DrumBeat: August 15, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 15, 2006 - 9:10am
Could rising gas prices kill the suburbs?
When a high-cost commute reaches the point of no-return, home buyers will start finding houses closer to work. In fact, some already are.Rising fuel costs are being blamed for everything from soaring utility costs to lower retail sales and higher airline tickets. And now, experts say high gas prices could reshape U.S. cities.
...Once the realization soaks into the American consciousness that high-cost gas is here to stay, Gabriel predicts, those high commute prices will pull more homeowners -- even young families -- to live in central cities and create a push for more public transportation.
[Update by Leanan on 08/15/06 at 9:23 AM EDT]
The Korea Herald seems to "get" peak oil.
When tomorrow brings the twilight of oil
In 1956, Shell geologist Dr Marion King Hubbert came up with starling prediction: US domestic oil production would peak in 1970 and global production would peak in 1995. The latter would have transpired if the oil shocks of the 70s - and the subsequent energy efficiency innovations that followed - had not delayed a supply crunch for 10 to 15 years.The planet is now sitting atop an oil plateau and the only way forward is a steady downward slide.
But some people still aren't worried:
Petroleum: Why We'll Never Run Out
There's no shortage of scare stories about looming oil crises - Don't believe 'em[Washington] ...The President has signed legislation creating the Federal Oil Conservation Board, to ration dwindling supplies of petroleum...a recent report from the US Geological Survey has indicated oil supplies may be gone entirely within six years...
Last week's newscast? Actually, it was 1924, and the President was Calvin Coolidge. An interesting story that proves little, except that scare stories about oil shortages have been around longer than any of us.
Newsweek is schizophrenic this week, with one article blaming national oil companies:
Oil's Dirty Laundry. Why are oil prices so high? Partly because the industry is dominated by incompetent monopolies.
And one blaming supply and demand:
Demand is the demon behind high gas prices: Is pipeline shutdown to blame for high prices? No, it's Econ 101.
Oil price spike to end, you can bet on it
Arab refinery output rises by 600,000 bpd
Abu Dhabi: Production from the Arab world's refineries has grown by over 600,000 barrels per day over the past five years, and capacity is set to surge by over 2 million bpd when new projects are completed, according to official data.
US envoy pushes for Turkmenistan-Pakistan gas pipeline
ASHGABAT (AFP) - Washington is pushing for a new gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and "strongly opposes" a rival pipeline from Iran, US diplomat Steven Mann has said after meeting with Turkman President Saparmurat Niyazov.
China mulls raising oil, power prices
DOE Funds $1.4 Million for Study of Nuclear-Powered Hydrogen Production
Iowa group to build 12 biodiesel plants
Gambled and lost: Oil companies got nothing but higher production taxes.
San Francisco's clean energy revolution is here
San Francisco took a historic step last week toward creating the city's first Green Power Community on the site of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, where developer Lennar BVHP is about to begin construction of more than 1,600 new residential units and retail space.
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.
During the Katrina price spike, some stations raised prices to as much as $6/gallon, but those who did so ended up getting prosecuted under "anti-gouging" laws.
In Baghdad, there's an "official" price, but you have to wait in line, sometimes for days. You can buy gasoline on the black market with no wait...but it costs 3 to 4 times as much.
It's generally accepted that the lines in the '70s were caused by rationing.
Why do government impose price controls and rationing when they cause long lines and don't decrease consumption? Because letting the price rise until demand matches supply often has unfortunate side effects. Think Marie Antoinette, and "Let them eat cake."
Marco.
For this reason, I think we are headed toward far more government regulation, despite the lip service the dominant political party gives to smaller government. The Alaska editorial I posted above ("Gambled and Lost") is a good example.
Alaska is a solidly "red" state. Oil has been very good to them. But they did not like the idea of a 30-year freeze in oil production taxes, even at a much higher level. Even without that piece of legislation, many think Big Oil is getting away with something.
That's why I think that an ultra-liberal state where people are allowed to demand whatever they want and with no real independant leadership is doomed in the long run - it will either fail and/or will go to the other extreme.
"Moderation in all things" is good advice, even 2500 years later.
There will apparently be a segment on Peak Oil at 9:30 PM, Eastern Time, on MSNBC (Scarborough Country). A producer asked me if I would be interested in appearing (I would assume that I am not their first choice); she is supposed to get back with me shortly. In any case, it will be interesting to see how they handle it.
Jeffrey Brown
When I launched my thread about dog food and coffee yesterday I hoped I'd get at least one comment on how we are preceived.
Well, you saw it on tv.
Liberal Cornucopian Technofix Douche was just as bad.
The little peak oil girl couldn't have been more timid and unconfident. She was very sweet and all, but that won't cut it.
I don't have much hope that the general population will take the appropriate steps to cope and adapt to oil depletion and the other catastrophes we face. I'm pretty apathetic to the whole situation. This display was infuriating, yet a the same time hilarious to me.
To those of you that are still in the fight, don't let this get you down. It was Scarborough Country for one. Second, it was on MSNBC, who I'm pretty sure no one watches.
Ever.
.......UGH!!! Stossel!!! What a d***head!
I would have said yes, companies and individuals can plan ahead and solve a problem ... if they see it coming. But what if we don't hear about it?
Strossel said "high prices are good", an opportunity to agree, and ask him how high they are going, and if people know enough to be prepared.
He's not afraid to be mean. Kunstler would definately not have hesitated to call him an "idiot", which is the only way to describe Stossel tonight. It was so obvious that the guy didn't do a shred of research or preparation.
But the thing about Stossel is that he mostly said true things which don't tell the whole story. He threw in a few stinkers as well (oil shale), but I think the way to deal with the guy is not to call him names, but to tell the truths that complement his.
IMO "higher oil prices are good" is a very mainstream PO position.
I entirely agree, unfortunately.
For lack of alternatives a realistic solution could be to let darwinian selection work out the problem by weeding out the morons while trying to salvage some basis for the future.
And I DON'T mean back to stone age primitivism.
A tricky endeavour!
I suggest once again that we carefuly read “What normative obligations do we owe to future generations?” [PDF 41 pages].
