the 1990s, California housing costs were already so high that if I bought a home, I would have been paying 10X the property tax of the old homeowner next door. ARRRGH!!! So I rented and missed out on the great house flipping bubble.
*Proposition 13 limited increases in property tax assessments until property changed hands. Thus some older homeowners in Palo Alto pay less than $500 in property taxes while their next door neighbour pays over $20,000 on an identical house. Thus the older homeowners have more disposable income to invest in the tapeworm economy and screw their young neighbours even more.
I was wondering if any other physicians were on this site. You make me realize how good american physicians really have it. A lot of the older docs here complain that things are so much worse now for physicians bc/ of all the insurance crap. they all hope to retire as soon as possible. being a relatively recent med school grad, I never knew any better. the american health care system is on a crash course with disaster, even ignoring PO, given cost growth 2 to 3x inflation year after year. things will be very different before the end of my career.
IMO, the US health care system has already crashed, both from the viewpoint of physicians and patients. Patients have less access to care and are getting screwed on insurance costs, doctors are working harder for less pay and getting screwed on malpractice premiums. Even the frivolous greedy specialties like plastic surgery have gone downhill. A California plastic surgeon now has to do a lot more breast implants and face lifts to buy a Mercedes S class than her counterpart 30 or 40 years ago. People are even outsourcing their plastic surgery to Mexico or Thailand.
NZ has a similar set of problems. Hospital waiting lists are a scandal. The young house doctors just went on strike nationwide, their wages and working conditions are so bad. As a senior physician I only earn 6 times the minimum wage in this most egalitarian society. Doctors here are firmly genteel working class, like plumbers. (The upper stratum of society is populated by the usual suspects, real estate tycoons and corporate execs.) On the other hand, public healthcare is free to all residents, and there is no malpractice tort system to speak of. On the good side, since social capital is good and expectations are low, my neighbours will be grateful to have me to practice 19th century surgery after the lights go out.
Things are quiter here in Sweden but the relative income for doctors has been falling for decades. Senior surgeons make four times more than the nurse.
No insurance costs and free healthcare is the bonus. Our system is crashed by bureocrazy though.
Post peak there will still be demand for orthopedic surgery but less so for politic-bureoucratic overhead.....
There are some realy good ideas for replacing a lot of the old atropied system with a business like organizations with real competition about who is most efficient at turning tax money into happy patients. This is not my best field but if you email me I can give you a contact to a friend who is an expert in this.
My bad explenation of the idea is as follows: Each patient is listed at the low level hospital of her choosing. This hospital provides basic healthcare and also acts as an insurance company with a fixed tax income per listed patient giving an incentive to get people well fast. The coordinating hospital then subcontracts the specialist care needed from other hospitals.
One hospital was more or less run like this during a brief period of limited deregulation and it worked brilliantly to get rid of the wastefull shuttling back and forth of patients and queueing. The current system guarantess health care for everybody, withing weeks, months or years, a very wastefull way of regulating health care.
One parallell trend that is slow as molasses is making hospital performance figures public to compare hospitals and the numerous small politically controlled hospital regions. The above system needs it and todays system needs it badly.
The politically controlled hospital regions are called "landsting" and are governed in the same way as municipialities. They contain numerous small fiefdoms and are quite byzantine after the old happy years of unlimited tax funds when we had chinese kind of growth.
One parallell idea is to consolidate into fewer landsting/regional authorities 7-9 instead of 20. This is part of a work to try to get dozens of authorities to use the same regions. We have basically had the same administrative divisions for some 200 years and authorities have rationalized in different ways during the 1900:s.
I guess about one percent of the workforce should be rationaliazed away to hopefully become productive instead of turning paper.
We realy need to start this yesterday otherwise it will be hard to guarantee basic heath care for everybody. A lack healt care would waste an enourmous ammount of happiness and work.
I won't disagree with you that the US health care system is a disaster, or that there are problems with big pharma, Wall Street, etc, but you should realize that the vast majority of people are far worse off than you. Maybe they don't harbor such high expectations and so they are happier with less?
I'm sorry to sound judgemental, because I don't know anything about you. Maybe you are very frugal and drive around in a 10 year old Geo Metro. But it's hard not to suspect otherwise when you are complaining about how bad you have it as a physician, with six figure annual pay. If you're struggling then the rest of us should all have starved already...strange how that is not the case.
That has always left me dumbfounded, as well as rotating shifts. Whenever I lose that kind of sleep or disrupt my sleep patterns I get dumb. Like, too dumb to keep important things straight. It's no wonder crap gets left in people and wrong legs get amputated.
==========
Whenever I lose that kind of sleep or disrupt my sleep patterns I get dumb. Like, too dumb to keep important things straight.
When I was writing code for a living, I had to quite after 18 or so hours and go get some sleep. Writing beyond that was a waste of time because it was so filled with errors that it was going to have to be tossed and written again. At least some states are starting to think seriously about forcing their medical schools and teaching hospitals to change their practices because mistakes are made and people do die from them when interns do very long stretches without sleep.
I believe that making the assumption that the social capital will remain after a oil/energy crash would be a poor one. NZ is virtually 100% dependant on oil and other energy imports and probably a lot of other types of imports as well.
I wouldn't be surprised that the social capital sticks it to you and drafts you into some sort of medical draft, since you have important skills and there won't be any funds to pay for your services, and probably even less medicine and other equipment you'll need. What would you do if there is a major bug and there is a shortage of anti-biotics or other drugs required for treatment. What happens when your faced with a influx of superbugs that become drug resistant because people delay or can't get help until they are very ill? Would you even like to expose yourself to an environment filled with people infected with drug resistant diseases, without the proper equipment and supplies to treat them? Today disease are kept in check beause of plentiful resources. To assume that these resources will remain abundant during a long crisis would be a mistake. I am sure as a medical professional you can think of even more probable bad situations. I doubt that you be able to practice 19th century medicine with 20th century infections.
I don't know what NZ is like, since I've never been there. Personally I believe socialistic countries will fair much worse because the majority of the population have been come utterly dependant on the gov't to care for them. The medical stike and your inadequate financial compensation is the result of gov't dependance. When that crisis begins all that social capital will disappear overnight. Its sad to think that your gov't and the population treat you as some cheap resource instead of a prize.
I can't say for sure what happens. I believe its impossible for any of us to make any future assumptions. I believe that if you make any broad assumptions on how people will react and adapt, you're setting up yourself for a big disappointment when the crisis does come. In general, people are irrational, and plan for them to getting even more irratioanal. Plan for the worse, hope for the best.
Hopefully I got you thinking! I wish you the best.
The truth is, the biggest factor in terms of how much money you save is not how much you make, but how much you spend. If you are paid a doctor's salary and live a doctor's lifestyle, then you save very little. If you work as a secretary but live within your means, in the long term you can build up a lot of wealth.
As professions go, doctors certainly are not underpaid. A lot of people making a fraction of what you do, will have a hard time relating to your "woes". I don't mean to insult you, but it seems to me you may be blaming the system for your own past mistakes.
... I think the "purchasing power" surveys say that it is.
<<But the point is that my parents did even better with less education and less labour.>>
The all time peak of US prosperity was the generation born circa 1930. Their children (aka boomers) still did well, but had to get more education and put the women to work outside the home to get a similar material standard of living. The boomers children are not the first, but the second generation to be worse off than their parents. Lather, rinse, repeat for the next hundred years. I am sure that today's OECD nation young adults will be seen as fabulously rich and hated by their even poorer children and grandchildren to follow.
"Grandad was a real pig, I saw a old photo of him taken in 2006 where he was on a big honking Vespa motor scooter burning petrol like there was no tomorrow - and there was electricity, internet, and running water in his flat - all the luxuries! And Grandma was even worse, she used electricity to dry her hair!"
as far as dumping images here, any one can do it
it's pretty much a no brainer
start with < img src="" > in brackets
put your source of image inside the quotes
use google image search to find your picture of choice
after you get a handle on this, you can learn to play with the height, width and align commands
( DARE NOT TO LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN!)
(THE WIZARD IS ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING)
Perhaps go one step further and link 'affluence' to tangible assets, and the only worthwhile peak-oil asset as land - are we going back to a land-based economy?
You don't have to pay back inherited money plus interest. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, you really benefit from our system as an owner of equity and creditor, not as a wage slave, consumer and debtor. People well positioned in the FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector in the economy have firm control over an enormous stream of income that winds up in their pockets nearly automatically.
I also agree that it makes a huge difference whether you pay for a car, or whether you need to take out a loan to get one. Whenever you take out any sort of debt, the power of interest compounding works against you. It's a huge obstacle to overcome, and one which should be avoided at almost all costs.
All the same, the reality is we have choices. I have never bought a new car, and I probably never will (the only possible exception being if anyone ever comes out with a reasonably priced electric car that they will actually sell). I would never buy a car with a loan unless I absolutely had no choice, for example if I didn't have one, and had no other way to get to work. Even then, I would buy a cheap $1500-$2500 car at most (if you go too much lower than that you run the risk of spending more money running through a bunch of really old clunkers that are on their last legs...or would that be wheels?). Other than that, I would only buy a car that I could pay for outright, and I would never waste money on nonsense like a "luxury" car (read: a rebadged Toyota or Honda with a different name plate on the back). I do have a soft spot for technology and efficiency, so I would spend more for a hybrid, but I still would not buy it new, and still only if I could pay in cash.
I have no qualms about driving an old car, as long as it still runs decently, and really couldn't care less if someone thinks less of me because I'm driving an old car, while they are sitting there in their brand new Lexus. They can think what they want, I'll be the one laughing all the way to the bank.
There are few things I dislike more than spending money. It actually makes me feel a little bit sick inside, when I think about it. So, for that reason, I never spend money on anything unless I am absolutely convinced it will improve my life in some tangible way. I've never been understand the meaning of the words "buyer's remorse", because by the time I finally overcome my aversion to spending, there is no doubt in my mind that I want the thing I am buying.
So, what does all this mean? Who am I? No one important. I am not wealthy, but I would not be surprised if someday I am (assuming the doomers' forecasts don't come to pass), not because I make a lot of money, but because I live beneath my means. Of course, the irony will be that I will have little use for that money because I don't derive pleasure from buying useless things.
The reason I am telling you all this, is not because I'm a saint, or because everyone should live the way I do, or even that you should care. It's just to show that we all have a choice in how we live our lives. I won't claim the system is perfect, because it has many flaws, but there is a certain brutal logic behind it. The way to get ahead is to outsmart the system. Don't buy into materialism and the need to have a new car. Show restraint and don't buy things until you can afford to purchase them outright.
