Drumbeat 2nd Monday Open Thread

271 is just about enough. :)
I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" today.  I've heard a lot on global warming over the years, so there wasn't too much new.  It was a bit motivational though.  In particular, we need three things for global warming (and peak oil):

Efficiency.  Efficiency.  Efficiency.

It would be nice to have some alternative (and non carbon emitting) energy ready to go, but as I think TOD readers woudl agree, we don't.

Other than that, I'll be interested to see how the general public takes the film.

Efficiency is good but conservation is better. You avoid potential Jevons Paradox pitfalls that way.
In broad strokes I consider efficiency to be energy expended per capita, and per nation.  Conservation falls into that.  An efficient lifestyle involves conservation, etc.

I remain a skeptic on Jevon, but that breaks out into a lot of detail.  If you are talking mandates (as we might, if some climate event puts the scare on everybody), it's kind of hard to rebound.  If we're talking about market respones to higher prices and/or carbon taxes ... a lot depends on how high those prices and/or taxes are.

Oh, O.K. We're probably just talking semantics then. I view efficiency as a means toward conservation, at least in the short term. Same concept, different nomenclature.
Yeah, semantics.  Now some people seem to think that the difference between efficiency and conservation is how you feel about it, ;-), like it's got to hurt to be conservation ... but I think creativity is better than pain.
Here's another take, from a "former future" engineer.  Conservation means using less of a resource, through whatever means.  Efficiency is how much of a resource you use in achieving some result.  So it's through large increases in efficiency that a Ford Explorer gets the same gas mileage as a Model T, but there is no conservation involved, since they have the same gas mileage.  Worse, there was extra consumption involved, since the person using the Model T would never have considered driving it as much as people drive today.

So, efficiency can, but does not necessarily, lead to reduced consumption, but conservation requires a reduction in consumption.  Note that you can use efficiency gains to do more with less, in which case you are both increasing efficiency and conserving.  New refrigerators compared to old fall in this category; the increase in efficiency is so significant that you can have a bigger fridge that also uses less electrity.  Except for the perceived loss of status, you can get a similar effect switching between an SUV and a gas-sipper, since most SUVs aren't used to carry any more than a small sedan could carry.

You can also conserve without changing efficiency or even while reducing efficiency, by just using something less or not at all.

"by just using something less or not at all" -

Which is properly known as curtailment.  Thus, conservation is composed of both efficiency gains and curtailment.

i have not seen the movie but i have seen the interview of al gore about the movie. personally while the message is good i think he framed it badly, it's going to give the impression that you can have your cake and eat it too.
if we do have 10 years left before we reach the point of no return(which i think we do) then there is really not much that can be done. it will take longer then 10 years to unseat the current people in power, no not the politicians the lobbyists who pull their strings. also i don't think the cfc analogy works here, that was a problem limited to a few items, this one is linked to a whole lot more.
I have a very hard time thinking we have 10 years left, as in the last few years the science has revealing that things are much worse than was previously thought.  Really, we're not going to stop burning coal, in fact we will burn more of it.  The only hope is to affect the co2 levels via direct intervention, but that would require a small miracle considering humanity's consistent lack of foresight when it comes to the side effects our technofixes.
I still think we have to drop consumption below the production to have much policy flexibility. After several years of production declines there will be huge economic and political pressure to dump environmental concerns. If people can't afford to heat their house or drive to work they are going to oppose anything that raises the price of energy.
Gore does a great job of defining the problem. But where are the actions?  As far as I know, he hasn't even suggested higher cafe standards, or carbon taxes, or gas taxes or anything else. Perhaps the solutions, like the problem, are inconvenient. The inconvenient truth is that Gore and the vast majority of Americans aren't ready to make the hard choices to do a damn thing about global warming.

Gore recites the mantra that we can have it all -- continued growth and lower energy consumption, too.  While this is technically true in the short run, this gets translated into "I can drive by SUV, turn my thermostate down to 65 in the Summer, buy a big house, live far from work, etc, etc. and cut energy use at the same time."


One slide in his presentation was about how we get there, with wedges for "efficient appliances" and "efficient cars" and ...

He did talk about mileage mandates around the world, without using the word CAFE.  He made a bit of hay over the fact that China has such higher standards than we do.

Now, while I think he gets it, I'm not sure how far it sinks in with the audience.  Some might think they can "mandage" higher mileage from the automakers, and keep on driving the cars they like.

"I can drive by SUV, turn my thermostate down to 65 in the Summer, buy a big house, live far from work, etc, etc. and cut energy use at the same time."

Yes, if you can do it using clean energy. But can we convert to renewables in time? How much time do we have? Would 5% reduction in CO2/year be enough? Or 1%? Or 20%? A 5% per year reduction (fixed) would take us to 25% of current CO2 in 15 years, or to 47% (declining balance). Is either of these good enough? What should our targets be?

We need a 70% reduction in co2 emissions.  That cannot be done with just renewables.  Conservation and efficiency have to done at the absolute maximum we can manage.  
Tstreet, thanks for your reply.

We need a 70% reduction in co2 emissions.

Interesting number. Where do you get it from?

That cannot be done with just renewables.

It can be done in 15 years at a fixed 5% per year. Why do you say it can't be done?

Conservation and efficiency have to done at the absolute maximum we can manage.  

Maybe so. But is this just a belief of yours or do you have data to back it up? And what is the absolute maximum we can manage?

FYI, I really am trying to get a handle on the CO2 situation. If Stuart's 2 - 3% per year decline after PO is correct, my worry is we will still fry the planet. Would 5% per year reduction in CO2 be enough?

(Odograph, thanks for getting me to think in timelines :)

I will repeat my response to the release of the March EIA numbers that showed production was down:

It is no suprise at all that demand was down in March. Spring turnarounds were in full swing, and refinery capacity was quite low at that time. You can see a graph of that here:


But mark my words, production will climb from here for at least a bit longer. Mark that prediction down and file it away, and we can revisit it in the summer. You can call me out if I am wrong about that.

Refinery utilization in March was around 85%. I just read that as of a couple a weeks ago, it is back over 90% for the first time since the hurricanes. If more oil is being refinined, more oil is being purchased. If more oil is being purchased, more oil is being pumped. Look for the numbers to turn back up.


Don't forget that the US uses only a quarter of the world's oil.

smekhovo, you are my new hero! :-)

To repeat your quote,
"Don't forget that the US uses only a quarter of the world's oil."

That surpises many people who do not follow the numbers, and puts the world oil situation in fuller perspective.  The impications are extremely important.  It means that changes of a percent or two in the U.S. alone has less of an effect on world price/supply than some believe.  it also shoots down the stereotype that it is only the U.S. that has a hefty appetite for oil and gas.

Does this mean that American conservation/efficiency/alternative energy initiatives are simply pizzing in the wind?  Anything but...

Despite the dreams of the one world of unity through open markets and "globalism" the world is still one of nation states.

As Chinese and Indian demand for fuel grow, and Europe is slung back into the fray of the international hunt for oil and gas by the decline of the Atlantic North Sea, the U.S. percent of world oil consumption will continue to drop.

And, here's the most fascinating part....if we put our educational, industrial and technical advantage to work, we can make efficiency gains and create conservation initiatives along with alternatives and push the U.S. percent of world consumption down even further.