Excerpts:
Within my taxonomy, the most fundamental intergenerational question—“What normative obligations do we owe to future generations?”— is not an ethical question at all. The principle of reciprocity operates in very limited ways between generations. Caring for the elderly makes sense in part because the continued ethos of such care makes it more likely that we will be cared for in turn as we age—an implementation of the Golden Rule.84 We apologize for past wrongs as a way of signaling our intention to cooperate in the future.85 Apart from these and a few other discrete behaviors, little of what we commonly refer to as “intergenerational ethics” is subject to the principle of reciprocity. Regardless of how we behave, our descendants will not be able to reward or retaliate against us effectively. More fundamentally, implicit in any invocation of the principle is the premise that our well-being is as important as anyone else’s. From an evolutionary perspective, however, our well-being is irrelevant; all that is important is whether we survive and reproduce into the future. Using the Golden Rule to protect present well-being against claims by future generations is precisely what we should not be doing.
.../...
The ethos of reciprocity that operates within the We of a person’s family (e.g., “We the Setos”) may require an individual to undertake duties vis-à-vis family members that she would not feel compelled to undertake with respect to outsiders and would not, in turn, expect them to undertake with respect to her (“Of course your kids can stay at my house the week you’re in New York”). The same actor may also consider herself part of a We defined by her church (“Our prayers go out to members who are not able to be here this morning because of illness”) or other social unit, and part of another We defined by her ethnicity (“No daughter of mine is going to marry one of Them”). In international affairs, some assert that we should only protect citizens of other countries if doing so is in our “national interest”—another way of saying we owe protective duties only to members of We the people of the United States.
One of the current frontiers of ethics is whether our broadest We should extend beyond the human species.
History is, in part, a story of the expansion of We’s. From the tribe to the city-state to the ethnic group to the nation-state to the species, the set of actors to whom we feel at least some sense of ethical obligation has over the long run consistently expanded. It has done so because development of an ethos of reciprocity between groups otherwise in friction is almost always adaptive. The frictions that arise between two groups who have not yet formed a single We are analogous to those that arise between two individuals who have no ethos of cooperation. In the long run, they hurt both.
A Hobbesian international order is no more functional than a Hobbesian nuclear family.
By Theodore P. Seto
My emphasis.
BUT....The subject is being broached. That is positive. Now, would someone please treat the subject with the respect it deserves?
odegraph, exactly correct.
If I tell people that if they don't change, they could lose everything, and they ask, "What do we have to change or give up, and you reply "everything", it sure don't take much of a great mind to see that nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
Sometimes I love to just come by myself to listen to the sing song.....solar, pointless, too small, wind, pointless too small too localized, hybrids, give it up they consume more than they could ever save...electric cars, forget it, you will still need roads and the batteries....geothermal heat pumps...it will take Diesel to dig the holes....I mean, it gets absolutely absurd! Even if you take the darkest case scenario there will still be billions of barrels of oil and tens of billions of feet of natural gas left in the world for most of the rest of this century, OHHHH but that's right, no matter how efficiently and cleanly you try, you can't use it because of global warming.....
No, it won't sell. And it's not Stossel's fault it won't even thought the consensus view that he is as thick as a brick is certainly correct.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Roger,
The fact that there are billions of barrels left for the balance of the century might not matter.
We just watched (via media) Israel reduce large sections of Lebanon to rubble. We saw tanks, helicopters, and airplanes do the heavy lifting on one side and barrages of missiles from the other. Despite incredible destruction of infrastructure, the missiles never stopped.
What do we do when the barrages of missiles seek a GOSP (gas/oil separation unit) in Saudi Arabia?
Point #1 being, the oil is not here. It is there. Those GOSP's matter more to us than the Twin Towers.
Point #2 is: the more we engage Jihad, either ourselves as in Iraq, or via proxy, in Lebanon, the more expensive and tenuous it gets. In our wonderful free market way...we have commercialized terror since 9/11. Now it is a trillion dollar industry and growing. It has trajectory. It's embedded now... like farm subsidies. And, we are rapidly expanding a quasi-military machine via corporate contractors as well. Halliburton and Black River are but two examples. This phenomenon also has trajectory.
This trajectory, and the tragedy of it is: trillions of dollars of "national security" invested in surveillance and weapons systems, not your trains, wind and solar.
To subsist, this trajectory looks for, and requires, enemies everywhere, not friends.
Our persuasive powers are in decline, for sure. We lead by force, not by example. But to lead by example, we'd have to lead the charge to alternative fuels, rather than exterting military control over the remaining oil.
Golly, breaking news!!
Regarding MSNBC's handling of Peak Oil, is there any surprise considering who owns them, and who their target audience is?
Turn to the Tom Whipples of the world for journalistic support of Peak Oil. And of course TOD.
About a month ago I seem to recall seeing another local heavyweight, Mike Papantonio, as a participant at a conference that dealt with source/sink limitation issues. Mike and Joe are partners in the same firm. Hmmm...
Darwinian, does your social network extend into their world?
Ed
Unfortunately BJJ, I do not have a social network.
:)
I've also been contact by MSNBC for this segment. Apparently it's a debate with the ever-lucid champion of farness and truth, John Stossel. I'm waiting to hear whether I would have to travel to San Francisco to do this; if so, I'm likely to decline.
Richard Heinberg
Well, I'm honored to be in the same group as you, but I have to assume that I am on the "Third String" team. My "vote" is that you go.
FYI--I taped two segments on Peak Oil a couple of weeks ago (the McCuistion Program, syndicated on PBS). It was pretty much me against ExxonMobil and Michael Lynch. I did get Lynch to admit that some regions have peaked and declined, but he asserted that we are decades from any kind of world peak.
I have always been confused by the Huber/Lynch position that discrete regions will peak and decline, but the world--the sum of discrete regions--will virtually never decline. This is like saying individual oil wells will peak and decline, but the field--the sum of the output of individual wells--will never decline. This probably a good point to use with Stossel.
One other point. In a sense, Stossel and Huber/Lynch are correct. We will bring on alternatives and unconventional. The problem, as you know, is trying to replace the rapdily falling production from the big fields. Also, if you look at total fossil fuel + nuclear energy production, if we found an entire new Saudi Arabia, it would only increase our fossil fuel + nuclear energy production rate by less than 5%.