It's true, some people end up in tough positions through no fault of their own, but don't dismiss your own ability to impact your situation. There's really nothing worse than people who are struggling, and yet who do nothing to make the most out of what little money they have.
Maybe you are right that people have illusions of affluence based on what they can buy, and not how much they actually own. The trick isn't to worry about their own delusions, but rather to outsmart them by following a different course.
You are correct that historically seniors voted more than the rest of the population and therefore they often get what they want. However, there are no miracle, as the cost of the benefits that were promised is not affordable, those benefits will have to be cut.
The more likely strategy that will be used to make those changes will is known as 'death of a thousand cuts', I believe.
Unlikely. The sacrifice will come from the remaining work force, such as much higher taxes and perhaps a labor draft to make sure boomers get their checks paid in full. I am sure retirees standard of living will fall, but I am sure it will fair better then remainder of the population.
>The more likely strategy that will be used to make those changes will is known as 'death of a thousand cuts'
Yup, buts its not the retirees recieving them (thousand cuts). Its will be everyone else.
An inability to rely on social security is one more nail in the coffin for financial security in the US. Housing is already crashing in many places and I would expect that dynamic to spread widely over the next few years. Stockmarkets are down - a trend with very much further to go IMO - and a recession (at least) is looming, which would adversely affect employment. Debt levels are unsustainable, hence a period of involuntary debt liquidation is likely. The risk of a meltdown in the derivatives market and a rash of bank failures is too high for comfort. Together these factors impinge on housing, employment, investments, savings, pensions and solvency. Adaptation to a lower energy lifesytle, other than by simply going without, will be much more difficult for a nation in the throes of financial crisis.
Sure if the politicans want to get mob linched or thrown in prison. The politicans will never give up on SS and other entitlements while the Boomers remain the majority of the voting population. After all most of them are boomers, and I don't see many of them being replaced by the younger generations anytime soon.
We have seen in the last few decades the decimation of definded pension programs for many solidly middle class people. I strongly suspect people will accept a scaling back of gov't benefits before they accept large tax increases. Despite our current financial troubles, what is being discussed? Reduction of the AMT, capital gains reduction, estate tax elimination.
Only in 'murica.
This has led to the situation that CEOs earn 262 times pay of average worker. The ratio of course is much higher if you take the lowest paid full time worker. I think it is somewhere upward of 600:1 Used to be around 30:1 in the 1960's. Here is the top decile income share in the United Sates, 1917-2000.
From Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998, Pikketty and Saez.
Not exactly, more like IOUs since the SS surplus money never goes to bid on the bonds. It justs ends up going directly into the general spending account.
> In other words, the feds own both the asset and the liability.
Just the liability. There are no assets because its all been spent. The only asset is the few years remaining for the SS surplus, before entitlement costs exceed the SS revenues. Medicare is already in the red and consumes a big chuck of the SS funds anyway.
>Ben Stein, a Republican, is calling for higher taxes.
That would be a dumb idea. That would be trying to fix a $200 car with $10,000.
There is no such thing as an individual solution to the peak oil (and other) crises coming up. We're going to need big government to get through peak oil, otherwise it's just going to be anarchy and the law of the jungle. So we'd better start getting control of the government away from the military-industrial complex, or it will be a future of eternal war and fascism.
Note that this article is basically built around comments by the Saudi Oil Minister. I wonder what Texas Oilmen would have said in 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976 . . .
Again, roughly half of the Saudi's oil production is coming from a field that: (1) was found 68 years ago and (2) that has made more than 90% of its 1970's estimated URR.
According to Matt Simmons, a retired Aramco executive he talked to said that there was no way that the URR for Ghawar could be more than 70 Gb (it has made about 55 Gb, versus the original URR estimate of 60 Gb).
The recent trend has been for major oil companies to overestimate URR, e.g., the Yibal Field in Oman, and the North Sea case history.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:FW60NIoeqcIJ:www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bakhtiari-O%2 6GJ-April%25202004.doc+peak+oil+production+wocap+saudi+arabia+russia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk &cd=3&ie=UTF-8
April 26, 2004
World oil production capacity model suggests output peak by 2006-07
AM Samsam Bakhtiari
Excerpt:
Simmons even questioned the potential of the world's largest oil field and the Saudis' major producer, the awesome Ghawar: "Aramco [the original Arabian American Oil Co.] estimated Ghawar's reserves to be 60 billion bbl in 1975 on the basis of 400 wells and a very clear mapping of the oil-water contact...and with 55 billion bbl now produced, Ghawar is about to become another Brent, Prudhoe Bay, Samotlor, or Yibal.U"9
Now, the terminal decline of Ghawar would signal the beginning of the end for Saudi Arabia's oil. This should trigger alarm bells all over the petroleum industry and even in the general public (who should realize that global oil supplies are not "forever," not even in Saudi Arabia).
It is worth mentioning that Wocap model predictions for Saudi Arabia (up to 2020) are in full consonance with the potential consequences of Simmons's highly rational thesis.
Again, note that vast increase in driling activity in Saudi Arabia.
If you just filled your car with the last gasoline that a gas station had, your tank would be full, but what does that tell you about the volume of gasoline in the storage tanks in the ground?
Who are these customers? Are they publishing their inventory data somewhere?
While I admire your work (and perseverance) in pointing out the Ghawar situation, I will be very surprised if Ghawar has only 70Gb of oil in it total. The EIA estimates there are at least 70Gb remaining in Ghawar, which I don't believe many view as an outlandish or cornucopian estimate.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html
Why should we give much credence to this one retired oil exec, when all of the more recent estimates point to a much larger number?
The 1970's estimate was by the oil and gas professionals at Aramco. In order to have 70 Gb in remaining reserves, the Aramco professionals would have had to miss the equivalent of about seven Prudhoe Bay Fields (the largest field in North America).
The EIA was estimating that Canadian oil production would increase by 700,000 bpd from 2003 to 2005. It fell slightly.
IMO, Saudi Aramco is, or was, mistaking high production rates with large remaining reserves--just what Shell did in the Yibal Field using similar technology.
Also consider recent revelations about the status of Burgan and Cantarell.
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bakhtiari-O&GJ-April%202004.doc
They seem to have slightly underestimated Russia's production. Russia hit 9.5 mb/d last December according to the EIA, and that was crude and consensate only.
On the other hand they have greatly overestimated, in my opinion anyway, OPEC's output for the next decade. They have OPEC peaking in about 2016 according to the chart. I believe OPEC peaked in 2005. At any rate, there is no way OPEC can delay their peak until 2016. With Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and Indonesia well past their peak, there is no way that OPEC can keep production at or even near current levels until 2016.
For those who are wondering why I believe Iraq is post peak, they produced 3.47 mb/d in 1979 and have not come anywhere close to that figure since. They produced 2.9 mb/d in 1989 before the first Gulf war and 2.57 mb/d in 2000, before the current war. Those were by far their high points since their peak in 1979. So far this year they are averaging 1.77 mb/d. Without the war they proubly could be producing about 2.2 mb/d, or perhaps a bit more. But they are definitely in decline just like most other OPEC nations.
Westexas, how dare you suggest Freedom(c) isn't the reason we are there.
On a side note, I was out shopping with the wife yesterday and in a Hallmark store I found a statue of Mickey Mouse dressed as a Revolutionary War soldier holding a flag which had the word 'Liberty' printed on the base. I turned it over and discovered this Disney product celebrating freedom and democracy had been manufactured in China. In the same store I also found decorative crosses witht he words 'faith, hope, love' printed on them, also manufactured in China. It's as if everything wrong with this country had been concentrated into plastic and molded into the form of that statue and that cross.
I think they could hear me laughing outside the store.
The image I can't get out of my brain is the 15 year old Chinese girl who just moved into the "city." Into the machine which is now her life. The girl who made that soldier holding the flag. The only people innocent in this equation are the girl and that soldier. That soldier who the statue is based on. 15 years old. Sent by his parents to the "city." To find work. But he ended up in a trench. With a rifle that doesn't work. And although it has worked a few times in the past, he has never hit anything with it. But the British have cannon. And he had no idea why he was there.
You and I are going to have to answer for this. But not Mickey Mouse. He's just a cartoon character.
I seem to recall that after Bush invaded Iraq, a team went into Iraq to determine their actual reserves and came up with the number of about 46Gb.. This could be a pre-1970's OPEC inflated number IMHO..
First of all, many oil oilmen are saying that Saudi estimates are way overstated, retired and active, not just one. And second, Matt Simmons is not a retired oil exec, he is an active energy investment banker who makes his living by estimateing oil reserves. Then third, Saudi increased its reserve numbers by 50% in the mid 80s as did everyone else in OPEC. These were pseudo numbers that had no basis in reality. Why the EIA, and the rest of the world, has bought these wild overestimates is a true mystery.
The majority said Yibal was bigger than it turned out. They were wrong.
The majority said the North Sea was bigger than it turned out. They were wrong.
The majority claimed that Burgan was bigger and Kuwait has just admitted that it is not. They were wrong.
The EIA claims US production is going to increase over the next 15 years to levels not seen since the 1970s but they EIA has been predicting US production increases since the US peaked in the early 1970s. The EIA was wrong too.
So who was right? Who was right almost every damned time? Hubbert Linearization was right. And HL says the Saudis are screwed.
Now, do you want to bet on the "experts" who have been wrong over and over and over again? Or do you want to bet on clear math that has been right on the majority of fields to which is has been applied?
I don't know about you but "experts" who are wrong year after year are no experts in my book.
I have my doubts regarding the predictive power of the HL fit, as illustrated below.
http://static.flickr.com/56/174757347_d283477e71.jpg?v=0
The graph shows an HL plot for Texas oil production data (Source: Texas Railroad Commission). I have superimposed on this data two HL plots using two different time ranges (1947-1959 and 1960-1972). These two HL fits provide very differnt answers for URR and future annual production. If it were 1959, for example, you might guess that Texas would only produce a total of 30Gb, vs. the 60Gb in reality. By contrast, if it were 1972 (the actual peak), and one used an HL fit, you might predict a URR much larger than 60GB.
The curve fit, for Texas anyway, only works well if you use the post-peak data, at which point it is no longer predictive.
The predictive power of the HL fit, therefore, seems very questionable in my mind. I don't doubt there are cases where it has worked well (e.g., total U.S. production or the North Sea), but there are just as many where it fails badly.