What does that mean to us?  LEVERAGE.  If we are able to maintain one of the most modern and economically strong nations in the world while at the same time becoming more and more efficient, we put the American nation closer to economic independence.  Other nations not making the hard effort, and with even less home supply of oil and gas, and less land space will not be so able to be assertive to the same extent.

 This is already becoming apparent as China is forced to bend it's policy to suit Iran  (does anyone really think that China actually desires yet one more nuclear power in Southern Asia to dillute their own influence?), and India is forced to negotiate with Islamic nations including Pakistan in their quest for natural gas (does anybody think the Hindu majority want to have to do this, given the longstanding ethnic issues between these two groups?), and Europe is forced to kowtow to Russia to get natural gas, something that must be extremely insulting to them just as their great EU dream looked for one brief moment in grasp....they now see their influence and power slipping away.

THIS is the way to sell energy efficiency to the American business and political establishment folks, not with talk of "guess what, Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, change!!, and even if you do, your probably out of business, your kids will live a horrible life as a dirt farmer, and your suburban neighborhood will become a slum."   Does anyone think that message will sell to ANYONE?!  Even if it turns out to be true, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it....because if you can't prevent it, why change now?

Try THIS ONE instead: "Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, we have a rare opportunity right now to enhance the independence and prosperity for you, your company and your nation.  The U.S. is already down to consuming only 25% of the world's oil, and this is including the well known waste and ineffeciency burden we carry.  If we can make the changes now, and conserve fuel, it will free up your customers money.  If we reduce wasteful packaging, wasted transportation consumption, we become more  able to withstand the changes in the energy market, and enhance our competitive position in the world."

"Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, Would you buy a machine in your company that consumed twice what it needs to to do it's job?"  Would you hire ten people to do the job that five could do?"

"Our nation should not make the same error.  We should not consume 10 million barrels of oil if the same job can be done by 5 million!"

"This is normal good business practice to reduce waste and ineffeciency, to invest now for the savings to be gained over the years."

"This is not some liberal scheme Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, nor is some "enviro" goodie cause.  It is simply good business."

THIS is the way America can reduce our fuel consumption, from 25% to 20% to ???, 10% of the world consumption.

It is often said that "growth" cannot occur without energy consumption rising.  This is true only in the narrowest sense, but the effects of growth can and does occur through increased efficiency.  This is part of the old common sense approach to business that has been forgotten.  Enron type growth is not growth.  It is numbers stacking.  

Growth by groing twice the food with half the fertilizer, growth by operating stores with twice the efficiency on lighting, air conditioning, and  refridgeration, having trucks and trains that cover the same amount of miles carrying the same amount of cargo with half the amount of fuel consumed, THAT IS REAL GROWTH.  

Think about this:  If your sales double, but your expenses double, where is the real growth?

THIS is the way we sell change to America, with some hope of them buying it.
I guess this last sentence will be seen here as pure cheerleading, but I have no choice.  America is where I was born, and almost certainly where I will die.  It is the nation that made me what I am.  It is the nation that has given whatever I have in life.  
Do not make the often made error of giving up on America too soon.  We still have a few cards left to play, and a few sharp tools still in the shed.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Wow, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing this country in which I live "only" consumes a quarter of the world's oil.  Wow, I guess we're not so bad after all.  Hell, that's almost sustainable, right?  LOL.


" Hell, that's almost sustainable, right?  LOL."

That "almost" is the problem, that's why we sell the idea of bringing it down to 10% of world consumption!  :-)

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

We have 4% of the world's population.
Thank you, Vegan and mr f, for pointing out the folly here.  It's a moral outrage that we use 25% of the world's oil.  I've certainly never before seen the word "only" used in association with that, let alone in a manner totally lacking in irony.  That we consume 5x 'our share' of the most important resource both allows and requires us to have the most and biggest guns.  And to use them.  Our consumption is gotten at the end of a gun.  I, too, grew up a proud American, and will no doubt die here.  But once I learned how things really work - in a nutshell, exploitation of the weak by the strong - the pride turned properly to shame.  We have raced ahead in the global game of chicken with the cliff, setting the worst possible example.  That the Chinese, Indians et. al. now seek to emulate us is at least partly our fault and also the worst possible outcome.  We should instead be seeking to emulate their simplest traditional ways.  Not only is consuming 25% not sustainable, neither is 10%, nor 1%.  It's a finite resource.  We'll have collectively burned it in the geologic blink of an eye.  Bully us.  Ain't we a brilliant flash in the pan.  I tend to see only the worst outcome, given our cultural denial and the insanity of our "leaders".  But for a ray of hope, read Daniel Quinn.  We - civilization - are not humanity.  That is the saving grace.  We need not alter all of humanity's actions.  Only that of the insane culture we occupy, that thinks consuming everything we can get our hands on can in any way be sustainable.  That's it.  I'm out.
I wouldn't call it a moral outrage.

When a bitch is nursing many pups, the stronger ones get more milk, the others get less and the runts often die. That is cruel, but it is natural. Though humans have tried to impose morality here and there, our world is largely still subject to cruel and natural forces.

Well, I would.  We are one pup suckling on five teats.  And by the way, I agree that the world is subject to cruel and natural forces.  There's a haymaker coming toward us.  Cover up!
IMO, morality is itself a natural phenomena, as natural as vice but for the well-being of humanity, and perhaps the planet, considerably more desirable.  So perhaps it is a question of which do we wish to cultivate--"natural" greed and arrogance or "natural" empathy and moral concern.  I vote the latter.  
"The Weak Shall Perish." - Species 8472

We can do our best to be moral, of course.

How 'bout just being rational - i.e. not destroying the ecosystem on which we rely for... um, everything... in a mad race to see who can exploit/produce/consume the most?
what are you talking about?  This isn't fun?
Which means it's possible for US consumption to grow even if production does not, as long as we're getting it at someone else's expence.  I'm not saying that is happening, but one cannot just look at the US consuption and world production  and assume they are directly related.
But mark my words, production will climb from here for at least a bit longer. Mark that prediction down and file it away, and we can revisit it in the summer. You can call me out if I am wrong about that.

I'm game. But you have to be more specific with numbers and time-frames. That is the only way 1) you can be given credit, and 2) we can pin you down when it comes time to call you out, 3) others know whether or not to support your positions. You are still too vague in your assessment, although I totally like your confidence and honesty. Ranges are fine.

At least this is my opinion. For the record, I agree with you.

I am in a bit of a hurry, so let me write fast. Specific predictions? There have been a number of comments here that indicate some people think we are already in decline. My specific prediction is that we will set more production records this year, indicating that we are not yet in decline. Preliminary April estimates have already indicated that 85 million barrels per day has been achieved. That number may get revised downward, but we will see 85 million barrels per day in the months following March. The wildcard is demand destruction. Demand is down. That will cause inventories to begin rising. Regardless, I see 85 million barrels as a pretty safe bet.

I believe that if demand remains strong, we have a pretty good chance of reaching 90 million barrels per day in the next 3 years, and I don't discount a peak in 3 years. It's just from where I stand, I can't see it clearly yet.

Why does this even matter? I am concerned that people will get too wrapped up in this "Peak is now" meme, and will be disappointed when we start setting new production records. They may lose faith in prediction methods, and lose interest in this debate. I am concerned that anti-peakers will just use this as ammunition that Peak Oil theories are in the same category as Astrology. I want to deny them that argument.