Jeffrey Brown
Great going for whomever gets the nod. Lynch tells people what they want to hear and gets paid to do so, it's the way of the masses.
Hopefully over time people will realize that the peak is near LIKE so many others of us that have seen the figures. Oh well, Either way they will see it now or after the fact and come hunting the folks that told them otherwise and those that did not tell them, and might even hate the rest of us for it happening in the first place.
People never seem to get it that WE ALL did it.
the difference between a me and a Luddite, is while i do not hate technology i do understand it has limits and those limits prevents it from saving us.
go out on any busy street with allot of people and ask them politely about basic things, like where our electricity comes from. many people will answer the outlet in the wall. a few will get it right but they are the minority.
Actually Luddite does not mean this at all. Its use has become over-simplified and corrupted over the years.
"E. P. Thompson advances many arguments against this view of the Luddites. He shows that the Luddites were not opposed to new technology, but rather to the abolition of set prices and therefore also to the introduction of what we would today call the free market."
See Wikipedia
cheers
The problem we have right now is peak liquid fuel for transportation. Peak energy will not be with us for at least a few decades.
I guess you had to see it. Joe asked, over and over again, if this ment the end of the 'suburban dream'. Sounds like that needs liquid fuels.
The coal and uranium claim wasn't untrue, but in the context didn't mean much.
"even if peak oil were true 'we have plenty of coal and uranium to supply us with energy."
The new Scientific American says something similar. They say coal and its derivatives can could tie the earth over for more than a century.
Now, now, don't get political. This is, after all, TOD. We're only interested in geologic realities. Politics and economics are not welcome here. All such intruders shall be shot.
Let them burn vodka ...
Well do I remember Phase I, Phase II, Phase III of price controls and rationing during the seventies.
More of the same--except worse--is coming, and unless we get a major recession pretty soon (which could happen), I think the presidential election year of 2008 will bring competing Dem and Republican plans for both fuel rationing and price controls.
Predictions: Democratic party platform will punish wicked oil companies with excess profits taxes and explicit price controls and provide subsidies so that low-income people can continue to drive their old gas guzzlers.
Republican party platform will be more complicated and somehow try to provide tax incentives for more oil exploration and development while providing some kind of fig-leaf tax on oil companies for profits on already existing production. I expect to see quotas or outright prohibitions on the importation of cheap and economical Chinese cars to "save" the U.S. Big Three auto industry and perhaps garner some United Auto Workers votes.
Indeed, I expect Republicans and Democrats will compete in trying to stimulate the economy by keeping out cheap foreign goods--especially if the next recession turns out nasty.
"Beggar thy neighbor" policies make great politics.
BTW, of course there is going to be a recession. There are three things neither I nor anybody else knows:
Maybe, but they'll be fighting the WalMart lobby, which has been actively promoting its "green" initiative as it prepares for this battle.
Will the "give it to me as cheap as possible" demographic be the next "soccer mom" electorate?
and people just simply running out with price controls
both are probably equally devestating to the economy
Think what will happen if we allowed people to be priced out of food, water, basic healthcare etc. Our civilised society would fall apart very quickly.
This is just a restatement of current policy.
In the US only being priced out of healthcare is at the front of the popular mind, certainly abroad privatisation of water and rising cost of food(energy) is front and center.
http://www.energybulletin.net/19304.html
Note comments about Yergin. Chris agrees with Simmons regarding Saudi Arabia.
That's a damned fine question and one we're never likely to see answered truthfully either.
Did you note where Chris says:
"Very briefly, consider a few of the key facts from CERA's summary:
* CERA has higher Russian production than the Russian government.
* CERA projects higher OPEC production than even OPEC claims on its website. In terms of some individual fields they have higher output than OPEC claims.
* In 2009 they project production from Uruguay, despite the fact that the Petrobras house magazine (latest issue) says it's a 2011 start-up for a project they've only just sanctioned.
* BP's start up in Angola by 2009 is another implausibility zone (among many).
As if that was not enough they have global production several million b/d higher in 2011 than the IEA's new Medium Term Market Report (this only goes to 2011). As the IEA is usually criticized (correctly) for being too optimistic, CERA's estimates (which escalate dramatically after 2011) are frankly just plain fantasy."
He doesn't have much good to say about CERA, does he?
I could claim my productive capacity is a billion widgets a month, even though I struggle to make a million widgets, and be just as truthful as they are.
I'm seeing more and more articles in mainstream newspapers endorsing the view that high gas prices are here to stay. This one in the Chicalo Tribune, Key to energy reform: Let our oil prices soar (which I hope hasn't been posted already) says, in part:
I applaud the writer's sentiments, but his main argument seems to be that high prices will stimulate research into alternative sources of energy and somehow save society from its heretofore glutinous ways without a complete meltdown.
Personally, I think its too late for the sort of transition he envisions, or any kind of orderly changeover to alternative fuels that will allow the current system to remain intact. I guess that makes me a "doomer," but I don't see any way around the fact that as far no viable replacement for cheap oil has been found, or will be discovered in time to prevent large-scale breakdown.
. , ;, ( ) , ' '.
Marco.
How illuminating.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001502.html
My e-mail to Paul Higgins
Send your bet to Paul Higgins at paul@emergentfutures.comI've got a portrait of Alexander Hamilton that agrees with your points completely.
The reality? Texas oil production was about one mbpd--versus the "cornucopian" trend line of 6.5 mbpd.
I don't see a 3 year period where that happened since 1947. WTI averaged about $18.50/barrel in January of 2002. Today, we're at $73.20. The price has quadrupled in 4 years and 8 months.
Paul Higgins
Cheney and Rumsfeld could bomb Iran, demand could plummet and a severe magnitude could ensue. I might lose. At that point -- who would care anyway?
To give an example to illustrate: If you factoring out inflation, the "real return" of the DJIA has shown an average annual yield of scarcely 2% over the last 90 years. Clearly this is not a viable reflection of stock performance.
On the flip side, if you do buy the arguement that energy costs should be adjusted for inflation, does that not say something about the very policies that are creating the (rampant) inflation in the first place? Clearly, energy prices are soaring, leaving only two explainations:
1) Inflation is out of control, explaining the higher cost.