(If someone can provide the syntax for inserting images into posts, it will be greatly appreciated.)
To get an accurate plot for Texas, you need to plug in the pre-1935 cumulative production, about 3.5 Gb.
My "HL Rule" is as follows: it seems to work best for a region that has produced about 2 mbpd or more for about 20 years. This would suggest that the time to start making HL predictions for Texas would be around 1964, and the Texas HL data from 1958 on show a consistent linear trend.
According to Deffeyes, the HL method is a simplified version of what Hubbert used to accurately pick the Lower 48 peak (which peaked in 1970). In 1956, Hubbert predicted that the Lower 48 would peak in a time period from 1965 to 1971.
Note that we have FAR more production data for Saudi Arabia and the world than Hubbert had for the Lower 48. Hubbert's prediction would be analogous to us having this discussion in 1992.
If you check around the world you will find other places where a field was constrained, either deliberately or because of conflict. The Hubbert Linerization is never accurate under such conditions so it is no surprise that it fails here as well.
Doesn't Saudi Arabia fall within this category?
In any case, you are arguing about one portion of a region--the Lower 48--where Hubbert make an accurate prediction regarding the timing of the peak.
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006/05/texas-and-us-lower-48-oil-production_25.html
-he has no axe to grind
-he is not paycheque dependent (you can get people to say almost anything if they live from paycheque to paycheque)
-if he is retired, he probably lived his working life through the 70's before nationalisation and before and during the sudden impulse of 'reserves' in the 80's.
He is not the only one that is worried.
I know people working on Ghawar.
Privately, they are Brick Shitting Worried.
The skill sets required are now more similar to those associated with deep, post peak, recovery techniques.
Yes, but he is an oil banker/consultant. It's hard to argue he's a dinterested party. He has his own agenda and money interests, which includes selling books and selling advice to clients.
Also, I was questioning the reliance on a "retired Aramco executive" who probably doesn't have access to the latest data. Why do should I refuse to believe the company line, but take what a retired member of that company claims as the truth? Reliance on a single source for such an important number seems questionable.
I don't claim to know the reserves of Ghawar, but it seems very likely that they are larger than 60Gb, especially since the 55Gb total production number that Westexas is relying on is from 2003; see slide 25 of http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/IEA-SOM.pdf).
Assumming the 5 mbl/day * 3years + 55GB = 60.5Gb in 2006.
So now the question is, how long can almost 2Gb/year be maintained, and how would you expect production to decline given various URR estimates? If Ghawar has only 70Gb, then its 85% depleted. I'd be surprised for near peak producction to be continuation at such a late stage.
The U.S. government estimates 70Gb remain (130Gb total). The conservative estimates I see on peakoil.net are 66-100Gb or more. (see http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL48/newsletter48.pdf, which lists 60Gb remaining in 2004, for a total of 114Gb, plus another 10Gb probable)
Saudi Arabia claims 120Gb remain (about 180Gb).
Who, besides Matt Simmons and a unnamed retire oil exec, are preducting 70GB total?
I was wondering if anyone else had noted Simmons' obvious conflict of interest. He makes money by financing oil projects. So if everyone believes oil about to run out and we need to increase investment by 100's of billions of dollars, Simmons will become very rich (or more accurately he will become even richer). Now he may be absolutely right, but he clearly has a big conflict of interest
I have heard Simmons on TV saying that his entire career was resting on his being correct about peak oil.
Of course we all like to be correct, but Simmons is betting his career on it. What more can we ask for?
Texas had a long, slow decline because secondary followed primary. All large fields will see far higher decline rates these days.
by Jan Lundberg
"Maybe the enemy is us... Grow food at home."
- Matthew R. Simmons, June 20, 2004, at the Pentagon-sponsored seminar series Energy: A Conversation About Our National Addiction
It does not take long for people who study peak oil to see some heavy implications of the end of abundant oil. After a while some of the more realistic probabilities become clear and often become one's main topic of conversation. The possibilities, dangers and opportunities start motivating one to change his or her life.
http://www.energybulletin.net/17555.html
>I know people working on Ghawar.
Hey, Can you ask what the water cut is up to these days?
I assume SA output is down because of the rising water cut. It would be nice to have some confirmation.
Thanks!
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bakhtiari-O&GJ-April%202004.doc
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/02/239-ghawar-now-empty.html
If consuming 90% of URR is bad, presumably consuming over 100% of URR is even worse. Imagine, if this goes on, we could end up consuming 110%, 150%, 200% or even more of URR! The very foundations of mathematics are being put into jeopardy by the mechanics of this unusual oil formation.
---
"I'm behind him 1000 percent." - Presidential candidate George McGovern, on Senator Tom Eagleton just before dumping him from the ticket.
Ghawar is now in steep decline. Peakoildebunker will soon be eating crow along with all the other deniers.
"1975 ultimate recoverable reserve estimate: 60GB."
Total extraction to date has been just about 60GB, and yet production has not collapsed.
Most sources (outside Simmons) are guessing anywhere from 66Gb total to 180Gb total. The EIA and ASPO, the latter of which has some of the most conservative production/URR predictions, are estimating Ghawar on the order of 120Gb total, or 60Gb remaining.
Ghawar is now in steep decline.
Do you have a source for this claim?
And the last line states:
Simmons is asking how wrong could they have been. Could they be off by 10 billion barrels? Of course. Could they have been wrong by 60 billion barrels? Not bloody likely.
As a matter of fact I do hae a source for this claim:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html
Nuff said!
Best,
Matt
With horizontal drilling techniques, companies can keep higher produciton levels up longer than they can with vertical wells. When the water hits the horizontal wells, it's all over, e.g., the Yibal Field.
Three of the four largest producing oil fields are definitely declining. The only quesiton is Ghawar, and they used the same horizontal drilling technique that Shell used at Yibal.
The retired Aramco executive said that in his opinion, there was no way the URR at Ghawar could be more than 70 Gb. The 10 Gb spread, between 60 and 70, is a little smaller than Prudhoe Bay. It is about twic the size of the East Texas Field.
The East Texas Field, which made about 5.5 Gb, is the largest oil field in the Lower 48 and it is about 45 miles long. Therefore, for every 5.5 Gb that the Aramco scientists underestimated Ghawar, they have missed the equivalent of a 45 mile long oil field.
According to Matt Simmons, the world record recovery factor for this type of reservoir is 45%. The Saudis are claiming 75%.
Consider the Yibal Field--same reservoir & same type of drilling. In 2003, the field had produced 42% of OOIP and production was down by two-thirds from its recent peak.
The key thing to remember about Ghawar is that the remaining recoverable oil is in a rapidly thinning oil column between the water and an emerging gas cap--which is the same problem as Cantarell.
Even if Ghawar can match the world's record (giving it a URR of 77 Gb), it can't keep producing 4.5 to 5.0 mbpd up until the 45% of OOIP mark.
Based on historial analouges, the best case is that Ghawar is 78% depleted, and it appears that Yibal crashed at about the same point that Ghawar is at now, relative to OOIP.
Cantarell may be facing declines of up to 40% per year--worst case, based on Pemex reports.
Burgan and Daqing are both declining.
These are the world's four largest producing oil fields.
Saudi Arabia has admitted to a 5% decline since December,and world crude + condensate production is down by 1% since December (based on EIA data).
Anyone else see a cause and effect here?
This applies to me too. I should have been talking about cumulative production to date as a percentage of original oil in place also.
Did you see Oil CEO's question re the "tell me more" cutesy commercials by oil&gas? It is on an earlier thread. One question is why Big Coal and Big Oil are doing this huge media blitz now? (--just before November 2006 US elections)
Sickening.
Sickening.
Better to have her at home studying, watching tv, playing video games, etc, instead of rioting in the streets because there is nothing to do when the power goes out.
Which is worse, burning coal to keep the masses at home and entertained, or to turn off the lights and let them go bats on the streets (especially during a hot summer)?
One has to think of the ramifications of both sides.
The Invisible Hand always points us to the blinding light of Truth.
Makes you feel smug and warmy fuzzy all over to know that Big Coal, Big Oil and Big Gas are united in their message-to-the-masses about how shining clean and youthfully exuberant our Tomorrow Land will be.
I'm still waiting for the Clean Waste Uranium Consortium to come on the air and tell us about how "secure" and "safe" we will be with a thousand reactors glowing from that shining city on the hill.
Not a puff piece. They talk about the conflicts between food and fuel, questions about water use, and subsidies.
They also have a 2nd article where they mention some of the questions about EROEI and have quotes from Pimintel.
Gotta be addicted to something...
I'm hesitant to posit this, because I have empirical data to back it up, but here is the gist of it...
Today's Exhibit: Greenland's Ice Sheet Is Slip-Sliding Away
A) The carbon tax decreases consumption and spurs conservation, therefor progressively decreasing the tax receipts as the SS's liability increases, leaving it unfunded once again, and likely to fail.
B) Oil is so inelastic that the carbon tax doesn't decrease carbon/oil at all, thereby not solving GW or PO.
Although, in all reality, SS will fail as well as GW and PO coming to pass. Such a bleak world. =(
Currently SS taxes are 2x 7.65%. It might be employee 2.11% one year; 2.78% the next. Employer at 6.5% every year unless employee hits 0%.
and
http://flood.firetree.net/
It took a little bit of looking but I was able to zoom into my condo complex (in California) and see that a 7M rise does indeed put us at "oceanfront." Well, "us" except for a few unfortunates on one street in the corner - they go under.
Memo from Wife: stop drinking Rioja and messing about on that PO website and go walk the dog.
I'm sure this is accurate, given the price spread between heavy/sour and light/sweet.
Which would peak first? Heavy/sour or light/sweet?
At the rate that Cantarell production is probably going to collpase, the heavy/sour surplus may not last for long.
How, dear God how, can any sain person take this crap seriously?
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=6&id=5297
Wild Speculation ahead!
Thxs for the info & URL. I admit I am confused: does SA have the fossil fuels or not? Perhaps this is purely intentional; part of a larger program to help induce a global paradigm shift? Confusion is a very powerful tool.
MY hunch is if they truly had the FFs they claimed, and TPTB knew nothing about Peakoil: the SA Princes would not be averse to a full, independent, outside audit as Simmons requests. They would then have no problem getting financing for infrastructure enhancement and further exploration, and the 'fear premium' would be greatly reduced in oil pricing. But obviously, this does not serve the cause of world energy conservation, and would deplete SA's 'supposed 4 Ghawars' even quicker. A bad strategy to bootstrap a global paradigm shift with a gradual numeric decline too [Population curve matching to the Hubbert Downslope].