I am very, very concerned about Peak Oil. I am also concerned that we will lose credibility in the mainstream media by calling a peak too soon, only to see production continue to rise. It has already happened with some of the prominent peaksters. This subject is too important for that.

I won't be responding until evening, but I hope that is specific enough for you.


Peak is going to happen because we keep moving more and more of our extraction units (rigs) to offshore locations where they teeter on hurricane-destroyable stilts. We can't keep marching out onto the continetal shelf forever.

I found this one statistics site that says US offshore was 16% of total domestic production in 2004. Does anyone know what percentage offshore extraction played in total global "production" and what the trend is for future years?

p.s. here is a telling spread sheet
USA offshore oil as a percentage of total from 1954-2004:
Oil insider to discuss looming Saudi crisis
Thursday, June 1, 2006

Matthew Simmons, veteran analyst and oil industry expert, will discuss his book, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy," at Cambridge Forum Monday, June 12, at 7:30 p.m. at First Parish in Cambridge, 3 Church St., Harvard Square. A book signing, courtesy of Harvard Book Store, follows.

Simmons draws on more than 30 years of insider experience in the global energy industry to assert that Saudi Arabia's oil production could soon face a serious and irreversible decline. Rather than hope for the discovery of new petroleum resources, he presents a blueprint for the global economy as oil production declines.

What I don't understand about the optimistic predictions for world oil production is the age of the largest oil fields in the world.  Just consider Cantarell, the second largest producing oil field in the world.  It has an oil column of about 825', that is thinning at the rate of about 300' per year.

IMO, the HL method works--in Texas; Lower 48; Total US; Russia and the North Sea--because we are primarily plotting the rise and fall of one Gb and larger oil fields.  The smaller fields are mostly just statistical noise.  

To expect Saudi Arabia to show increasing oil production from 58% of Qt is to expect to see that which has never before happened.  Again, just look at the advanced age of most of the large oil fields in Saudi Arabia.

Everytime I get a little more optimistic, you slap me around with the cold reality that clearly says: peak is not only probably here, but due to the increased extraction technology, depletion rates are going to be on steroids.  I mean, I find some of the possible renewable resources fascinating and hopeful in theory, but how can you scale up such technologies if depletion rates are 5-20%?  Anyways, keep up the good work.
>What I don't understand about the optimistic predictions for world oil production is the age of the largest oil fields in the world...To expect Saudi Arabia to show increasing oil production from 58% of Qt is to expect to see that which has never before happened.  Again, just look at the advanced age of most of the large oil fields in Saudi Arabia.

That it. All of the largest fields that produce nearly half of all daily global production peaked more than a decade ago. All of them used water injection (or other Adv. recovery technics) to maintain oil output. If water injection or other advance Oil Recovery technologies were not used in these fields what would the global production be today? We have used technology to maintain production for the short term  at the expense of lower Ultimate Recovery and steep declines in the near future.

I believe the gamble was that we would find more oil using better discovery technics, but this never panned out. Then we resorted to over using natural gas to extract oil, produce GTLs, and by using gas fired power plants for electricity. But now natural gas supplies are also on the decline. All that left is coal which has production and transportation contraints.

Hello TODers,

reposted from the very bottom of the previous thread for your perusal, I guess you could call it:

"A new IED, not to be confused with Iraqi IEDs, but similar"

I have posted before on Hans Selye's auto-collapse mechanism called [GAS] General Adaptation Syndrome.  For those new to this concept: please google GAS or read Reg Morrison excellent article: "HYDROGEN: Humanity's Maker and Breaker (PDF 1.82mb) at his website-- http://www.regmorrison.id.au/

I recently discovered more evidence of abnormal behavior: these estimated 16 million Americans will not be amenable to easily accepting the inherent stress of the coming Hubbert Depletion downslope.  It is called Intermittent Explosive Disorder [IED]. Here is the Yahoo link:


To you, that angry, horn-blasting tailgater is suffering from road rage. But doctors have another name for it -- intermittent explosive disorder -- and a new study suggests it is far more common than they realized, affecting up to 16 million Americans.

By definition, intermittent explosive disorder involves multiple outbursts that are way out of proportion to the situation. These angry outbursts often include threats or aggressive actions and property damage. The disorder typically first appears in adolescence; in the study, the average age of onset was 14.
Please be aware of these people as we go postPeak.  These will be the people that will beat you senseless in a future gasoline queue, or fight you for the bread in a grocery store as postPeak stress levels mount.  Utility employees, whose job is to shut off water or electricity for unpaid bills, need to be especially trained to recognize IED.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Hopefully, these people are what the Halliburton civilian detention camps are for.

"Time outs" on a massive scale ...


Great catch, particularly the IED reference. Wow. "they drive humvees in mesopatomia so we can drive suvs in suburbia"



Yet another new American disease.
The old name for "sufferer from intermittent explosive disorder" was "spoilt brat who needs his ears cuffed".
They used to call these people assholes. Chris Rock had a great line about the Columbine shooters and all the media concern about what music they listened to- "What ever happened to crazy? Did we outlaw crazy? How about the cellphone assholes? Yelling at the top of their lungs in a bookstore, a video store, a subway car,etc.
In my experience (I am an academic psychiatrist at a large medical center), a lot of people get diagnosed with "Intermittent Explosive Disorder" who are, in fact, anti-social personalities or psychopaths.  There are people who do meet the criteria squarely and, while I have not looked at the study so referenced above this post, most likely a standardized interview was used to make the diagnosis.  The classic intermittent explosive disorder patient is typically very responsible but tends to be driven and perfectionistic (think "Type A" personality) but "looses it" when frustrated in situations that affect self esteem issues--the "minor" provacation is given a spin that strikes a shame chord.  Some others have subtle (or not so subtle) CNS injury to the frontal cortex.  In any case, both psychopaths and explosive disordered persons will not likely farewell in the frustrating future that PO will have in store for us.
I disagree.  For all my tests I've taken throughout all my years of schooling I have been identified as a Type A personality and the Myers Briggs pegs me as an ESTJ.

I know I have IED.  That's funny the acronym is the same as improvised explosive device.  Alas I digress....but I don't think post peak will frustrate me the same as someone totally unprepared.  Then again as a boy scout I have grown to appreciate the motto, "always be prepared."

You should see my wallet "in case" I need to use this or that.

Explosive disorder would be, of course, only one factor in influencing how a person would fair post peak and not necessarily a major one.  Certainly having a sense of being at least somewhat prepared would help. In addition, as an ESTJ you are likely to be good at assessing the pragmatic, realistic demands of the environment and acting accordingly (and probably decisively).  
You know your field, that's for sure.
Thanks, and, by the way, IMO this is a great blog and while clearly outside my field, it is a lot of fun to work at following the arguments of most of the folks who post here as most appear to be both very bright and sophisticated in areas in which I have only a rudimentary understanding (yourself included tate)
This is quite OT, but if you or any other faculty have any spare time this summer, New Orleans is in desperate need of psychiatrists.

According to news articles we have lost 90% of our psychiatrists and the police are frustrated that there is no effective care for clearly psychotic individuals that they pick up.

A friend is a resident psychiatrist who evacuated to central Louisiana with much of her patient load.  She has told me the following:

  1. There are no beds available.  72 hour commitments for observation are put in lounge chairs lining a hall (about 20).  Mortality is quite high.