-or-
2) Energy is becoming more dear, explaining the higher cost.
Neither looks like good news from where I'm standing.
Thanks for the link. I'll spend some more time on that site, but for now, how legitimate is it? I just skimmed a little bit; it looks somewhat like the stuff you see at financialsense.com.
I like the site for it's anti spin. They've got a forum that I don't subscribe too, but here's an interesting developement in the last couple days. They are joining some network wherby people can loan money directly to people without bank involvement and stuff. I have no clue what that is about, but the site is updated haphazardly and with no real schedule. I check it once a day, but sometimes the updates are at night and I miss them.
I am no economist but assuming this scenario AND the Strait of Hormuz closed, when does the demand destruction from a recession takes over the supply shortage?
Prices look like they have fairly unstable dynamics and could veer either up or down.
Any economist here at TOD? And I don't mean Sailorman :
The way the term "demand destruction" is thrown around, I don't see it applying to short term events. It seems to refer to a change in the demand curve in response to medium-to-long term changes in supply. Not short term effects. i.e. "demand destruction" implies an adjustment of expectations on the part of the public at a fairly deep level.
So, if the Strait of Hormuz is closed for 3 months: no demand destruction. The price just spikes short term. December 2011 futures barely budge.
Closed for a decade paints a different picture. (But can't they go around??)
Asebius
Short answer... no, they cannot just go around.
So, instead of economists, we may need to ask, "Are there any generals at TOD?"
Not because I support military intervention. But because military intervention, in this scenario, seems inevitable.
Asebius.
There will be a demonstration effect. If Iran looses the oil weapon on the infidel others will follow.
What will the generals do? Certain to be interesting.
Very hard for me to imagine Iran made a public statement before thorough consultation with China.
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia67.html
Well no, the Red Sea is their western neighbor. Their southern neighbors are Yemen and Oman. Catch the map here:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html
Their western oil port is Yanbu. I think there is a port in Jiddah, it just doesn't handle oil tankers.
What??
Their (single) southern neighbour is Yemen... pipeline over the Rhub' Al Khali, anyone? And besides, Saudi & Yemen not exactly friends since Yemen "sided" with Saddam in 1st Gulf War...
Their WEST coast is the Red Sea.
The important point is that, as Yemen is mountainous, the shortest and easiest route to the Red Sea, which Iran can't block, is totally through Saudi Territory. It is over 600 miles but it beats dodging Silkworm missiles with Oil tankers.
BTW. When I lived in Saudi, many years ago, half the work force was from Yemen
A good sign would probably be the packs of wild dogs that rule the streets.
Maybe it's time to get out of automotive...
The state's single largest employer is here, though, and we've been in a steady building boom for over 10 years or so now.
If he really believe his statement, he should put up at least $100 bucks, then you could get a couple of loaves of bread at least. Maybe some ice cream.
=========It's all about population!
I see one potential reason why oil could go much lower -- I don't know about $40 -- and that would be a global recession. Supply is only one part of the equation. Demand is the other part. If a recession cut deep enough, it would crimp demand.
That said, I think the odds of a global recession are slim. I'm leaning more toward inflation being our next crisis. Did you see this from Goldman Sachs:
DJ MARKET TALK: US Housing Slowdown To Fuel Fed Cuts-Goldman
1131 GMT [Dow Jones] The direct hit from the US housing slowdown is already substantial, says Goldman Sachs, noting real residential investment fell at a 6.4% annual rate last quarter. With more consumption weakness to come, housing and consumer spending will exert a significant drag on US growth in 2007. This should reduce real GDP growth to 2% by 2Q and prompt the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates by 125 bp to 4% next year, Goldman says. With the rest of the world holding up relatively well in the face of a US slowdown, it expects EUR/USD to hit 1.37, and USD/JPY to touch 98 on a 6-month basis, versus 1.2727 and 116.56 now.
Lower interest rates would likely lead to an increase in inflation, but I think it might be a trade-off the Fed and the White House are willing to make to keep the economy humming. And inflation would help you on your bet, because Mr. Higgins didn't state that the price of oil would hit $40 in inflation-adjusted dollars.
I'd expect to see, in terms of man-hours, essentials getting more expensive, and the extras like cheezy wal-mark earrings, getting cheaper. Eventually everything gets much more expensive in terms of man-hours. I like to think of the price of things in terms of the man-hours it takes to earn it, since the zeros on the scraps of paper that litter our pockets can be juggled around, but the amount of work a person can do is firmer.
Suffice it to say it was mind boggling and it really pissed my step dad off. While I agree it says something about what the FED will do, I really think they are trying to soothe markets with rhetoric in a way. I think it's too late like you said, the bullets have ran out and now we sit and wait for the masses to rush.
http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2006/08/mad-money.html
Inflation is the great hidden tax. That's the way things will go, after (or before, depending on who you ask) a short period of deflation. Weimar Germany is our future.
http://www.zealllc.com/2005/stockinf.htm
So what?
There is an old "military dumbness" joke that goes:
What do you do when you are out of ammo?
Keep firing so the enemy won't notice!
This starkly reminds of some actual policies...
If the Fed installing gas turbines on the printing presses yet?
No need for the gas turbines....I'm sure their 10 key skills are among the best in the world. :)
Is there a stacked area graph or stacked percentage area graph that shows global production categorized by API gravity?
From Drudge:
Police have been looking for a disgruntled McDonald's customer who ran into two other customers with her car after a dispute over who was next in line.
Melinda Ann Thomas, 34, and Linda Ann Thomas, 51, were standing in a crowded line around 8:30 a.m. Saturday as they waited to order breakfast, police said. A cashier opened a new line and they stepped to the front of it _ a move that angered another customer who was waiting to order.
According to the report, the unidentified woman started yelling at them and threatened to kill them.
The woman then left the restaurant before the Thomases and stayed in the parking lot, sitting in her dark blue Jeep Cherokee, witnesses told police. As the Thomases made their way to their car, witnesses said the woman pulled out of her parking space and sped toward the women, striking them both with the passenger side of the Jeep.
Neither woman was badly injured, the police report said.
The woman is being sought by police on charges of aggravated assault.