Instead, by refusing to allow an audit: the 'fear premium', and the correspondingly higher world oil pricing, makes it easier for the other countries to develop their last FF resources and bootstrap alternatives; this helps to assure that SA [with the lowest extractive cost/barrel] will remain supply-dominant into the future whether SA is peaking or not-- because the entire world is headed for the Hubbert downslope. The 'fear premium' is also a nice bonus to enrich SA financial flows too. The higher prices help to mitigate demand and induce conservation. Any SA excess supply capacity would be vital to help energetically constrain violent social effects of unforeseen, sudden shortages around the globe.
Your linked URL goes into greater detail of SA-other Govt mutual development projects. Perhaps, at this superelite level, the Princes do fully dislose an accurate audit, and the other parties use this info for decision-making, but agree to not disclose the 'real oilfield facts' to us peons.
This would be in harmony with inevitable detritus entropy and with Asimov's Foundation concepts of predicted collapse and directed decline to hopefully optimize the Dieoff Bottleneck; a somewhat orderly withdrawal to the lifeboats versus a desperate scramble.
Consider my numerous earlier postings on Zimbabwe. Pure speculation of course, but is it possible that economic hitmen from the IMF & World Bank purposely manipulated Mugabe into a directed decline modus operandi as an experiment? They could have refused to cash Mugabe's IMF repayment checks, and requested that he use those funds to help his people. Instead, millions of Zimbabweans are forced into de-industrializing and reverting to a purely biosolar lifestyle. Farm labor has jumped from 29% to 60% of the population in just twelve years with no civil war [at least so far].
I consider that a remarkable achievement at Powerdown. I would hope America can go from 2% farm labor to 30% farm labor with the same degree of relative cooperation in the next twelve years. Consider Westexas's prediction that college grads and illegals will both be needed postPeak to help harvest the crops to prevent starvation as we paradigm shift with ELP.
I have posted before how most addicted detritovores will not willingly Powerdown-- the convenience of merely flipping a switch, or squeezing a gas-station pump handle to harness the 'energy slaves' is simply overwhelming. Proactive mitigation requires the execution of plans to ruthlessly drive us from our addiction and genetic impulses. Will Zimbabwean Powerdown become an institutionalized program around our little blue marble?
All of us TODers agree something has got to give; that is why we read and post. The genetically induced grasping for power and political advantage at the expense of weaker humans in a postPeak world, in effect, creates an invisible Foundation; another basic tenet from Asimov-- the majority of us will never realize the forces directing our decline.
As postPeak problems mount around the planet: a truly formal, organized Foundation should inevitably arise to hopefully prevent the full-on nuclear gift exchange and negotiate a monumental global numeric decline. Jay Hanson strongly doubts this possibility-- He posits quite convincingly that the TPTB will resort to the nuclear dictum of "Use 'em, or Lose 'em" or induce a designed Pandemic PowerDown. I remain just very slightly more optimistic, but this could be just be GAS delusion.
Asimov's Foundation book series had two Foundations. Is it possible for the combo of the 'invisible market hand' and genetic drives to be one, and the combo of supercomputer simulations and elite agreements to be the other? A wolfpack clearly genetically cooperates and realtime tactically coordinates to bring down prey-- will our Topdogs genetically and politically prey upon the sheeple for the betterment of all postPeak? This is merely as Darwin suggests, writ large on a global psycho-social stage.
The use of the Hubbert Curve, Demographic statistics, Global Warming scientific tracking, depletion rates of other vital resources, Olduvai Theory, ERoEI disparities, and other data available in the CIA Factbook and other sources, combined with the truly critical, highly classified info we will never see-- could be the basis for highly involved simulations and political, psycho-social steering efforts to insure a desired outcome.
As mentioned above, confusion is a very powerful tool. Us TODers are constantly amazed and dismayed at the MSM, and Govt statistical reports and newsreleases from around the globe. Is it all intentional?
Every society that collapsed before blundered down in ignorance by their single genetically-driven Foundation-- Are our societal leaders sufficiently informed to utilize a Second Scientific Foundation to optimize our inevitable decline?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
-------
Bob,
Did you see that recent article about the computer program they have to see what arguments and which arguers in blogs are the most persuasive?
I wonder what they do/say about the discussion here on TOD and elsewhere.
I think a lot of authors/website proprietors grossly over estimate their own importance and I don't want to fall into that egotistical trap but I can't help but wonder who and what is reading the blogs. We know the Naval intelligence paid Colin Campbell a visit. Good lord if that had been me I would have shat my pants on the spot.
I have decided not to say too many bad things Dick Cheney any more. You know what he does to attorneys.
Best,
Matt
LOL!
Hell, I can't even get my longtime girlfriend to discuss Peakoil--she gets super pissed off and threatens me with the highway or her way!
I just crudely paint 'landscape' scenarios with a big brush. I give full credit for detailed political 'portraits' to a poster that you are already familiar with. I think Jay was really impressed by this young man's posts, I know I was, as the countless posts were meticulously referenced and historically accurate, but controversial nonetheless. Nuff said.
I truly believe TOD is already fully locked and loaded into the key intelligence agencies around the globe--they would have to be incredibly stupid to overlook the discussion of websites like TOD.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
That would be good. Perhaps they'll throw some weight and kick some sense into getting the rest of the gov't to take this seriously.
Although I am concerned about mass acknowledge about PO. I think it could prematurely kick off a crisis. Its better for them to work behind the scene and let the masses worry about same sex marriage or whatever riduculous crap that being debated today.
But I live in a society where most kinds of post peak oil investmets already are on their way and all that is needed is to mobilize and hurry up.
I think your missing a critical issue. Mass knowledge of PO will likely lead to radical production cuts or even a complete end to global exports. Already we see many exporters nationalize oil and gas assets, and its likely to get much worse. For instance, if you were living in Norway or some other exporting nation, would you want you gov't to continue to handing over oil to some foriegn nation that is already up to eyeballs in debt? Or would you want to keep that oil in reserve for your own domestic consumption or perhaps leave some for your children or grandchildren?
I firmly believe that this will happen and on a global scale with virtually every exporter. I can't see business as usual remaining after global acknowledgement of PO.
Second, we don't know how the worlds leading importers will react to a cut off. I suspect that some might take drastic actions to secure oil and gas imports. For instance China already is trying to lock in long term import contracts. What do you think they would do, if a small exporter, told them they are voiding their contract? We also don't know how unstable regions of the world will react. Would nationals of middle eastern nations rise up an overthrow their gov't, and destroy oil production equipment? There are too many variables that point in the direction of chaos.
Therefore, in my opinion its best that PO remain relativity quiet. I do believe the best option is for one to make their own preparations rather than wait for the gov't to jump on the ball. The choice is yours.
Thanks
How about some iron ore, jet fighters, high strenght steel, hybrid trucks, lumber processing equipment, cell network or papper for that oil? I am not especially worried about that scenario since I live in a country that has a trade surplus, fairly low debt and lots of export industries with goods that people realy would like to have on the downslope after peak oil.
The industries are also interconnected. There is a fairly large refinery in Sweden who gradually is turning into a petrol and diesel exporter. Its Saudi Arabian owned and process heavy Russian oil. Most of our munitions industries are brittish owned and "we" export weapons and blue prints to manny countries. And so on. This means that one of the major jobs for our politicians is to make it favorable to have industries running in Sweden and two major things seems to be good infrastructure and a calm society with few conflicts and so on.
But if you have no substantial export industries running and you are deep in debt it realy sucks. (But my personal fortune is of course only loosly connected to my nations fortune, having it easier on average do not guarantee anything. )
Demand for all these products will either decline or dissappear entirely. For instance in a energy contrained global economy there would be no demand for ore, and recycling from scrap (lots of SUVs come to mind) would likely be more than sufficient to meet demain. Some of the other items such has cell phone equipment, industrial tools, and trucks will not be in demand enough to support the factories. Companies won't waste their capital upgrading equipment especially if labor becomes cheap and growth ends. Second importing good and services overseas will likely become prohibitally expensive. Do you think Sweden's telecommunication business can stay fully employed with out exports?
>I live in a country that has a trade surplus
But which countries do you have a trade surplus with? Most likely is largely with the US or perhaps china which is half a world away from Sweden. A trade surplus in my opinion is meaningless, since its unlikely Sweden will be able to ever use that capital. Basically US consumers are handing you dollars that will be worthless post PO. In my opinion a trade surplus means that you have handed over goods and services for a discount because that surplus will never be paid back. Consider if I loan a $1,000 with a 8% interest rate to a person that has no intention of ever paying it back.
Overall contries that run trade surpluses have over capacity production. When PO brings an end to globalization all that extra capacity will disappear, which will result in much higher unemployment.
>The industries are also interconnected.
Thats true, but this only exacerbates the problems. For instance what happens if one of companies that makes a subcomponent goes bankrupt. Or Perhaps the shipping company the transfer goods goes bankrupt.
>There is a fairly large refinery in Sweden who gradually is turning into a petrol and diesel exporter.
Most exporting countries have sufficient refining capacity for domestic demand or are building additional refining capacity as we speak. I doubt they will rely on foriegn refining post PO. Post PO, that refinery will shutdown permenently. Its also quite likely the countries with fossil reserves would ration them into make them last longer, hence, less refining required.
>Most of our munitions industries are brittish owned and "we" export weapons and blue prints to manny countries
Since most industrialized nations have mechanized units its likely that they will be able to sustain a large miltary presence. For instance the US will certainly withdraw from Europe and Asia soon. Even if PO does occur anytime soon, the US can no longer afford to remain Atlas. Unless Sweden plans to sell arms to warlords, and mad men, there isn't going to be any consumers for your countries miltary hardware.
>This means that one of the major jobs for our politicians is to make it favorable to have industries running in Sweden and two major things seems to be good infrastructure and a calm society with few conflicts and so on.
Post PO will bring a rapid end to globalization and every nation will need to revert to a home grown/manufactured strategy.
I will be the first to admit that I am not from Sweden, nor have a visited the country. From time to time, I have spoken with individuals from there that have sent up residence in the US. Based upon my understanding of the country, the bigest issue I see for Sweden would be its ability to feed its population without major use of fossil fuel based fertializers and lacking food imports (as most nations will also struggle with). The other secondary issues would be winter heating (assume no gas imports, no oil imports), much higher unemployment, higher dependance on gov't (socialism). In my opinion nations that become dependant on the gov't to support them usually fair worse, than those with people that are willing to work independantly to deal with crisises.