  2. No medications are available.  She has "leaned on" salepeople for large quantities of samples for the emergenecy room.

  3. She notifies the emergency room when she visits New Orleans on her days off from central Louisiana.  She had two pages while we had lunch together.

  4. She told me that "Broken people are attracted to broken cities".  After a lull immediately after repopulation with teh return of only those with exceptional mental health (although I was called crazy by relatives :-) there is a clear migration of those in need of mental health care.  I am unsure if our traditional tolerance and acceptance of those with mental illness is a positive or negative.

  5. FEMA does not see psychiatric care as an essential service and will not provide funding for anything, even emergency care/commitments.

  6. "She has heard" that Ambulances have sometimes had to wait 20 minutes at the Emergency Room to be unloaded with chainsaw injuries, etc. (I have heard similar tales from elsewhere).

*ANY* resources that you can send are needed.  From sample medications, to scheduling rotations here, to summer volunteers.  Psychiatrists are in particular need, but ALL specialities are needed !  (Oncology patients. once diagnosed are simply told to move or drive to Baton Rouge).

You may find the environment here "unique" and quite interesting :-)

Please contact me at Alan_Drake@Juno.com

Thanks for the info Alan.  Sounds like things continue to be pretty rocky in New Orleans and I had heard similar reports from others recently.  I am saddened to hear of the ongoing crisis as New Orleans has always been one of my favorite cities.  I live in Albuquerque New Mexico (I am the Medical Director of UNM Children's Psychiatric Hospital).  Family obligations and situation would make it difficult to come out to NO but I will contact you at the e-mail you listed nonetheless as I intend to pass your information onto other people in my department.  

David Mullen, MD

Did you take the real MBTI test or one of the self-scored quizzes in other books, like Keirsey-Bates?

It is my opinion that many employed people will tend to score themselves as ESTJ because most businesses value outgoing, down-to-earth, rational people that meet deadlines rather than introverted, intuitive, feeling types that like to put off decisions.

Actually I was going to buy a franchise and they made me take the test and before I took it I told them I will be an ESTJ.  Actually I've taken the real test twice.  Once in high school for a pschology class and another while in college.  I'm pretty consistent and in the end I agree with MOST of the results because it really does describe my personality.  Even outside of business in my personal life I still act accordingly, unless we're havin some fun.  Then it's time to lighten up.  

I tend to be too serious and concerned with the pragmatic details of how to get things done.  That's who I am and I don't fight it.  It's helped me in my business career and I've only started.  I'm not even done with college.  Too bad the party might be over before I really get going.

In your practice have you run across "Explosive Smithian Framework Uttering Disorder" (ESFuD --sometimes referred to as the Elmer S. Fud disorder)?

This is characterized by the subject entering into a Tourette-like trance when confronted with the concept of Peak Oil and uttering a string of Smith-based framing utterances like "markets", "substitutes", "supply and demand" and "technology" while having little comprehension of what these noise barks mean.

A sample unleashing by an ESFuD afflicted subject may sound like this: "There is no need to worry because the markets always cope and respond to shifting demands for, and shifting supplies of commodities by providing appropriate substitutes and compensating technologies at the appropriate times."

Ewww...makes me all warm & fuzzy inside.  What peak oil?
Clearly a condition that will only respond to anti-psychotic medication.
I stock my formulary with ethanol.
Administration of this medication does not seem to alter severity of EsFud malady in tested subjects but did mellow them a bit. Only extreme de-brainwashing (deprogramming) from the cult of the Adam Smithians seems to get them to realize that there is no Invisible Hand and perhaps the Market will not provide a solution in timely fashion. :-)
Anyone ever try Valerian Tea?  It's suppose to calm you down before bed, (no caffeine) because it depresses the CNS.  It's like a mild valium.  Yeh it doesn't work.

I'm not sure what this has to do with PO. Maybe it is good reading for your average Doomer, but they have their own site on the Big Internet.

Amen. The post anything as long as it is bad news policy has definitely led to a deterioration of quality. This part of what makes doomers lack credibility. They see anything bad and latch on to it, regardless of the source or relevance. All positive news can be ignored by calling it MSM or biased.
I don't know, Jack. I think PO will be at least as much about sociology as it is about geology.

The geology doesn't really bother me. It can be adjusted to fairly well. The reaction to it is what should be worrying everybody.

OK. It's your right to think it makes sense to post and then repost an article on road rage in two different threads.  

I don't disagree that sociology and politics will play a huge role in all aspects of peak oil. I would never say they are not relevant to the discussion, but the context is crucial.

Energy is linked to everything, but that doesn't mean that everything is relevant to a discussion about peak oil.


People are people. They are almost the same all over the world. People have not changed for a few thousand years. Only a bit more educated.

You call it road rage, I call is bad tempered. It has little to do with PO.

By the way, why is everybody so fixed on a mad-max scenario? If gas is $7 a gallon, that means gas is about as expensive as it is today in the Netherlands.

Take it from me: The Netherlands is not a bad place to be. No road rage, no shootings at the pump. The US is today where the Netherlands (and most of Europe & Japan) was 30 years ago.

For the price of a plane ticket, you can look into the post-peak-oil future, the view from Hubbert's Hill. Beats reading crap like JHK, I can tell you. Although he has a funny way with words, I give you that. Did you know Heineken is a Dutch company? Come over and have a beer.

And take a break everybody.

Richard and Jack,

Actually I didn't post about the road rage. It was that crazy Phoenician, Bob.

I live on an organic ranch, and I'm pretty European in my lifestyle. I just look at these vast tracts of subdivision development surrounding the U.S. cities, and wonder what the heck 300 million people are going to be doing with their lives if oil goes into rapid depletion. Which I think is entirely possible ...

Americans I know seem meekly dependent, but at the same time, capable of great anger if put under stress.

That's why I think PO is very sociological.

Don, relax, no problem. We're all friends here.

Bob's not crazy. He's Bob. Many people don't appreciate Bob, but they would if there was only six of us left. That's the thing.

If any of you need some way to gain "context," I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the LOST series DVD's and program.

I can help in many ways. I am a unique figure within the Peak-Oil Community. I see both sides very cleary. I've paid attention. In fact, I see all seven sides very clearly.

So if you had to pick six to be stuck in a post apocalyptic mad max PO nightmare who are the other five?

LOL I think Bob is crazy, just as most of us (everyone in the world) what is NORMAL anyway?

And on that note what is the estimated male/female ratio here? Are we skewed much beyond 50-50? We had the poll weeks back about category but I would like to see one with demographics

Education years and degree if applicable or atleast industry.

You do seem to pay attention to all sides CEO any guesses before a poll?  

Oh, I decided on this months ago. How many do I get? If it's six - then it's you, Jack, Halfin, LouGrinzo, JD, fallout, and  Twilight. That's seven. shit. And no girls. I'm going to have to rethink this. I'm going to need a few more. Engineers are absolutely necessary...anyway you look at it, Paris Hilton, Bob Shaw, and Leanan are gonna hafta join the team. We're gonna need demolitions experts, too.
You'd have to see my resume, I have so much demo experience it got boring.  Anyway thats a scrip for one F%%%D up reality show. True story eight people forced to live without internet or oilproducts.....
So we are good to go.
We need Cherenkov for the reality show, If you vote someone off, ratings go up.
Engineers are absolutely necessary...