On May 23 at a McDonald's in Covington, about 30 miles southwest of Athens, a man ran over two women and their three children, killing a 2-year-old. A suspect is facing murder and aggravated assault charges in the attack, for which authorities have said they have no motive.
Clearly, one is needed.
For what it's worth, I think we do have smoldering economic problems, but picking a point case of a mad-woman is confirmation bias at its worst.
Chicago's housing market is not as ridiculous, but once you can't afford to get in, subsequent price rises are academic and totally moot.
http://www.hummerh8.com/
There is a growing sense of directionless anger amongst the populace of the US recently. It's almost like folks, going about their daily drudge and grind, can sense an undercurrent of ill wind. Frustration, anger, dissappointment, and powerlessness in the face of external circumstances manifesting itself.
... but with a continuing fall in violent crime?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Violent crime takes first big jump since '91
I agree, and I think that we will see more and more examples of Americans lashing out irrationally, commonly manifested as road rage.
The American consumer is basically standing at a four way intersection with four 18 Wheelers headed his way in the form of rising interest rates; rising food & energy prices; rising health care costs and flat to falling incomes.
I suppose we could throw climate change in there and make it 110F in the shade, with no shade, so they have sunstroke and are too lethargic to move.
Oy, and we could count consumer debt as an earthquake shaking their legs out from under them!
As more and more Americans find them selves "upside down" (owing more than the property is worth) on their home mortgages, the sugar is going to hit the turbine big time.
Already tens of millions of Americans are upside down on their car loans, and this fact does not enhance auto sales. For years salesmen hid upside down loans with exceptionally creatve financing deals and exaggerated estimates of the worth of traded in vehicles, but this game is about over, because it has been pushed farther and farther--to the point where you have to be ready to commit felony fraud to finance car deals for a lot of multithousand dollar upside down customers these days.
New housing sales in the toilet, auto sales about to hear that gigantic flushing sound . . . these do not bode well for the economy.
You see, people really only seem to have a memory that goes back 5 years!
This is why in a recent poll, a huge number of people can't remember what year 9-11 was in (it was in 2001), and can't remember real estate ever-ever going down (it in fact has, it follows a general roller-coaster pattern, with I believe a real appreciation of about 5%).
So, you have all these fat, dumb, and happy McMericans buying RE and buying more RE, or their jobs depending on RE, in fact the whole economy is being held up by the RE bubble, and when that bubble begins to deflate....... things start looking very shakey for those who install granite countertops for a living, and house-stagers, and the folks at Home Depot (once upon a time there were far fewer of these home-improvement type places, and before that, there were just regular old hardware stores) and all the rest of it, oh yes and car dealers - I mentioned this in another post in another thread, buying/selling a house is such an involved and for a lot of people, traumatic process, that when they're done, they often reward themselves by buying a car or two! The price of one seems like a bar tip after dealing with the huge amount of money needed to buy a house, and when you're talking about spending $25k or $50k to re-do the kitchen or landscape the garden and put on a new roof, a car seems cheap.
And it's been drummed into us for the last decade that we can't expect to do as well as our parents or grandparents, because it's true, but now it's beginning to sink in because McMericans are starting to see the signs of it in their own lives, you know, little things like being 2-3 mortgage payments behind, having the car repo'd etc.
http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/
http://housingpanic.blogspot.com/
I also agree: That's the reason I flatly refuse to go up to Phoenix anymore, even though a lot of my family and friends live up there.
13 AC units taken from complex
"Thieves once again have struck at a west Montgomery apartment complex, stealing 13 outdoor air-conditioning units and a pickup this week.
"Rising copper prices have led to a rash of thefts of air conditioners, copper pipes and wiring and anything else that might have the metal. Abandoned apartments, homes and businesses have been sources of stolen copper."
I first heard of this in a Detroit paper, and there are news references to it from Las Vegas as well.
Things will escalate..........
"A vessel on its way to Al-Fujayrah (UAE) illegally entered waters of Iran's Hangam gas field and towed the oil rig out of Iranian waters,"
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=35214
Why is it that oil production is always given in barrels while oil spills are always reported in terms of gallons? Who cares about a gallon? I hate to be one of those people who beat up on the media, but it seems alarmist to report "1.4 million gallons" instead of "33,000 barrels".
I got a VERY quick response !
I find the common EU use of Gl for water to not be useful, in that I cannot understand or picture a gigaliter.
640 acres to the sq mile. Acre-ft is one acre, one foot deep.
2,100 Gl of workable storage with a 55 km2 surface area reservior at max and 45 km2 at minimum gives a rough idea of head reduction during the winter drawdown.
Still, it was fun to send data in acres-ft/day :-)
like 20-30 cents
Can anyone confirm this?
The Dept of Homeland Security has such a long "To-Do List" it makes me wonder why, as they sit around the conference table, they chose to get this item done.
It may not be true
If it is true , it may be nothing.
It would be interesting to know what the deal is.
Compared to some other things--figuring out how to screen passengers, figuring out how to check bazillions of containers coming into US ports every day--designing and printing a gaggle of tickets and drop-shipping them around the US is pretty simple stuff.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5789
So, we need a change in world values that sees a lower energy life style as having more value than one that values higher consumption. What is of more value to people? Working 60 plus hours a week to support a mortgage on a 4,000 square foot McMansion that requires an additional 12 hours a wek to comute to, or living close to work in a 1,000 square foot house that I can pay for working 1/2 of the hours? Paying for and insuring a $60K SUV or having enough prosperity to retire?? The Buddah was right, we are slaves to desire and fear. What would you rather have-two well educated, well fed , healthy children or half a dozen children starving? How in the world can we sell this to the rest of the world? This is the spiritual challenge of peak oil.
Speaking of consumption, I think this chart speaks volumes:
I would guess a mixture of the two, but once the credit card has maxed out we might see a change.
- people now live further from their jobs, no alternative to car for getting there
- job market tighter, can't flip jobs to lessen commute
- housing market bad, can't flip houses to lessen commute
But living in delusion/debt is a major, modern component... which will, mechanically, lead to economic contraction when people reach the end of the borrow-and-hope phase.When the time comes to pay the piper, something will have to give.