As I've stated on several posts, no body can make firm assumptions about how the world to react to PO and a decline of energy resources. To presume that any nation will fair well because of its infrastructure, social capital, etc in a post PO future would be making the wrong assumption. My intention is not to critize, but simply to get you thinking. My only advise is not depend on gov't or some social change that would lead a bright future but to take some action of your own to secure your future. What could you possibly lose by making your own preparations.
Thanks.
I assume that energy limitations wont stop people from trying to overcome those limitations, for instance by building nuclear powerplants and windmills or by changing to more efficient wehicles. We got raw materuials, industries and know how to help with that and thus I am sure there will be trade. Weapons and munitions are a little depressing but fine with me if we sell to democracies who need to defend themsleves.
> Overall contries that run trade surpluses have over capacity production.
Yes and that is a good thing to have. We are probably giving away resources in the meantime, congratulations USA. :-)
> Thats true, but this only exacerbates the problems. For instance what happens if one of companies that makes a subcomponent goes bankrupt. Or Perhaps the shipping company the transfer goods goes bankrupt.
That is the downside of needing to take care of each other to keep things running. I am not especially worried about bankruptsies as long as staff and capital assets find new work.
> Most exporting countries have sufficient refining capacity for domestic demand or are building additional refining capacity as we speak. I doubt they will rely on foriegn refining post PO. Post PO, that refinery will shutdown permenently. Its also quite likely the countries with fossil reserves would ration them into make them last longer, hence, less refining required.
If you are right about capital investments being very expensive I would not worry about an efficient heavy crude refinery loosing its customers. Its not as we would steal the Russian oil passing thru it. There is a cost for running such businesses in Sweden but it is fairly small, the benefit for us is jobs(expensive), some tax incomes and that for instance this refineries suppliers and customers needs us.
> Unless Sweden plans to sell arms to warlords, and mad men, there isn't going to be any consumers for your countries miltary hardware.
I am afraid a fallback to 1930:s level of energy availability still would support a disaster. Swedish arms sales have in near history been among the cleaner even if some stuff ended up on both sides of the Iraq - Iran war.
This is the kind of business that realy should not be the best one if these times should end fairly well.
> In my opinion nations that become dependant on the gov't to support them usually fair worse, than those with people that are willing to work independantly to deal with crisises.
I agree but it is worse then that. This is the kind of crisis that needs both a competent government and private personal work. We need to get rid of some of our socilistic systems asap and other parts of out big government needs to become more efficient.
> To presume that any nation will fair well because of its infrastructure, social capital, etc in a post PO future would be making the wrong assumption.
I do not expect us to gain on PO but I think there is a good chance that it locally will be a fairly gentle time of change. There is of course no guarantees but infrastructure and social capital are among those things that will matter.
> My only advise is not depend on gov't or some social change that would lead a bright future but to take some action of your own to secure your future. What could you possibly lose by making your own preparations.
I am working on it.
So does China and they have much lower labor costs and will soon have more engineers, doctors, physicsts than the US and Europe combined, and they'll work on the cheap. Which countries do you think will be buying goods and services from Sweden post PO/dollar crisis? Where do these countries get their oil to run these products on. How much stuff will the exports what from Sweden (if they can get from China at a fraction of the cost) and how much will it cost for the oil that you will need to run your industry (assuming you can find a willing seller)?
>If you are right about capital investments being very expensive I would not worry about an efficient heavy crude refinery loosing its customers.
Exports including (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Norway) all have sufficient refining capacity to meet domestic demand at a lower consumption rate. Iran just announced plans to end refined oil imports, so that one customer that is going to disappear soon. Russia plans to end oil exports by 2009 (probably sooner), and they'll won't need to outsource refining soon either. Saudi Arabia and Kwait are need depletion and both been spending billions on new heavy oil refineries. Who is going to be a long term heavy oil consumer that will need to buy from Sweden? Perhaps Sweden will supply the US on credit?
>I am not especially worried about bankruptsies as long as staff and capital assets find new work.
Thats the problem. Consumers will have less money to spend, first by higher energy costs (already happening), later by higher unemployment (comming soon). What happen to Europe's economy during the Great Depression? Its started in America, not Europe.
>Swedish arms sales have in near history been among the cleaner even if some stuff ended up on both sides of the Iraq - Iran war.
Think about the past. What were the sales during the great depression? What happened in Europe during the 1930's. Do you think it would be wise to sell arms to fascist regimes, or islamic regimes that might have there eyes on Europe (bent on bring the joy of islam to all Europeans)?
>This is the kind of crisis that needs both a competent government and private personal work. We need to get rid of some of our socilistic systems asap and other parts of out big government needs to become more efficient.
Now your talking, but do you see these changes happening now? How will mass knowledge of Peak Oil kick start these changes? Do most people directly confront challeges or seek refuge in a bottle of ethanol or narcotics? Do people general remain rational during a crisis? (Why is shouting fire in a crowded building consider illegal?)
>I do not expect us to gain on PO but I think there is a good chance that it locally will be a fairly gentle time of change. There is of course no guarantees but infrastructure and social capital are among those things that will matter.
I wouldn't bet on it. Originally people like Deffeyes and Simmons seemed pretty upbeat when they went public a few years ago. Now Deffeyes talks about the stone age and Simmons talks about going pre-industrial.
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events-06-03.html
" 'By 2025, we'll be back in the Stone Age.' I'm sorry that some readers thought that I actually meant that we would be wearing furs and hunting buffalo with flint spear points. It's called "hyperbole." Nevertheless, I have been looking into acquiring some property on the Arkansas novaculite belt. Great flint."
http://www.energybulletin.net/17555.html (Simmons reflections)
>assume that energy limitations wont stop people from trying to overcome those limitations, for instance by building nuclear powerplants and windmills or by changing to more efficient wehicles.
Its a lot more than building a few nuclear plants and lots of windmills. You can't fly a plane or manufacture fertializer, plastics and other everyday materials made from petrochemicals. Spend sometime figuring out out much energy Sweden uses from fossil fuels. 1 Gallon of gasoline contains 129 Megajoules, and one cubic meter of national gas contains about 10 MegaJoules. Assume conversion efficiencies of about 20% for replacements. How much electricity does Sweden need to make to replace its consumption, even if its becomes 100% more energy efficient?
A 1 Gigawatt Nuke plant can produce about 90 gallons of gasoline a minute (or equivlent in other liquid fuels). How much gasoline does Sweden consume every day. How many Nuke plants would Sweden need to build just for gasoline consumption?
If you start figuring out the math behind the energy consumption, I believe you will begin to see the crisis ahead. No amount of cooperation effort is going to permit business as usual without heavy use of fossil fuels (at least with the populations levels of today).
Thanks
Swedish statistics from www.scb.se 2004, end use in Petajoules
Coal and coke 63.4
Biofuels 252.8
Oil products 485.0
Natural gas 32.7
District heating 168.2 (Why is it separate?)
Electricity 470.8 (219,7 hydro 279,0 nuclear +misc production -exports)
Deliverd petroleum products 2005 in m3.
Light petrol for city gas production 56 844
Aviation petrol 4 561
Wehicle petrol 5 508 193
Other light oils 564
Nafta 22 213
Aviation fuel 1 087 503
Other light oils 3 699
Diesel 4 270 455
Light heating oil 1 518 349
Medim heating oil 1 389 409
Bunker fuels for foreign trade
Diesel 50 692
Light heating oil 129 468
Medium heating oil 2 003 969
No new conclusions yet but a 5 units of nuclear electricity for one unit of oil would be crazy since a lot can be replaced with one to one or less.
They also have a local billion people population to service.
I am quite sure goods will be transported along the electrified trans sibirian railway in both directions.
> Which countries do you think will be buying goods and services from Sweden post PO/dollar crisis?
Mostly neighbours in EU and then Norway and Russia.
Lots of business deals will have to be renegotiated in new currencies or barter.
> Where do these countries get their oil to run these products on.
Most of it will probably run non nuclear/coal/wind/etc electricity.
> How much stuff will the exports what from Sweden (if they can get from China at a fraction of the cost) and how much will it cost for the oil that you will need to run your industry (assuming you can find a willing seller)?
I am good at answering questions but not that good.
Chinas energy advantage is Coal, Swedens is large ammounts of electricity and biomass.
> Russia plans to end oil exports by 2009 (probably sooner), and they'll won't need to outsource refining soon either.
Realy? Then I need to feel sorry for the refinery owner who is investing in a coker unit.
> Saudi Arabia and Kwait are need depletion and both been spending billions on new heavy oil refineries. Who is going to be a long term heavy oil consumer that will need to buy from Sweden?
The only supplier who makes good logistical sense is Russia.
> Perhaps Sweden will supply the US on credit?
Whats in it for us?
> Thats the problem. Consumers will have less money to spend, first by higher energy costs (already happening), later by higher unemployment (comming soon). What happen to Europe's economy during the Great Depression? Its started in America, not Europe.
It has worked on another level before. The problem is probably that the habits and instututions are for things to only move in one direction. Its very important that people learn to do local "low yield" business, one problem with that is that it goes against the habit of centralization and governemnt control of lots of servicers.
> Think about the past. What were the sales during the great depression? What happened in Europe during the 1930's. Do you think it would be wise to sell arms to fascist regimes, or islamic regimes that might have there eyes on Europe (bent on bring the joy of islam to all Europeans)?
Thats depressing, we did supply nazi germany with lots of raw materials and equipment in exchange for coal, arms and not being invaded. I do not know if our current leaders have as long and brown tounges.
>> This is the kind of crisis that needs both a competent government and private personal work. We need to get rid of some of our socilistic systems asap and other parts of out big government needs to become more efficient.
> Now your talking, but do you see these changes happening now?
Actually yes, some small changes initiated by our curent socialist party and larger ones on their way if the next election goes my way. A lot more could have been done a lot sooner but everything isent stuck in the trenches.
> How will mass knowledge of Peak Oil kick start these changes?
Honey we need a plug in hybrid and our nighbour is a licenced electrician who can wire up one of those big red outlets in our garage.
Wich party had a realistics plan for building a trolley line in our neighbourhood?
I think it would be a better idea to plant some fruit trees then to fly on vacation.
> Do most people directly confront challeges or seek refuge in a bottle of ethanol or narcotics?