Dude.... I am not only an engineer, but I shoot like a Marine sniper. ;) If you guys don't invite me, I will just end up rounding up some of my crew and we will raid your commune and take what we need.


I missed this ages ago. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Oil CEO,

If I was putting togehter a post-oil "A-Team" with six people, I think Bob would definitely be a member. I think's he's thought through the biosolar habitat  (a "lifeboat) more than anybody this side of  Richar Heinberg.

And the idea about mobile bike based survival units is classic. I hope he manages to make some $$$ off of it.




Actually I didn't post about the road rage.
You are correct, I'm mistaken. Sorry about that. I just follow the threat.

It was that crazy Phoenician, Bob.

... don't know if Bob is crazy, though. However, if you live in Phoenix, voluntarily ... ;-) Just kidding.

... if oil goes into rapid depletion.

It's not going to happen, Don. The math don't add up.

If you have 3.5% depletion a year, it will take 20 years to half the oil usage. And then where are you? You'll be at the very decent lifestyle of Europeans who use about half of what Americans do.

How will you do that?

  • Buy a smaller car
  • Isolate your house
  • Relocate back into the city.

You have 20 years to do it. Should be enough, don't you think?


Doom, Doom, Bait, Bait ...

(Do you know how to tell a Doomer apart? He is very bad at Math, and skipped all the Econ classes)

"Doom, Doom, Bait, Bait ..."

You're a keen observer. I guess that sums up about half of it.

I've already done it. I have a motorbike, no mortgage, grow my own food and have a wind-powered house. I'm close to post-peak.

No tulips, but otherwise, I'm not far from being Dutch.

Seriously, we're all pretty intelligent, interesting people here. On the other hand, I'm surrounded during the day by people who seriously want to nuke all the Arabs and just leave a bunch of glass -- with some big oil rigs sticking out of the molton ground.

We don't do civilized ...

Hate to say this, but in 20-30 years the USA will not be the Netherlands. It might be Mexico City (where you better be packing some heat if the road rage hits).  
(Do you know how to tell a Cornucopian apart?  He is very bad at Math and took all the Econ classes)
I'm a doomer, because I understand this math as explained by Dr. Al Bartlett.

Legend has it that the game of chess was invented by a mathematician who worked for a king. The king was very pleased, he said, "I want to reward you". The mathematician said " My needs are modest, please take my new chess board and on the first square place one grain of wheat, on the next square double the one and make two, on the next square double the two and make four, just keep doubling until you've doubled for every square, that would be an adequate payment". We can guess the king thought this a foolish man. "I was ready to give him a real reward; all he asked for was just a few grains of wheat".

But let's see what is involved in this; we know there are 8 grains on the forth square. I can get this number 'eight' by multiplying three twos together. Its 2x2x2, its one two less than the number of the square, now that continues in each case. So on the last square, I find the number of grains by multiplying 63 two's together.

Now let's look at the way the totals build up. When we add one grain on the first square, the total on the board is one. We add two grains that makes a total three. We put on four grains, now the total is seven. Seven is a grain less that eight, it's a grain less than three two's multiplied together. Fifteen is a grain less than four two's multiplied together. That continues in each case, so when were done, the total number of grains will be one grain less than the number I get multiplying 64 two's together. My question is how much wheat is that?

You know, would that be a nice pile here in the room? Would it fill the building? Would it cover the county to a depth of 2 meters? How much wheat are we talking about?

The answer is that it's roughly four hundred times the 1990 world wide harvest of wheat. That could be more wheat than humans have harvested in the entire history of the earth. You say, how did you get such a big number and the answer is, it was simple. We just started with one grain, but we let the numbers grow steadily till it had doubled a mere 63 times.

Now there's something else that is very important, the growth in any doubling time is greater than the total of all the preceding growth. For example, when I put eight grains on the 4th square the eight is larger than the total of seven that were already there. I put thirty two grains on the 6th square; the thirty two is larger than the total of thirty one that were already there. Every time the growing quantity doubles, it takes more than all you'd used in all the proceeding growth.

In the version I heard, the king had the man killed for insolence.

So what does Dr Bartlett tell us? Basically, you can't keep doubling the usage. Point taken, fair enough. Doesn't take a genious to figure that one out.

So, now what? Am I going to die? Are my neighbors going to kill me? Are my children going hungry? Even after watching the movie twice, I couldn't make the connection.

So we have to go back a bit. 3.5% per year is halving the stuff in 20 years. Sounds to me to be perfectly doable. There is so much 'low hanging fruit'. I really don't think we'll have a problem on the actual availability side.

The problem will be in the economic transition from a 'growth forever' to a sustainable society. Maybe I can lose my job. But I won't go hungry and my neighbors are not going to kill me.

The point is that our entire system is based on this sort of exponential growth.  Imagine the derision aimed at any politician who dared even to question the premise of economic growth.  That premise runs broad, deep and ubiquitous in our culture.  It's far more than oil, of which I presume most TOD readers have a pretty good grasp.  It's water, food, soil, which is depleted in many different ways, including minerals, loss of topsoil ("In the United States, current agricultural practices are destroying the topsoil about 18 times faster than it can be replenished"), salination, deforestation, which leads us to global warming.  All of these factors interact. Our need to eat leads us to clear, till, and irrigate more land, which leads to soil, water, and forest loss, which exacerbates global warming, which shifts rainfall patterns, which causes crop loss through drought, flooding and erosion.  All of this has been accelerating as population has exploded thanks to fossil fuels.  Believe me, I don't enjoy being a doomer, I see it simply as being a realist - looking broadly at the converging impacts of our collective behavior.  Bottom line is we're dependent on a healthy ecosystem, a supply of water, and a source of energy by which to manipulate the former to feed ourselves that isn't going to be available to us in the very near future.

Excellent comment on the confluence of complex factors that define our culture, our "non-negotiable" way of life. (Also thanks for those links.)

One grouping of words was particularly interesting:

[T]he premise of economic growth ... runs broad, deep and ubiquitous in our culture.  It's far more than oil ... Bottom line is ...

This was interesting because it is a paradoxical mix of insight and thoughtless falling into the trap of the "bottom line". Yes indeed, the psycho-babble of the economists/accountants runs deep and ubiquitous in our culture especially because we (including me) are trained (brainwashed?) into using thought-tanking verbages like "bottom line" so often.

We use it all the time, but what exactly does "bottom line" mean?

Does it assure our brains that we have gotten to the bottom of things and need look no further?

Does it convince us that we are smart because we have finaly summed up all things that can (and should) be summed?

Bottom line is that the "bottom line" may be a bottomless lie that leads to our demise.

Step Back,

Thanks for the comments and good catch on me.  I agree completely - sometimes I catch myself and change such wording, sometimes I catch and call myself on it to point it out and discuss it, sometimes I just miss it (as this time) because, as you say, it's ubiquitous in our culture.  This goes back to my reading of "Metaphors We Live By" by Lakoff and Johnson, in grad school 15 yrs ago.  Took an excellent course called Environmental Perspectives by a prof Wm. Eddy, who got us to see ourselves, the universe, our place in it, etc. in a unique way, influenced by our past - "Masks of the Universe" (sorry, can't recall author) - our physical interaction with the world, and by our language, which is a template that influences our perception.  He promised us that the heightened awareness we all felt at course end would fade quickly once back out in the inculcating "real world".  He was right, though I'm glad to retain some strong vestiges.  My awakening to PO has brought me back to much of this, and into contact with Tim Bennett, who's working on a documentary called What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire. Your insights sound much like him. He also maintains an e-mail list, and circulates pertinent articles and commentary.  I think you might 'enjoy' it (as much as one can enjoy examining collapse).  I encourage everyone to check out the site and keep an eye out for the film later this year.  I've seen some rough footage - it's excellent.  Full disclosure - I've invested a very modest amt. in the doc.