Beyond Prudhoe: Why BP should go back to being an oil company
It's about all the things that BP has done wrong, despite trying to pose as a "green" oil company. But what struck me was this bit:
I missed that news, which was apparently announced in late July. Last I heard, they were predicting it would be producing in "the second half of 2006." Which many analysts were assuming was July 2006.
This is why I think we're probably at peak about now. There's lots of new production expected in the next few years, but whether it will come online according to schedule is a whole different story.
Business Week
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2041
"gasoline percentage yield" might be what you're asking for?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/solfocus_receiv.php
32 cents per watt would really change things.
It could change things, but I am always leery of these types of weasel-word-preductions. Once they get close to actually delivering these things it will be easier to get excited.
And, of course, there are the Stirling guys and Evergreen Solar with their silicon-on-a-string... No matter how this Peak Oil thing turns out it is all darn interesting.
A Repository of Oil Production Datasets in a Public Spreadsheet
Might stretch things a few years, might not...but it'd be good to filter out some geopolitical strife and see a clearer picture of the underlying geologic constraints.
Sorry, this begs the quote:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein
Don't underestimate human silliness, we may be well below it's peak.
"The Germans were making synthetic diesel for military use in WW2. With enough cheap energy, it can be done with no raw materials but water and carbon dioxide. Best yet -- the process is carbon neutral... the CO2 generated when the oil is burned is equal to the CO2 used to produce it."
When you can take water, combine it with carbon dioxide, create oil and do so with a net energy gain, oh... and have it be carbon neutral, let me know. I want to invest my entire, pathetic little retirement nest-egg with your company.
The process might be useful to convert one form of energy (nuclear, sunlight) to another (liquid) and as such is completely viable proposal. How good it is is arguable and it should be compared to the alternatives, but I don't see any reason for dismissing it altogether.
Absolutely we are, LevinK. Otherwise, why would we do it?
The same with any industrial process actually - we are transforming one form of energy to another, but we never "create" energy - it is against the laws of thermodynamics. My only point is that the requirement for "net energy gain" is meaningless; what we need to talk about is efficiency of conversion.
Nobody is going to argue over that. But this loss of energy that you refer to, while not irrelevant, is not critical because Mother Nature bequeathed us the oil in the first place. It was a gift. We didn't invest anything in its production. Nothing. Nada. Rien de tout. Therefore, anything that we get out of burning it is pure gain.
Now; I want to hear more about this carbon-neutral process that you have for combining water and carbon dioxide into a petroleum-like product that I can burn in my Hummer.
Viva la zero point energy and alchemists.
OUT OF ACTION FOR TWO MONTHS
I am flying out tomorrow to spend about two months helping my father and mother after my father's knee replacement surgery. Limited internet access, hence reading & posting @ TOD.
AlanfromBigEasy
Alan Drake
Take care Alan. Come back safe, we need our transit experts! I hope you're headed somewhere inland a bit...
I believe that will be my last airplane excursion in the near future and perhaps ever.
On the upside of my trip, Montreal was fantastic. They have excellent mass transit, are close to fresh water, and love life in general.
Good for you!
I used to do a great deal of business travel, but fortunately haven't set foot on a plane since before 9/11. And I plan to keep it that way.
Airline security is a Kafkaesque farce. Yet most people have become very docile and will put up with all manner of pointless indignities.
What this country needs is a nationwide boycott of air travel.
I think you will get that, not for the altuistic goal of saving fuel, but because "flying" in general is losing the convenience it once provided.
Here's what we have lost in the last 5 years:
- More hassle boarding a plane (takes longer than the flight itself).
- Less leg room.
- No free food (or very little).
- No pillows.
- Less bathrooms (economy class can now only use the rear one).
- Less friendly service-providers (you should have seen the overworked counter/custom agents in Montreal on Sunday morning).
- Longer inflight delays.
- More lost luggage.
- More people bumped from flights due to overbooking (make sure and get an assigned seat when booking a flight).
- More irritated flyers (customers).
Now, I don't need to be coddled when I travel, but I will seriously look at alternative travel possiblities next time I make a trip. I hope one day, the US brings back domestic train travel in a large way.Travel was bad enough when I did most of mine (1970s through 1990s), but it is obvious that is has gotten several levels worse.
In my opinion, to be a good airline traveler, one must have:
- A very high aggrevation threshold.
- An ability to sleep at will under bad circumstances.
- An iron stomach to cope with all the bad airline and airport food.
- An ability to cross many time zones without major ill effect.
- A reslient personality that doesn't take indignities personnally.
- A total lack of imagination, that is helpful in tuning out your immediate horrible surroundings.
Unfortunately, I fail at all six criteria. That's why I've always hated travel and just don't do it anymore.If people did indeed boycott US air travel, I think the flight mix would be reduced mostly to essential coast-to-coast and long-distance north-to-south travel, as commuter travel will have largely dried up.
I say, let's do it! And isn't this a perfect example of 'letting the market decide'?
I for one, am no longer in the market for air travel. So, I have indeed voted with my feet.
Any suggestions....?
I would add
- A good sense of humor -
to your list.
It was the funniest gawdamned spectacle I've seen in many years.
Though I suppose if I had succumbed to the desire to bust out laughing at the absurdity of it all some officious bastard woulda popped outta nowhere and made sure it was no longer so funny to me.
Then get some help from the brits.
I would REALLY like to see how such prank would come out in the US.
Red alert may be?
I'm convincing a lot of people to implement a light rail passenger train around here in Roberval.
It might be used for tourism at first but ultimately it will be used for ordinary travel. Many mayors are with me on this.
I will let you know in two month.
I hope your father will do good with this surgery.
Pascal
Venezuela, who's oil production has held pretty well steady since the strike about three and one half years ago, now sees oil production starting to decline.
http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/08/15/en_eco_art_15A765823.shtml
(I had to put the same spin I heard on the radio this afternoon on your post... sorry)
"Plan B 2.0" by Lester Brown. It isn't limited to peak oil, but discusses all kinds of the ways we are up against the limits that this planet has placed upon us.
Come ON, somebody, step up to the plate: Here we would have a likely best-seller that would help to educate a wide public of what some bright and knowledgeable people think about peak oil.