Ethanol drinking is up but the consumption is flattening out. I think it depends on if you are busy or not. Its very intresting if lots of manual labour can be used to facilitate peak oil changes. There is at least a very big potential for local service work.
> Do people general remain rational during a crisis? (Why is shouting fire in a crowded building consider illegal?)
Our leadership usually get better in times of crisis.
PO isent a "the house is on fire" crisis, its more like having a leaky roof, you need to fix it fast but not within a minute.
> I wouldn't bet on it. Originally people like Deffeyes and Simmons seemed pretty upbeat when they went public a few years ago. Now Deffeyes talks about the stone age and Simmons talks about going pre-industrial.
I wont stop trying to figure out good things even if I would end up in the middle of a die off. Unfortunately I am better at doing it for others then myself, this makes me question the quality of my ideas. ;-)
> Its a lot more than building a few nuclear plants and lots of windmills. You can't fly a plane or manufacture fertializer, plastics and other everyday materials made from petrochemicals.
Dont fly then, use less plastic, recycle, use coal and then biomass as feedstock and you can make nitrogen fertilizer with electricity.
> A 1 Gigawatt Nuke plant can produce about 90 gallons of gasoline a minute (or equivlent in other liquid fuels). How much gasoline does Sweden consume every day.
Around 30 000 m3 per day of internal transportation fuels.
30 000 / (90 * 3.78 * 0.001 * 60 * 24) = 61
That is three times the current electricity production in Sweden. But I have not checked your figures and a real replacement would use a combination of more rail transportation, efficiency, plug in hybrids, biomass based fuels and then perhaps some hydrogen from electricity.
> If you start figuring out the math behind the energy consumption, I believe you will begin to see the crisis ahead. No amount of cooperation effort is going to permit business as usual without heavy use of fossil fuels (at least with the populations levels of today).
A perfectly ok almost buisness as usual would for me be bicycling to work, taking the train to visit long away friends and driving to some destination with my own or a rented car during some weekends. A replacement time of 20 years for home electronics and utilities etc and a 100 years for housing would be perfectly ok. It would only require a little better quality and the resource needs would go way down.
Venezula ships mainly very heavy crude to Sweden for refining and gets forest harvesting machinery, hybrid trucks, arms, speciality steel, electrical utility equipment, engineering design and whatever V needs (trams, large valves, solar concentrators to produce steam to recover heavy oil). And ABBA recordings !
V has a vested interest in not having just one supplier (say China) and no one fears the Swedes. They would be a good "second source".
And Russia can always use quality products as well (they are weak in that area).
Good for you to live in such a proactive country. =D Hopefully other global leaders are watching and learning.
I agree with you that universal Peakoil awareness would be better than denial and ignorance. Once worldwide awareness of possible Smallpox elimination by 'ring encirclement vaccination' was achieved-- everyone cooperated and mobilized towards this end. I consider this the greatest example of worldwide cooperation and achievement in our entire history!
Thus, the entire world should be treating Peakoil as just another Smallpox [Small-thoughts] outbreak. Proper 'ring encirclement vaccination' requires widespread Peakoil Outreach education, and every leader from local to the national level needs to be encouraging everyone to 'vaccinate' themselves with conservation and lower birthrates.
The US, with the highest/capita energy consumption rate; or the worst 'conservation Small-thoughts' infection rates, should be the worldwide leader in Powerdown to help reduce infectious consumption elsewhere [like China's desire for cars].
The gradual proactive encirclement of high consumption areas by 'innoculated' outsiders spreading Peakoil Outreach 'vaccinations' will finally defeat the terribly harmful infection of ignorance and denial.
To achieve this 'ring encirclement' end, I would not be averse to the President, in cooperation with the AZ governor, to temporarily declare AZ martial law and close the statewide borders to any people ingress or outgress with Earthmarine forces, gradually impose $10/gallon equiv gas prices on all energies, 24/7 TV broadcast of Peakoil Outreach info, and mandate a gradual multi-year shrinkage of shared carry-capacity with outside states to proactively drive ELP Powerdown and biosolar Powerup. This would rapidly reduce infectious ignorance and denial in our Asphalt Wonderland, and instantly jumpstart mutual cooperation to hopefully prevent Nature's Overshoot cull.
When AZ has reached sustainability; is finally clear of Small-thought infection, then 'ring encirclement vaccination' at the next state. Lather, rinse, and repeat till the US is energy infection free. Strength thru Detritus Powerdown and Biosolar Powerup!
Obviously, this is very controversial, but should be considered preferable by all versus having the 'last man standing scenario' and Mother Nature batting last.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thankyou, but it could be a lot better. Our current government has manny faults exept talking about peak oil where it realy helps to have the prime minister using peak oil as a reelection issue.
If USA would set a good example and start saving and producing culture describing ways to be happier with small energy consumption it would be the best thing that could happen.
Now I am going to write up an idea on how we in our municipiality could finance more roads, finishing the bicycle lane network and building a tramline at the same time. I realy would like to have good consistent quality on all three major parallell local transportation infrastructures car/bicycle/collective after the peak. Wish me luck with my local newspaper.
Unfortunately this is a poor example (no critizem intended). Let me me explain:
Smallpox or other efforts to curb disease do not consider the possible of resource contraints. The challenges of Peak Oil are about contraints that limit the ability of humanity to grow, explore and do research. There is no "vaccination" for Peak Oil. A better example of what PO means to mankind is a population trapped on a island that is rapidly depleting every available resource until there is none.
Imagine yourself trapped on a small island with a large group of people. Every day the population consumes more food than the island can renew while burning all the wood to keep warm at night. You discover that with in a few weeks all of the food and wood will be gone and now your faced with the challege of what to do. You can do one of three things, build yourself a small raft, take some food and try to find another island. Do nothing and hope you will be rescued before the food runs out, or tell the bad news to the group. If you tell them now, there isn't enough food available to support them all for much longer, and there isn't time to plant more crops before the food is exhausted. There isn't enough wood left to build a raft big enough to fit everyone on it, nor will there be time to complete a large one before the food is exhausted.
However, if you bring the issue to the entire group, its very likely they start panicing. Some will try to secure the remaining food, some might try to build a raft but you can bet there will be a fight over who gets to ride on the raft and who stays behind.
While it sounds selfish to go build yourself a liferaft, its probably the best thing to do. Since you're likely to build a sound raft and adquietly supply food, you have a good chance of survival. Perhaps you find help or another island before the group starves and you can come back and rescue them. I believe the worse thing you can do is to inform the group and set them in a panic. Perhaps if the issue was discovered well in advance and there were several months, you could have informed the group of the pending crisis and make the required changes in time. But at this late in the game it will do absolutely no good.
>gradually impose $10/gallon equiv gas prices on all energies
At $10/gallon all the store shelfs will go bare, teh unemployement rate goes vertical, and drug abuse and crime soar!
>and instantly jumpstart mutual cooperation to hopefully prevent Nature's Overshoot cull.
Sorry, but the only mutual cooperation these policies will bring is riots in the streets.
>When AZ has reached sustainability;
In order for AZ to reach sustainability the population would need to decine by 98% since it probably can only support 2% of existing population with out energy, food and water imports from neighboring states. Its a desert!
Thxs for responding. I agree with the points you made, but they will inevitably occur, at a higher magnitude, if we just continue with business as usual. The economic, social, political, and military drivers of world society are inextricably intertwined, driven, and derived from our inherent genetic controls.
Somehow, we need new 'outside the box' thinking and planning for the future ahead. My speculation on Asimov's mind-shattering Foundation book series of predictive collapse and directed decline utilizing supercomputer simulations augmented with top-down political, military, and media enhanced controls to educate and derail our worst genetic impulses might be a possible path forward. But I make no claim to intuitive brilliance.
Nature has evolved a tight feedback system of ecological controls. Humans, ever since they utilized fire to numerical advantage and convenience, combined with the modern, industrialized leveraging of FFs into the detritovore lifestyle have created what I call the 'humanimal ecosystem' that is super-imposed over natural feedback loops.
Wolves and other keystone predators create ecologic harmony or equilibrium by their genetic efforts to cull weaker prey, and its consequent rippling throughout the food chain. I would argue that the world's topdogs; the 'humanimal wolves': since the late 1700s when Malthus's thesis was widely disseminated, have abrogated their keystone grey-matter responsibility by failing to provide widespread education and political controls; to keep human numbers at sustainable levels.
Instead, they have personally pursued short-term gene-driven lizard brain level optimization with its consequent dopamine rewards resulting in the Tragedy of the Commons for all. No attempts at sustainability, no social creation of humanimal feedback loops to restrain our worst numeric and economic excesses.
Asimov's key Foundation figure: Hari Seldon's creation of predictive formula, and the assertion of feedback loops to direct optimal decline is nothing more than the recognition and utilization of this higher level brain responsibility at the elite level.
Somehow, we need to get this desire for grey matter responsibility to sink into every shaker and mover's head. Recall the EnergyBulletin post where the author suggests that Donald Trump is a greater threat to future sustainability than the combined global slum dwellers.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Denial comes to mind. Then again why would so many max out there credit so they can keep up their over-inflatedoverextended standard of living for a wee bit more!
Dailyearl,
Here you go. The information is a snip from a paper I emailed around in January. I couldn't import it so I'
ve had to re-type it here. Therefore, there might be some errors I missed in the URL's. Sorry.
Todd
START SNIP
<c>Terra Preta Soils - The Answer to Soil Nutrition?</c>
There are soils in the Amazon Basin that are well over 1,000 years old and still highly productive and, as far as the literature indicates, havent hadd added fertilizers (although one of the papers indicates that charcoal plus fertilizer raised yields 880%). They are called Terra Preta de (or"do) Indio soils. What is important is that the normal soils in the area are extremely poor. Either by chance or some kind of experimentation, the peoples in this area began to add charcoal to their growing areas. As you'll read in one of the articles I include in the bibliography, they are still clearly visible from the air today because of their greenness.
There is a certain irony in this paper. As most of you know my background and education is in the sciences. One thing I experienced was scientists latching onto an idea like a pitbull with lockjaw without much supporting data. I now find myself in the same position. I started some work in 2005 but I have years to go before I can "prove" this is the real thing. But, I really believe this is important to sustainability and crop production.
So, without further ado, here is the bibliography. I haven't rechecked the URL's to be sure they are still working. Some are in PDF so you'll have to google them.