Thanks from here also.
Yes, am aware of Lakoff and his "framing" theories.
Myself, I am more an admirer of the Republican think tanks and their mastery over getting "mixed messages" to penetrate into layers of the human brain:

Some here at TOD think of themselves as purely "intellectual" --just give me the numbers for crunching purposes-- but they are deluding themselves.

We are all pre-conditioned animals.

From the time we were born, our parents unwittingly conditioned us to salivate in response to certain noise cues:

"bottom line",
(the list goes on and on)

Few of us monkey creatures can pause in our squirrel cages and take a second look (a step back) to reexamine the foundations of our verbal empire.

More to the point (I forgot where I was going) ...

When it comes to Peak Oil,
we frame ourselves as "producers" of oil,
when in fact we are "extractionists".

We are Mindless Mosquitos.

We stick our sucking straws into Mother Earth
and suck out the life blood wherever we can find it, never wondering whether the blood line might end before our thirst is quenched.

I just wrote a very long response to this and then just deleted it on a whim. I didn't know how to phrase it right without offending someone. Totally love the Dutch. Love the Dutch. Like Germans, but much, much cooler. End this here before I have to nix it again.
Sadly, the Netherlands will disappear because of rising sea levels.  Too bad, you have to be punished because of all the energy pigs in the U.S.    
Driving their pigup trucks.
70% of our GDP is made below sealevel! Once our water defenses break, most of us will become Germans ;)
There goes the good genetics...and I'm not talking about the people.
Don't worry, we'll raise the dikes & dunes a bit. As a matter of fact, the Dutch government just started the other day laying out the plans.

Besides, this is not New Orleans.

I don't know, Magnus. I saw it on the front page of the Japan Times.
It seems (in Dutch):
  • Sea levels are rising faster than we thought a few years ago
  • The force of waves breaking on our shores is much bigger recent research found
  • Some of the dunes are already below current safety levels.

I see our politicians pay lipservice to the threat, the investments needed for additional maintenance in both money and fuel are quite huge and for sure complicates "peak oil" in our lowlands...

In 250 years we've grown our water genes with great results, but the challenge to outsmart the water will overcome us one day I'm afraid...

Hello Jack and other TODers,

Thxs for responding.  I have previously posted links to Jeff Vails's relocalization articles on EnergyBulletin and other good news such as the gradual shift to bicycles, motorcycles, road-legal ATVs, and scooters.  I have heartily endorsed AlanfromBigEasy's RR and mass-transit efforts.  I have Yahoo forum posted since 2003 many positive Powerdown ideas and emailed them to all the influential people I could.  I believe my biosolar habitat w/Earthmarine idea is a 'last-chance' positive goal to try and optimize the Dieoff bottleneck if the world unfortunately starts mitigation too late.  I have lobbied here for the TODer collective to send a positive program/message to the upcoming G8 Conference in July.

This, and much more, along with messages from other TODers that they enjoy my postings.  I am carefully trying to build and maintain my credibility by including referring links as much as possible inside my postings.  Feel free to examine all my archived postings here on TOD and Yahoo forums.

I don't feel that any of this causes deterioration in TOD quality, but everyone is freely entitled to their opinion.  I encourage all TODers to post any info they can find of the Peakoil-ignorant masses happily and instinctively refusing to use fossil fuels for the betterment of future generations and to help prevent global warming and resource conflicts.  The mindset of 'No Thanks--I like Empty Tanks' is a goal we should all be striving for, IMO.

My fondest hope, as I have mentioned many times before, is a G8 leadership breakthrough on accepting ASPO's Energy Depletion Protocols and a huge educational commitment to a worldwide voluntary population control program.  Malthus, Carnot, and Darwin explained it [what I call the Thermo-Gene Collision] quite clearly a long time ago: Jay Hanson, Jared Diamond, Joseph Tainter...on and on...have been merely adding to this original body of work--> if we are to be collectively smarter than yeast--> it is up to the 'collective us' to put it into practice worldwide to avert the worst.

Jack: I encourage you to post all the positive scientific news you can find as I do when I can find it.  The GAS is merely a genetic auto-collapse adaptation evident in all plague-level species to help enforce decline to sustainable levels.  I am merely suggesting that IED may be a small part of this syndrome, and warning everyone to be postPeak aware.  Neither of us can change an irate, upset, over-stressed individual's genetic response.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

I still maintain that the road rage posts were a stretch, but didn't mean to impune your role as a frequent poster.  

I have to decline your challenge to read ALL of your archived posts. I'd struggle with certain days. You don't seem to suffer from writer's block.

One question: Yeast produce ethanol - does that make them stupid or smart?

Hello Jack,

LOL! Great question--are yeast stupid or smart for making ethanol?  MY purely subjective response:

  1. Absolutely nothing better than an ice-cold 'Nectar of the Gods' as a means to satisfy one's thirst to realistically contemplate the Thermo-Gene Collision.

  2. Absolutely nothing worse than an ice cold 'Nectar of the Gods' as a means to stoke one's fears to realistically contemplate the horrific results of the yeast's energy fiesta.

The Lesson of the Yeast: Energy can be a wonderful Servant, or a terrible Master.  The rest is up to us.

Don't forget to shout out Peakoil when the bottle reaches half-empty!

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

I hate the topics here but I love this site. I was wondering about these open threads. It seems to me that it might be better to use something like phpBB so that there can be a forum. This could be independent from the blog so that actual articles can remain on the blog but then those articles could be discussed in the forum. I bring this up since these open threads are getting quite large, it is getting harder to find posts that I made to see if anyone replied and there is no edit feature that I could find (made some mistakes).

I have a gaming site and have both a blog and forum and I made my GF a scrap booking site using a similar setup. Often there are bridging scripts so that a forum and a blog can share a common database. Let me know what you think as these open threads and articles are getting difficult to navigate. I suppose it will get harder as PO digs in!

It seems to me that it might be better to use something like phpBB so that there can be a forum. This could be independent from the blog so that actual articles can remain on the blog but then those articles could be discussed in the forum.

I have been thinking the same thing. The Daily Kos has a pretty good model, but I don't know what switching to something like that would entail. For all I know, it could be a nightmare for Super G to convert TOD to something like that. But I think it's at least worth investigating.


I have been using phpBB w/ Mambo and Coppermine for a long while now. I have also used other forum software's yet the main reason I stuck with phpBB was it's price (free)and the user support base.

The basic phpBB setup can be modified in any way you can imagine. There are also modifications available all over the web. These are easy to add and make it flexible. When you want to have a common database most blogs offer instructions for a given porting and any necessary files.