The logical person to do this is Leanan, because she is, after all, the editor of TOD. I hereby nominate her. (This is not, IMO, a project to be done by a committee.)
In terms of getting copy rights to what we have posted, we have gone there before, though I do not recall any lawyers offering any definitive opinions.
This could very well be an "annual editions" type of anthology.
And I shan't be offering any opinions because then somebody will rely on them and then we have the potential start of problem should anything eventually sell enough that people start to care.
What I would say is Nolo Press has some very good intros written in plain English: "Getting Permission" and whatever they call their "Introduction to Copyright Law."
We have some amazing posters, some great articles, but the fact that they disappear after a week of new ones, instead of being a constant reference, is disappointing. I'm finding great stuff in searches of old TOD posts.
Copyright isn't difficult to solve in the longterm - put an "all contributions are public domain" under the post button.
I think that's a terrible idea.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty much in the "information wants to be free" camp, and I think intellectual property law will probably be one of the casualties of peak oil.
But in the here and now, it's still a pretty contentious area. Until the Internet, nobody much cared. It was a backwater in the field of law. Not a specialty that attracted the best and the brightest. That is changing, but it's still an area with a lot of shades of gray.
I am not certain that the disclaimer you describe would hold up in a court of law...and it may be expensive to find out. Morever, we have no way of knowing that the people who post here own the copyright to what they are posting. Some people post entire articles copied and pasted from news sources or other blogs or mailing lists. Do they become "public domain"? Not likely.
I like the idea of a wiki much better. Not least because there's no profit involved. Not making money does not protect you from being sued for copyright infringement, but it does make it a lot less likely.
In either case, the right thing to do is the polite thing to do: get permission. If you can't get permission, don't use it.
I was going to open up by asking people to fill out a short survey, obviously to get a snapshot of PO awareness prior to seeing the DVD. Of a million questions I'd want to ask (e.g., how much people use mass transit), here's what I've come up with. I'd really appreciate feedback from TODers (the formatting may be screwed up but not to worry). (I'm uneasy abt. #10, seems too confusing.) I've got about 4 hrs. before the meeting.
Please assist me in getting a better handle on public opinion and perception of oil depletion by taking a moment now to respond to the following questions. Your participation is of course not only voluntary but also entirely confidential. Thanks in advance!
Age _
Most people with whom I interact are well informed about peak oil issues. _
We can solve economic, social and other problems resulting from oil depletion and roughly maintain our
- The price of a barrel of crude oil will pass $100 by this time next year (August 2007). _
Recent higher gasoline prices have caused me to change my driving habits. _
The prospect of higher fossil fuel prices has caused me to rethink my spending on:
- Federal government leaders are working hard on how to transition to alternative energy sources. _
The Federal government should impose higher vehicle fuel efficiency (CAFÉ) standards. _
The Federal government should gradually impose a market-related carbon tax so that gasoline prices
- Local government leaders are working hard on how to transition to alternative energy sources. _
We must increase domestic production of oil, even if it means opening up the Arctic NWR and/or _
Gender _
Race/Ethnicity _
I live in: [local cities mentioned]
Occupation ________
Estimated total miles you drive per week ____
Estimated average miles per gallon of these vehicle(s) ____
Current price of a barrel of crude oil. _
Percentage of oil the US now imports from other countries _%
Percentage of US oil consumption devoted to commercial and personal transportation _%
Please respond to the following questions using the following scale:
1 Strongly Agree 2 Mildly Agree 3 Neutral 4 Mildly Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
- I am well informed about peak oil issues.
_current standard of living. _
housing/home improvements _
medical/hospital expenses _
work-related expenses (e.g., commuting) _
vacation/recreation _
other ______
7. I have installed energy efficiency items in my house. _
Describe these ______________________
stay at $5/gallon and devote funds generated to alternative fuel development. _
the continental shelf off the west coast. _
85 mbd x 42 gallon/barrel = almost 3.5 billion gallons per day
Then ask how much the world consumed in the mid 1950s as a point of reference. 15 mbd approximately, don't know the exact number.
Gallons is something people are familar with. a "barrel" means little to nothing to the average person.
Other questions to get them thinking:
How many pounds of fossil fuels does it take to construct a microchip?
Answer: 3.5 pounds
Source: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1275.html
How many pounds of fossil fules does it take to construct a desktop computer?
Answer: 350 pounds on average. 10 times the computer weight and the average desktop computer weighs 35 pounds. (Somebody correct me on the weight, I might be wrong)
Source:http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10007&Cr=computer&Cr1=
On average, how far is food transported from where it is produced to where it is consumed?
For the U.S., 1,500 miles.
Other good stats to work in:
1. During all of World War II, the allies used 7 billion barrels of oil to defeat Germany and Japan. 6 billion were pumped from U.S. soil. Today, of course, the world uses 30 billion barrels per year.
ram chips don't have as high of a tollerence as cpu/gpu/northbridge/southbridge chips.
should be intolerance, as in they can take more defects and still run fine which is why you have different grades of ram.
you see all ram is made the same but before they package the ram they test it. depending on how many non-critical tests they fail they get thrown into different bins
From fossil fuel + nuclear sources, worldwide we use the energy equivalent of a billion barrels of oil every five days. This is equivalent to using all of ExxonMobil's proven oil and gas reserves in less than four months. If we found an entire new Saudi Arabia, it would only increase the fossil fuel + nuclear energy production rate by less than 5%.
The key point, IMO, is to push Alan Drake's Electrification of Transportation proposals. FYI--a trolley on rails is five to eight times more efficient that a bus on tires, even comparing diesel to diesel. If we use an electric trolley, there is another efficiency factor (numbers from Alan). IMO, the only real growth is going to be along mass transit lines.
In regard to the survey, you might consider doing a multiple choice for some of the questions.
According to these costs, when gas went from $1.50 to $3.00, the total cost per mile only went from $.56 to $.62. That wouldn't be much of a change.
In fact, maintenance cost per mile is in the rough range of $.10-.15. Very sloppy article.
More specifically - from what I gather there is some type of subsidy that makes ethanol refining (and/or corn growing) much more lucrative than petroleum refining - without this subsidy would it even be economically viable to run an ethanol operation?