The Soils Themselves:
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/index.htm
Title - The 'Terra Preta' phenomenon: a model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics by Glaser, Haumaier, Guggenberger and Zeck
http://www.bbc.com.uk/science/horizon/202/eldorado.shtml
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/azimmer/research_Peru.htm
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-68405.html
Title - Potential of Pyrolyzed Organic Matter in Soil Amelioration by Glaser, Lehmann, Steiner, Hehls, Yousaf and Zeck; 12th ISCO Conference, Beijing, 2002
http://www.newfarm.org/columns/research_paul/2006/0106/carbon_print.shtml
(Be sure to click on the research link toward the end of the above article.)
http://www.newfarm.org/columns/research_paul/apr05/carbon_print.shtml
http://www.eprida.com/home/explaination.html
http://web.online.com.uk/fred.moor/soil/care/c0103
Title - Weed composition and cover after three years of soil fertility management in the central Brazilian Amazon: Compost, manure and charcoal applications by Major, Stiener, Ditommaso, Newton and Lehmann.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/78208
END SNIP
The world has changed - A look at nitrogen and corn economics.
and an authentic peak oil article by Lester R. Brown:
Dear oil will favor local, seasonal food as distant sources lose competitive edge
and for what it's worth the "carbon_print" link above didn't work for me. Is this the right one?
http://www.newfarm.org/column/915research_paul/2005/apr05/carbon_print.shtml
Here's the link I copied at New Farm:
http://www.newfarm.com/columns/research_paul/2006/0606/nitrocorn_print.shtml
I tried the link and it works. I wish people paid more attention to the work Rodale does at their experimental farm. I subscribed to the magazine in the late 70's and early 80's until it went through a change I didn't like - can't remember what now.
Todd
thanks for this. I'll try to put it to good use.I'd love it if you could keep me in the loop regarding your field tests
Sorry I got your name assbackwards. I was trying to fit the post in while I was irrigating this morning and didn't pay attention.
Todd
I am concerned that the terra preta phenomenon will not be as strong or even evident in the temperate zone. I have been running some experiments here in NW Washington at our farm for 3 seasons now but do not have results yet I feel are conclusive. I will be reading the results of a longer term study this winter.
We have a circle of people here in our area who are sharing results of our studies. If you are interested in joining us in our informal discussions contact me at richrd@nasdotcom.
Rich Haard, Bellingham
I did some small scale tests last year (that will continue), the results of which were part of the paper I sent around.
I was so hot about this stuff that I went out and bought 150# of mesquite charcoal last year, ground it up in a chipper and set up three small test beds: One with 0%, one with 2.5% and one with 5% charcoal by weight - I couldn't afford 10%.
My real interest is that Terra Preta soils supposedly hold phosphorous well. You know, it's pretty easy to take care of N and K but P is a different story. Last year I grew sweet corn in the beds and was extremely happy with the results. However, I've moved my winter wheat trial beds to these beds. I've been developing my own strain of winter wheat for some years and wheat won't head out without sufficient P. My plan is to grow it crop on crop and see what happens. If I had lots of bucks I'd also do soil tests but the cost is too high for me and I don't feel like setting up a home lab.
We heat with wood so last winter I would pull the hot coals out of the heater, mush them up a bit then spread them on my other raised beds. I plan on doing this for the foreseeable future. I'm just convinced high carbon soils is the way to go.
Todd
I suspect whats happening is not because of the carbon but the burnt charcoal acts as a slow release system for the remaining ash
or minerals in the charcoal. The energy boost from slash and burn is well known and comes from the minerals.
I think this is similar also you have the water retention properties of the charcoal.
Naturual forest fires that run too hot have the same effect.
The test would be to soak the charcoal in moving water to extract it then test its efficiency vs unsoaked.
My crop is native shrubs grown in our restoration nursery. We grow a crop for 2 years and then cover crop with wheat or rye the next winter. I noticed that residual soil fertility shows up quite visibly in the cover crop and am hoping my charcoal plots will show in this 5 acre field next winter/spring.
I also have been conducting some experiments on mycorrhizial innoculation of black twinberry and charcoal on methyl bromide sterilized soil. I hope to have results to report on this fall.
We use a commercial lab for our soil testing, though difficult with limited funds.
Best
I don't know if you'll stop back today but I've been messing with mycohrrizal fungi for at least 10 years. I was inspired after I took a soils course at nearby college (ya, 60 miles each way) that was totaly on the rhizosphere. I was also inspired by articles in Land and Water magazine (If you are into restoration, you will very much enjoy it if you don't get it already.) where mychohrrizae made a significant difference in restoration work.
I've been using Chappy's Power Orgainics mix on just about everything from tree, grapes and berry crops to vegetables. Chappy's was one of the first ones although there are lots to chose from now.
Like the charcoal, I can't prove that it makes a difference. But, when I compare my stuff with other growers there is a seeable difference.
As Earldaily says, there should be a heck of alot more research on these things.
Todd
Device Burns Fuel With Almost Zero Emissions
Georgia Tech researchers have created a new combustor (combustion chamber where fuel is burned to power an engine or gas turbine) designed to burn fuel in a wide range of devices with next to no emission of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO), two of the primary causes of air pollution. The device has a simpler design than existing state-of-the-art combustors and could be manufactured and maintained at a much lower cost, making it more affordable in everything from jet engines and power plants to home water heaters.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/dean_kamen_sequ.php
"Demand for all grades of oil is dropping, light sweet as well as heavy sour. OPEC says some customers are telling them they have no room to store oil."
Support the argument I made below. If the market is well supplied, which is what the inventory figures point to in the US, why is crude still priced so high. I believe Colin Campbell has an all liquids peak for 2010 and Jean Laherrere has upped his date between 2010-2020. I believe TPTB are purposely keeping oil prices high to destroy consumer purchasing power and help rein in inflation while they finish projects that will merge the US into a "super state" with Canada and Mexico and change the entire system of nation states to a global governing body.
Posted before:
=====I have been thinking that the high oil prices are actually helping TPTB to CONTROL runaway inflation. The central banks of the world have pumped so much liquidity into the global economy that high energy prices act like a giant mop to mop up the purchasing power of the proles. The billions that have been sucked up by high energy prices prevent that money from going into consumer goods and driving up the demand curves thus keeping inflation under wraps. The real price increases we are seeing are in necessity items like food. If it wasn't for 70 dollar oil mopping up all the purchasing power we would have already seen hyper inflation taking control. Does this make sense to anyone? I think peak oil is several years away and see no reason why oil should be anywhere near $70 bucks. Money is being funneled into the sector to suck up excess liquidity.
===All liquids forecast
Oil demand is for all liquids. So the forecast of oil supply has to be given for all liquids The all liquids production forecast is modelled for an ultimate of 3 Tb with 1 Tb for NGL and expensive liquids, an unlikely 4 Tb ultimate (2 Tb for expensive oils) changes only the slope, but not the oil peak Liquids will peak around 2015 if there is no demand constraint, which is unlikely with soon coming economic crisis forecasted by P.Volcker. The production will then show a bumpy plateau, but well below the 115 Mb/d forecasted in 2030 by IEA.
http://tinyurl.com/k8thn PDF
Jean Laherrere has upped his peak date for total liquids. While we may see a peak in CONVENTIONAL oil soon the decline in conventional can be offset with increases in non conventional like deep water. TPTB are manipulation energy prices keeping them high to control inflation while they finish their "North American Community" project and get ready change the economic paradigm. In other words they are going to "change how money works" and they have time to pull it off. We may be entering what Zbigniew Brzezinski termed the Technetronic Era, a post industrial zero growth society...
"Building a North American Community"
Video
http://tinyurl.com/hvok5
PDF
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/
http://tinyurl.com/nyvno
The above document is put out by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Take a few minutes to see how many individual in the US government are members of this "Non-government" group.
The CFR web site states:
"It has no affiliation with the U.S. government or any other government"
Right!!
CFR Membership Bush Administration
http://tinyurl.com/etzkx
==AC
"The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation's right to know machinery - the news media - usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.
The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign constitutional republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship. "
~Former Congressman John R. Rarick
==AC
It would be better to build such a cryogenic pipeline with the minum lenght needed to transmit hydrogen and power since that minimises refridgeration losses.
If it ever makes sense it probably makes sense a decade after hydrogen production have saturated refinery needs for upgrade of heavy oils and hydrogen to get more FT-diesel out of coal and biomass.
I think American aversion to nuclear technology will dissipate rapidly when they can no longer afford gas for there SUV's.
The real response at least initally to peak oil will be a massive effort to build CTL plants and nuclear reactors.
Also the coal plants would be replacing current gas fired electric plants to allow GTL and CTL/GTL technologies.
I can also see coupling of Coal/Nuclear electric plants with ethanol distallation and tar sand/ oil shale extraction.
Basically a massive coal rush with nuclear coming on as NG depletes. But even this misguided and destructive response is probably to little to late. I don't know how long it takes to build a coal fired plant I'm guessing less then 5 years.
So lets say the US starts responding when we hit say 5% depletion post peak if we are looking at 5% per year depletion from there out even a massive CTL effort and diversion of the gas for GTL would not prevent massive supply disruptions. I'm guessing maybe a 1-2% replacement rate with say tar sand expansion also adding say 1-2%
understanding the possibilites here is very important but note even with these remedial efforts oil prices will be shooting through the roof so even if we really obtained a 4%
replacement per year were still dealing with spiraling costs. And at the end of the day the real problem is not cost but real shortages with no end in sight.
Now having said that the only real solution I can see is to start massive CTL efforts right now and nuclear asap to lower the need for coal fired electric plants.
In tandem we can work on renewables and power down but if we don't do CTL asap then we will later paying a high enviromental cost with far less benefit.
I know this sounds a bit crazy to on one hand blast coal/nuclear and on the other to advocate them but we need them if we start using them today. 5 years from now may be to late but it causes almost as much damage.
The reason we need them is that a realistic power down and move to renewable energy/ fusion sources is probably a 25 year effort. Lets say we can replace 1-5% of our energy consumption a year with renewables the best case requires 20 years to reach 100% and is probably not realistic. This is with zero growth. Any economic growth in this scenario comes strictly from conservation efforts but I just don't see say a 75% reduction in energy usage from conservation since a lot of the approachs esp after the simple ones require replacing existing equipment with new more energy efficient versions and or massive changes in infrastructure.
Agian its possbile but probably more a 30-50 year effort to really streamline our energy usage.