Here is my GFs site. I put it together in a few hours time. I'm not happy with the colors or stock graphics but that is what she wants. Needless to say I keep her happy since I want my balls attached to me in the morning.. LOL

My site is offline now as I'm changing some hardware on my server. When I get it back up I will share the URL. phpBB w/ MySQL can handle a substantial load and has a decent search setup. Mind you I'm not attempting to push or sell it I just happen to have the most experience with it.


If there was a forum, it would look identical to peakoil.com.  People who want an anyone-can-post-a-topic format can readily go there.  People come here to get away from forum chaos.    
The "Your comments" link on the right is useful if you just want to see if anyone can replied.
Yes I see that however TOD has more then enough hits a day. I'll bet TOD is around 2000 hits and has over 600 posts a day? Regardless this site is booming. With some better software that offers post tracking, forum row on portal etc. browsing the site will be all the more simple and productive.

If I want to read articles I can, if I want to search the site I can, if I want to private message someone I can and on and on. If you wanted to send me a link or discuss Peak Pasta on the side with me PMing is important and info like real Email addresses can be exchanged w/ out exposing the info to the entire site. Administration is easy since you have many options. If a user wants to post a graph he may upload it provided uploading is available to him. Etc.

We have discussed this before. The site has gone through some modifications. While I agree with many of your points and concerns, I have to say I really like the design and feel of the site. I find it flows smoothly and it feels comfortable. Try ctrl-F, "[n" on FireFox to move quickly to new posts on old threads. One thing that is very important is remembering the demographic here - it is nothing if not interesting.
Yes, I second the search "[n" method!  It's a breeze.
I 3rd!  I've been using that for some months now, but this section is screwing it up because now it keep shitting the [n's in these comments - whoops, I made another!
I like the current system pretty well.  I've been using the search for "[new" and the "Your comments" link.

... when it gets to be too much I just skim.  The "one big page format" makes that easy.  That's the Way Of The Internet anyway.  There is too much text in this information age to read, by a long shot.


"If it ain't fixed, why try to fuck it up?" or whatever the saying is.



A forum organized by topic would make it easier to keep tabs on certain topics. I don't have the time to read all the posts here. The content is quite good for the price I'm paying. I would read everything if I could.
What topics would you suggest?

Hi Jack,
I will continue to come to this site regardless. My main point was that articles, reviews, graphs and the like would remain more or less as is. Adding a forum area would make user interaction more useful.

As a interactive site grows the software needs to grow or change too. All of the comments here fall under an article and then they go off topic after a while. The open threads are made of different topics and chained together with no topic catagory other then "drumbeat" and this makes it harder as a thread grows. With no search feature it becomes a long string of unrelated comments.

I guess it would be fair to say that blogging software on a busy interactive can peak out too. My suggestion is that rather then nixing the idea out, simply download something like phpBB and set up a test site on your host and try it. If you lack the skills I'm sure that folks like me would be more then happy to help out.

The forum system allows administrators to add forum moderators and they can weed out off topic threads and posts and simply move them to the correct area.

You asked for topic suggestions and this would be quite simple. Here you are creating an open thread called Drumbeat. As we are seeing folks have a lot to discuss. The users are not able to start their own topic rows since the only open area is called Drumbeat. If a forum system was used then each new thread would fit in a
Member Open/ PO/ Topic Title/ Then its replies
Member Open/ Oil War/ Topic title/ then its replies
PO Articles/ Article/ Replies
Any topics that run off topic can be split, merged, moved, locked or deleted.

All of the links on the left could remain as well as the links on the right. With search ability admins, mods, users and guests can find threads or posts by a simple querry. An example would be that I search for "Alternative Energy" and depending on the search options that I choose I would find threads or posts or both that contain those words in the title or message body or both.

You might already know all of this yet if you don't then I was at least able to give you a heads up. Like I said on the top of this subject I posed I love this site but hate the material since PO is utterly depressing. PO is growing and causing pain. While there is still an internet all sorts of people will be coming here for in droves and this format will be too difficult to maintain. My hat goes off to you and others to create what will go down as the most important website on the entire internet.

This site is so important that it must go on till the bitter end or till things fall apart so much that people loose there internet connections. If alternatives are going to be able to mitigate the apparent damage then people are going to learn what to do here.

Some topic titles I could suggest are:
Depletion Survival Guide
Alternative Energy (INSERT THE ENERGY HERE)
Global Warming Symptoms
Weather Trends
Conspiracy Theory or Fact?
PO in the Media
Energy Wars
Peak Food
Site Suggestions
Do Those Boarder Fences Keep People Out or In?
Ethanol & You
Prozac is Your Friend
Starvation Helps to Trigger Thinner Living
Lunar Surface? No, That is My Street!
Condos & Apartments the Next Slums

If we had a forum the posters could come up with catchy thread titles under fourm rows so you don't have to make up the titles at all you just make some forum rows and then we fill them up. Actual articles would come from the blog or can just be entered by users that have permission to start topics in those forums.

Hope that this post was enlightening?

Yes, it was. I may be starting to agree with you. This would help me focus on topics areas that I am interested in. I am sure the conspiracy minded would also be overjoyed at having a place where I wouldn't go.

Maybe it would make sense to start with just a few categories, or have the daily threads be divided into a few topics.


Exactly. If you happen to want help please feel free to ask so you can make an editable test site.
Must be past noon in Tehran. So how's that Oil Bourse doing, guys! Hey, remember? Oil Bourse? No takers? Opening Day. Like the Yankees and Red Sox. C'mon, no takers? Jack, stay out of this. You only get to come in at the end after the Bourse Boys have had their chance.
Oil Bourse? In Euro's?

Ok, that's the limit. The world is coming to an end. If nobody wants to list oil in good old US$, it must be that the financial system comes crumbling down. Must be, can't be otherwise. All my doomer friend tell me so.


This is only gonna get better as time goes by. Oh, man, front row seats.
I just scrapped two posts cuz of this BS. Gonna smoke a Marlboro and go to bed. Won't even remember, tomorrow. Good for me. Sucks for Midwest.
Oh this is really bustin my balls. OK. Let's go. spreewy! squaaang.Zrrrrrrip. jzeeep.jzip.jzip.zrsriip.jzsa.
Fucked that up. Too many zips. Ooh Fah.
Roll your tongue.qqKtrrrr...tktktktktktk....uurf.I give up.I'm serious. I give up.



He's going to be embarrassed about this in the morning - unless his head hurts too much to be embarrassed :-)
I just hope he does not aspirate in his sleep.  When I first started drinking (18 year old in college) I would call EVERYONE I knew when I got home from the bar and not remember any of it.  I finally began disconecting the phone befor I went out.  
smekhovo should be embarrassed about his grasp of international currency exchange.
He should be tracking the success of the Iranian Oil Bourse, anyway.
Embarrassed about what? It's a question mark.

"What's a morning?" - Keith Richards.

India and China forming buyer's club for oil?


Key quotes:

"China and India plan to make a joint offer for oil reserves in Kazakhstan to avoid a bidding war as the world's two fastest-growing economies vie for energy resources..."

"...Energy-related takeovers announced by the two countries more than doubled last year to $16.9 billion..."

"buyers' club", that is...
File under "Easier said than done".

Japan tried to buy energy resources during their boom and failed. China has been trying to beat the market on commodities prices (copper, steel) and shipping rates and has failed. Credit to the Khazaks and others who are smart enough to sell overpriced assets, reproach to the Americans who weren't (Chevron).