Unless ethanol is inherently a more valuable fuel than its inputs - wouldn't the negligible EROEI of ethanol production signify a poor economic choice as well?
Thanks
Ben
Given all of the objective information out there from many respected sources regarding peak production light crude oil, it still astounds me that some of the supposedly highly educated individuals or entities still refute the situation. Until now, I have been sufficed to read the news items and posts, but after having read an article that appears in the most recent issue of "The Economist" I am frankly angry. I will post the link here:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7276986
The author essentially gives the impression that Saudi Arabia alone could supply the world for "several decades". If we agree that the world is now consuming approximately 31 billion barrels per year and that Saudi Arabia has an optimistic CIA fact book figure of 261.7 billion, the Saudis can give the world ~8.5 years of oil. And this is only one oversight or is it? Granted, this appears in a magazine that is unlikely to attract the interest of the vast majority of people, including me, but my local paper, THE STAR TRIBUNE, ran this nonsense in the business section! Now greater than several handfulls of people probably believe that the evil empires in Saudi Arabia, and the other Nationalized Oil Companies are just being lazy. If I didn't know any better, they are still trying to prove their original prognostication from the late ninties correct and they could then take their foots out of their mouths. At worst, this gives people yet another "reason" to dislike people of the middle east for being the greedy people they are even though they are already giving us all their infrastructure will allow.
If anyone else with a greater level of knowledge has read this piece, please let me know if I am off base on this.
Is your local paper the Minneapolis Star Tribune (a.k.a. The Strib)? If so, I have some good news: While the rest of the U.S. may indeed go down the tubes, Minnesota will do just fine. Why? We have timber, diverse crops, much livestock, iron ore and a relatively well-educated and nonviolent population (except for some neighborhoods of Minneapolis).
Now, about the article from "The Economist":
First thing I noticed is that it is unsigned. Second thing is that there will be irate letters to the editor pointing out the error--the egregious error--that you indicated. Finally, "The Economist" is a fine newspaper, within its limits, but its limits do not extend to good reporting on oil, as I mentioned in another comment a few days ago.
I think it is understandable but a huge mistake to waste emotional energy worrying about an uncertain future. Example: As a young person I spent many sleepless nights worrying about a seemingly inevitable war between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. The smart money was on World War Three, and the consensus was Doom.
Will there be future tribulations?
You bet.
Where will they be? Mostly, where they are already, among the poorest peoples of the world in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Some wonderful countries, such as Jamaica, are already being hit hard by recent increases in the price of oil.
Lots of rich and well-to-do folk in the U.S. will become poor. This has happened before, within the lifetime of some now living, during the Great Depression. For what it is worth, my guess is that the human suffering from Peak Oil in the U.S. will be (on a per capita basis) somewhat less than that of the Great Depression.
As I've stated a couple of times before, in terms of preparation for the future, I think it works well (at least for me) to pretend that there is a fifty percent chance that the next fifty years will be pretty much business as usual (in the U.S.) and a fifty percent chance of The End Of The World As We Know It.
BTW, the world of 1956 As We Knew It has Ended--and a good thing, too. Except for increased population, the world today is generally a better place than it was in 1956.
Last thought for now: IMO the "St. Paul Pioneer Press" is now a better newspaper than is the Strib.
It is written and it is true.
Your biggest problem is that you think you understand what words mean. Do you?
I can buy a quart of motor oil at my local gas station and also keep the world "supplied" for the next couple of decades.
Mind you I never said anything about meeting "demand". All I need is a tiny liquid dropper and to dole out a small amount each year. I'm "supplying", ain't I? Not my fault you misoverestimated the meanings of my words.
ability of SA to supply the world for
decades if demand were at a certain
level. I fully admit my own mistake.
However, could we not agree that the words
are EXTREMELY misleading to the average
person. Yeah, the world could be supplied
with a quart of motor oil, but what would
such a world look like? Are we saying that
there exists some advance knowledge about
a dramtic event that will take demand to
some tragic low? If not, the insinuation
that the wording was justified is flat
wrong in my opinion.
Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
Absolutely. Who's an average person? Clearly you weren't mislead. We're all propagandists here.
By the way, Step Back, have you finished SciAm yet? How about those articles on Transportation and Coal? Not bad, I thought. Very well written, concise, covered all major points, without even a whiff of peak-oil.
It most emphatically is an oversight. Several decades?
The bolded text is false. The world is well-explored as far as looking for oil plays is concerned. There is such a thing as 2-D and 3-D seismic imaging and every other trick of the trade that petroleum geologists have ever used. Read this nonsense with a grain of salt. The discoveries curve tells you all you want to know.By the way, Leonardo Maugeri is an interesting choice. He's with ENI (Italy). Look at Oil, Oil Everywhere from Forbes Magazine -- where dreams come true. Maugeri is one of Europe's leading Cornucopians.
By the way, Stepback (below) is correct regarding demand. If supply & demand were balanced at 200/mbd, we world would consume 71 Gb of oil each year. That would quite a dent in the world R/P ratio. How long could Saudi Arabia supply the world at that level of consumption? Or if demand is 1 barrel a day, then Saudi Arabia could supply us for N days, where N is a really big number. You get the idea.
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/CERA2005.pdf
CERA's capacity report based on february 2005 figures, for free instead of 2500-3500 dollars.
greets,
Rembrandt
Look like the North East passage is now open in the Artic
North West next year maybe ?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg
I wonder what the particulate carbon from burning bunker fuel will do to the remaining ice once ship travel starts through the artic in earnest not to mention the other effects of pollution small spills etc.
Just got my Sci American in the mail
Page 102: Plan B for Energy by W. Gibbs
Table of Contents: Sci Am Sept. 2006
Then as the hurricanes of last fall were bearing down on the Gulf Coast, I went a-googling for a site which would track them and stumbled on TOD. Which reminded me of Hubbert and got me to wondering, "What ever happened to that bell curve? Wasn't it supposed to peak about 2000?". So I kept reading. And exclaiming, "Holy s**t!". I'd say I'm at about a Defcon 3, and trying to decide where to go from here. ... Anybody got a nice country retreat and want to adopt an old nerd? I'll help ya wire it for WiFi or something ...