So basically were looking at negative economic growth for up to 50 years with a massive infusion of coal based technologies to even make the transition. What's even more intresting is lets say over time we become 90% efficient and I'm sure we will finally become realistic about our population growth it looks like we probably will never burn as much energy as we do today since the combination of forced or enlightened population reduction and conservation result in basically hundreds of years of economic growth before we begin to approach our current enery usage rates if ever.
I'm confident that the high enviromental costs along with real effects of global warming will ensure that CTL and coal fired plants will be a short lived solution.
The slower we are to make the move means demand destruction is a a nice way to say riots and burning cities. One way or another our children and grand children will pay for our mistakes but I think that allowing outright destruction of our infrastructure is not the best solution. We have little choice but to inflict yet more damage to the enviroment to get out of this mess. How we respond of the next five years is likely to have impacts for centries to come.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-335-1.htm
just a small glimpse at what it takes to make one component of a computer.
If we're "lucky" we'll get to keep the telegraph, simple radio. Simple radio's not that hard once you know the trick. There's a lot of low-tech methods out there to communicate that can be used in an agrarian economy that don't involve messenger pigeons lol - even though the telegraph is early 1800s and radio early 1900s, there's nothing that prevents those being done with the tech that was available in the 1500s or 1600s.
There is no real reason for them to disappear.
Certianly or gighertz pc's are energy guzzlers but we can make very efficient cpus at lower frequencies. And we are really only now starting to make energy efficient fast chips so there is plenty of room for improvement. We can certianly conserver and reuse, Standardization would allow us to keep the same case for many years and upgrade or replace componets if thats the best approach. Recyling is not really practiced.
In short communication and computation don't have to be energy intensive and are very valuble so we will bear the cost for them. A lot of peak oilers feel that cell phones for example will disappear rapidly I'm one of the few that feel like not only will the remain but they will become even more central to our society.
Were not going to give up on the information age and nor should we. We may on the other hand be riding horses and talking on our cell phones.
In the old days, libraries had two card catalogs, one by author and one by subject. The cabinets themselves were always built of blonde oak, made to last 100 years, literally. The quality of workmanship was unbelieveable. The cards were just heavy card stock, typewritten, could be handwritten just as well if they still taught kids Palmer Penmanship in school which I'd like to see. Cards easily and instantly replaceable, just get out a new one or cut one out of whatever you have at hand that's heavy card stock, and insert. And, you could find stuff. The lights go out, the card catalog still works. Oh, did I mention old time libraries were built the old way, to take advantage of daylight so no artifiical light really needed, and also the old style ventilation windows so no aircon needed either, the building was built to have airflow and kept cool and dry enough. The old linen page books never got mildew anyway. Engravings bright and beautiful as the day they were made, found some books like this in a grad library in the mid 1980s, books made in the late 1890s. Beautiful.
Not a computer in sight and those old libraries were great!
The real problem is the ridiculous volume of so-called scientific articles and books. It is a matter of prestige to fill up as many pages as possible, while most articles and chapters could be a statement of the length of an alinea.
Scarcity of materials will undoubtedly make the number of paper printings diminish, which is a good thing. Even minor pieces of scrap papers with scribbled notes from around 1600 are still perfectly conserved, while 19th century books are disintegrating.
The proof for this is the widespread and increasing use of cell phones in extremely poor countries.
I would rather call those people doomers then peak oilers.
But criminal activites are quite dependant on cheap and plentifull transportation. If cars get more expensive to use and people keep better tab om them manny criminal activities will be slowed down and old time local police work will be more efficient.
The logic is "it exists, therefore it cannot exist!"
At the very minimum, a more nuanced argument would be that it would change with a different energy price (and availability) structure. You could talk about which energies would be available, at what point in the future, and what levels of complexity that would support.
But the doomer thing runs on emotion. It demands that we will have "no energy" and therefore "no complexity" ... at some undefined (but soon!!!) point in our lives.
the sad thing is your doing exactly what you say i am doing. trying to sooth people and reassure them their toys will still work fine.
unfortunately that is not true, while cell phones will be around longer then the pc it's not that fair to compare them to a computer.
lower power pc's will replace the current ones but still they will be very niche.
it's a real simple equation, no 24/7 power, no computers and no current Internet which requires all it's points from end to end(minus the actual cable) to be on 24/7. this includes, web servers, routers, switches, powered hubs(not the smaller passive ones they can't handle the traffic), even basic repeaters on long lines need 24/7 power or you get signal loss and reduced bandwidth.
a computer or electronic device like it would not last very long in a place with frequent brown/blackouts, the voltage spike and drops damage components. but thats what we are heading for, we will have blackouts and brownouts as power gets reserved for more vital things then powering one's homes.
the article i posted was supposed to illustrate to people just how much energy is invested in the making of what to you might seem a simple appliance.
If you assume they are 100% selfish it would be an enourmous waste of capital to let power grids break down and business grind to a halt. And where would they get realy good doctors if they dont hone their skills on whole populations? Or for that matter soldiers and munitions if you assume there will be war.
If you want to look for such conspiracies there are manny things that would make far more sense for a mega powerfull conspiracy to shut down then a power grid.
Because it is "convenient".
Because one can "distance" oneself from the plight of others and one can excuse oneself by saying, "those less well off folk are doing as best as they can for themselves" -paraphrasing First Mamma Bush --and I'm doing as best I can for myself.
The wretched masses are "fairly happy" IMHO. They move around with relative safety in their ghettos and I move around with relative safety between my gated community and the gated compounds of my peers.
What do you mean by non-functioning? It's functioning for me and that's all I need to worry about.
As our Lord Protector, Adam Smith said, each takes care of his own and the Invisible Hand takes care of the collective.
Unfortunately, "they" is you and me to some extent. It all depends on how broadly you want to define "society". If you consider the whole world as our society, then the wretched child laborers in China who make the Mickey Mouse "Freedom" toys for us, are our responsibility because we fund the system that puts them where they are. This happens each time we buy a "Happy Meal" for our little child. Of course, we can "distance" ourselves from their plight. That's the beauty of "the system".
We are the warlords and we don't even know it.
Its only convenient if you live in a box. The box might be big enough to be fairly comfortable if you live in USA and have english as your mother tounge.
> The wretched masses are "fairly happy" IMHO. They move around with relative safety in their ghettos and I move around with relative safety between my gated community and the gated compounds of my peers.
Why live locked up? That is non functional with the local elites and middle class favorite pasttimes of golf, hunting, sailing and having their own summer cottage. Gating that would require something like a million km of fencing and more guards then there are poor people.
> What do you mean by non-functioning? It's functioning for me and that's all I need to worry about.
The subject were power grid break down. No electricity is definately non-functioning, the productivity goes way down, people start dieing after a while and the area becomes much less hospitable.
> As our Lord Protector, Adam Smith said, each takes care of his own and the Invisible Hand takes care of the collective.
The point is that we dont need some entity coordinating everything. Most things sort out themselves via the famous invisible hand. This does of course not guarantee solutions to all problems or filling of every need.
And you actually got to have a market with manny active people producing and trading for it to work, I suspect that such might be lacking in some areas where people realy praise the principles.
I am very intrested in getting more "invisible hand" into the local economy after seeing what it can do when replacing state monopolies. But replacing a state monopoly with a private probably law supported monopoly gives zero or negative benefit.
> Unfortunately, "they" is you and me to some extent. It all depends on how broadly you want to define "society".
The philospohical ideal should be the whole world. But even grid sized it is layerd.
We can exchange power with most of EU and some of Russia.
Then are the Scaninavian countries very closely connected, most of them in sync.
Swedens grid can be run withouth working connections to our neighbours.
The grid has control systems to fracture in running parts if things break down.
And last can my home town Linköping probably be run as an iceland with about half a dozen small generators in combined heat and power plants and local small scale hydro.
Then we are down to backup generators and you cant call it a grid anymore.
I would expect about the same layering in an economical collapse or major war. We are closest to our physical neighbours and we can not trade and help as much on longer distances.
> We are the warlords and we don't even know it.
Now are you realy mixing things up.
But you got a point since I would actually be very happy if our defence force were better and the political control of it made with clearer thoughts. This is a subject I have given as much thought as PO. I would like a realy good local defence that in an emergency for instance can complement the police force and a small ultra modern part that can be sent far away to help stabilize the outmost "layer" that is weak where a small force can do some good for as much common good as possible. Be it far away EU trade partners, EU border, nordic region, Finland or only Sweden if things are realy fucked up.
I was writing from the USA perspective and also writing with tongue in cheek (IOW, sarcasm was turned on).
In the USA suburbs, "gated communities" are very much in vogue. Just wave to the friendly guard if you live here and he will quickly let you in. Got some friends visiting? Just let the guard know and he will let them in --no problem. However, if the riff-raff (you know whom we mean) show up at the gate, they are instructed in no vague terms that they are not welcome here.
As far as each of "you & i" being a warlord, it's all a matter of how we go about "distancing" ourselves from the wretched folk who do the dirty work for us and then die doing it. The Invisible Hand does a good job of separating the elite from the under classes through layered subcontracting. It's all very legal, very clean.
I almost allways takes sarcasm seriously if that makes for a more contrastring view and entertaining debate.
Being a fairly good patriot I do of course contrast with good local examples from where I live. I got the feeling that I am very lucky to have been born here although my country could have been as well run as Switzerland. We have wasted fortunes on toying with socialism and doing dumb things while doing some things right. I think one key for a better future is recognizing what earlier generations have done right and grab those traditions while they live.
I've been buying computers since about 1980 (TRS-80, Level I, 4k), and for the first time ever ... I don't need a faster or bigger computer.
I might like a more energy efficient setup, but even that is a luxury at this point, whem my use (165w, 8 hours a day) only totals 481.8 kWh per year, or maybe $48 per year at current rates.
- you assume electricity prices would remain the same, yet i can easily see them at least tripling.
- you can only use your computer because you know you will always get power, but would you be willing to use your computer knowing that you might only get 8 hours a day of electricity and not always in all one sitting per day?
and yea i too have been seeing the upgrade cycle slowing down a little.At 3 times my current $50/yr electicity is still much cheaper than my cable modem.
On the "8 hours a day of electricity" ... in my area we are alreadh 1/2 powered by nuke and renewable. We could easily cut use in half (if we actaually sank to no fossil fuels, just outlaw air conditioning) and there you go.
But really you are asking me, in my life, to worry about something (no fossil fuels) that is not due for several decades.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/06/26/ccpers26.xml&menuId=242&sS heet=/money/2006/06/26/ixcoms.html