"It brings up for investors that old word from the '70s -- stagflation, a stagnant economy with inflation," said Richard Welty, president of Welty Capital Management in Lafayette. "When the market hears that, it's run for the doors."
Why don't you preface these by saying "Look at me, look at me - I found some bad news"

Unless there is another reason why you thought this was relevant, but didn't say it.

That was quite a lame reaction. Do your homework before you react as you did.
They see anything bad and latch on to it, regardless of the source or relevance.

Source: respectable newspaper

Relevance: Stagflation is linked to previous oilshock (I gather your homework should be on this)

Perhaps you thought you saw "anything bad" in my remark and "latched on to it". I merely post a link to a newspaper article which I think others might find interesting.

Don't sweat the trolls.

You are right.

Look at me-I found some bad news (Doug Casey thinks it is good news if you are long gold)and he even mentions Peak Oil. The doomers are getting richer (and more mainstream).http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=20365
Look at me, look at me, I found some bad news, (on f**ckedcompany.com):


I didn't realize that Intel has never before laid off workers.


Apple is closing their India operation, which is bad news if you're from Bangalore, but will probably cheer up their US staff.

And now, on the lighter side:



Happy News Site Has Potential To Be Just Plain Sad

Collaborative "citizen reported" news sites are all the rage these days, so some bizarre take on the trend was surely inevitable. The development in question is the imminent launch of HappyNews.com, which will focus only on -- you guessed it -- happy news. As opposed to the various wiki-style sites that get ordinary people to voluntarily write stories, HappyNews will operate more like Ohmynews, which pays people for their efforts. The paid-submission approach sounds worthwhile and ripe for testing in the US, but that's where the logic ends. The focus on only good news -- which apparently has been tried before -- is just a problematic premise. We're all for reforming the media's tendency to harp on the worst news possible and we wish HappyNews luck in their goal of supplementing traditional news, but perhaps there's a reason there haven't been any successful "happy news" outlets: happy isn't news. If a story with a positive angle is at all newsworthy, it will mostly likely either be: 1) picked up by traditional media, 2) a feel-good ditty typically relegated the end of local newscasts along with the one about the waterskiing squirrel, or 3) all of the above.


I'm thinking we should all try to do a better job showing how the things we comment on are related to PO.  Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not - sometimes it's just irrelevant!  I will try to assume that people will read such comments who may be new to the whole PO concept and are just beginning their research - that shouldn't mean we have to go back to the beginning with an explanation on every point, but at least try to tie some of the related topics in somewhat.

I expect if I follow this rule I will end up canceling some of my comments because I can't tie them in - but that's probably a good thing!  And I'm not pointing fingers, I'm as bad as anyone.

Just to quibble a bit, the masthead says, DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ENERGY AND OUR FUTURE. I would interpret that to mean both technical discussions about various sources of energy itself, and speculative discussions about our future as affected by energy or the lack thereof.
I have no problem with that at all - I just think it's worth stating HOW it relates - maybe it should not be to PO, but more generically to energy, and changing sources thereof, etc.  

If I go off on one of my tirades about what is happening to our government, I think it's appropriate to say what the relationship to energy is and not assume that others will properly guess.

I think it's a better solution than limiting the discussion to confined areas - if you think it's relevant then go ahead, but try to explain the relationship.  Often times the act of trying to explain the relationship will force you to work out the logic a bit better (there's no better motivator to understand something that to try to explain it).

I agree, which is why I reacted to the comment above. Virtually anything is relevant to peak oil. Just posting a random link and not explaining why is lazy. Why should readers have to chase down links because someone doesn't care enough to say why they post.
I'm still a newbie here, but you folks have me all excited about "Energy Return on Energy Investment." I've been thinking about it for a while this morning and it's made my brain hurt.

It seems clear to me that wherever there is an opportunity to take energy and convert it into less energy for a tidy profit, then that's what will happen.

This is a kind of "energy arbitrage," - capitalizing on the difference in market prices and demand between various forms of energy. As this becomes widespread in a long-term seller's energy market, which is what peak oil is all about in a sense, then global energy markets will quickly become even more interconnected than they already are.

Unless this analogy is completely bogus, then all energy markets will quickly come into price equilibrium with each other. That's when we'll really start to understand the relative value of different forms of energy in a post peak world. Before then, it's all varying degrees of educated-to-uneducated guessing.

In post-peak energy markets, for example, the arbitrage value of converting coal into liquid fuel for gas will quickly disappear as the price of coal is bid up and coal and liquid fuels come into price equilibrium. At the point, economies will quickly figure out the most efficient ways to convert energy into liquid fuels for vital uses that require it.

I'm not arguing for faith in markets to provide plentiful energy forever, but I do think that if, say, corn-based ethanol is less efficient than other forms of producing liquid fuel, then it will quickly be knocked out of use through energy arbitrage in the cutthroat competition of a post-peak world.

I'm shocked to see no one has answered you.  I agree with the logic, but I would disagree on the <quickly be knocked out of use through energy arbitrage in the cutthroat competition of a post-peak world.>

Companies care about profit.  Keep in mind their are many small micro economies that make up the supplier(farmer)-distiller-wholesaler-retail.

All four of them have one thing in common (there may not be a different dist than distiller, but still there are many hands on the pie), they all want to make money.  Who cares if this corn isn't as good as gas?  I'm making money!  Manufacturers (distillers) are filing for IPO's in wall street.  They know they will get any amount of money they want.  I guarantee you these will be HOTT.

After re-reading your comments, I see you deliniated post peak world.  In the end yes, I don't think we will use corn.  In the interem(5-15 years), I definatly see the "patriotic" aspect of using more and more corn.  It will be sold to us, hard.  I mean Ford is already paying for spots to talk about E85.  The ethanol manufacturers aren't even advertising it, the car manufacturers are for them!  The average person could care less about EROEI.

I am compiling existing plans for Urban Rail and any supporting analysis, to see what can be taken off of the shelf and built in a decade or so.

Just went through a pdf file on Los Angeles and hand transcribed #s fro each project.

$23.8 billion in 2015 $

24.8 miles of subway, 109.3 miles of light rail and 11.5 miles of freight railroad running passenger service.  101.6 million boardings/day.

Just looking at a map.a good majority will be within a half dozen miles of a station/

Boardings were calculated in 2003, add higher energy costs to the mix and those #s will rise.  Give some time for TOD (the other one) and ridership will climb even more!

IMHO, building out these plans (plus more) in Los Angeles makes more sense than building and operating a coal to liquids plant !

BTW, any good #s on capital and operating costs for a coal to liquids plant with and without carbon capture ?

My list of projects (my shorthand for offical titles):

Burbank LRT
Gold East - Air
Gold to Montclair
Green Harbor
Green North
Green South
Harbor DMU
Red Subway CC to Sea
Red Subway North
Red Subway to CC
Silver LRT
Vermont Subway
Yellow LRT

BTW, any good #s on capital and operating costs for a coal to liquids plant with and without carbon capture ?

Sorry Alan, no numbers for you - but I agree they are essential in this discussion. Likewise for wind; I recall capital costs of $1M per MW (back in 2003) with 2% annual maintenance. Anyone able to confirm these?

"I recall capital costs of $1M per MW (back in 2003) with 2% annual maintenance."

Yes, that's pretty much the accepted number on wind, but the carbon recapture is quite cheap, thank you!  :-)

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout