<Well none of this is particularly good news! The Oil Drum Time for the EIA prediction for 2006>

44 comments on A different view of the gas situation

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

ericy on December 6, 2005 - 2:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think the trend is that this production is moving overseas.  To locations where they do have more plentiful supplies of natural gas.

In a way it makes sense - instead of transporting LNG so that we can make fertilizer here, make fertilizer somewhere else and then ship that here.

Sucks for the people who lose their jobs though..

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on December 6, 2005 - 2:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
And for the farmers who are paying double or more for fertilizer now than they did a year ago.

And for the consumers who will ultimately pay more for that food.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
steverino on December 6, 2005 - 8:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
a recent article in the walla walla union bulletin on fertilizer costs:

http://www.union-bulletin.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=28443&SectionID=1&SubSectionID =&S=1

if they are having trouble with the cost structure of growing wheat around walla walla, then farming is in BIG trouble. for those who are unfamilier with that area of the country, walla walla is at the base of the palouse hills, which has incredibly rich,deep soil. we're talking 15-20 feet of topsoil. it grows non irrigated winter wheat, 100 bushels to the acre. i believe it is the most productive wheat country in the u.s. if they are having problems, we are having problems.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on December 6, 2005 - 8:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Then you soon will have to pay more for food and buy less of other things.

This is a problem that can be solved with the market moving resources from production of other stuff to food production.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
steverino on December 6, 2005 - 9:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
the problem, magnus, is not necessarily one of cost of product to the consumer, but destruction of an essential industry. there is currently so much competition on the world market that we, in the u.s. , don't "need" to produce wheat, or manufacture power tools or computers, etc. here. "someone else", the chinese,or brazilians or chileans will do it for us , cheaper. this will come home to roost when cheap oil will no longer make these things possible. then where will  the farmers, factory workers, machinists, oil service workers be when we need them?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on December 6, 2005 - 10:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Given customers that will pay they will be between one and ten years into the future as long as the education system is ok.

You can of course hire me but I am so far only searching for a job in the Swedish energy industry. I can work for two. :-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Don in Colorado on December 7, 2005 - 3:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, I'm a farmer/rancher right now. But if energy gets too expensive, I'll probably only be able to grow enough for my family and a little surplus for my neighborhood market.

If I don't have diesel, I'll need slaves ... lots and lots of them.

Volunteers?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BaSE on December 7, 2005 - 3:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You still have to feed, clothe, and house slaves.  Assuming you could do this for $8K/slave/year, diesel is still cheaper and of course easier to manage.  A barrel of diesel provides about 12 man years of labor at a cost of about $120.  I reckon the price will have to go up by a factor of 800X before we break out the chains and go back to slavery.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stoneleigh on December 7, 2005 - 8:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You could turn your farm into a small commune and work the land together for the benefit of all. "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs" works quite well at very small scale (only at very small scale in fact). There's also safety in numbers. If your farm can provide anything of value(knowledge to share, a small surplus of produce, or space for hosting allotment gardens for example) to the nearest local community as well, they may see it as being in their best interests to protect you and your lifeboat.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Whitehall on December 7, 2005 - 2:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Turn your farm into a commune?

Let's see what historical examples we can find to suggest that's a way to feed people.

  1. Collective farms under Stalin - result:  mass starvation

  2. Collective farms under Mao - result:  mass starvation

  3. Shakers - lasted a while but lack of sex deterred recruits and successors

  4. Oneida Farms worked pretty well because the free love aspect had a certain appeal for a while.  Ultimately, metal working saved their bacon, so to speak.

  5.  New Harmony - two years then blooey.

Did I miss any others?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stoneleigh on December 7, 2005 - 3:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I believe you miss my point. Perhaps you come from a more ruggedly individualistic political culture than I do. Communism makes a terrible ideology under which to run a country, or, for that matter, any aggregation of humanity too large for each person to know every other person. It just doesn't scale up beyond the personal level (see Filters Against Folly by Garret Hardin for instance). I was not suggesting anything remotely reminiscent of forced collective farming.

We do not need to chose between the extreme of collectivization and the extreme of individualism - that is a false dichotomy. There are other viable choices in between, for instance small-scale cooperative structures. If I have a choice between cooperating with my neighbours and arming myself to the teeth in order to keep them at bay as they starve, I know which choice I will make. I have, in fact, been planning to do exactly this with my own farm for some time.

I regard it as giving my neighbours a stake in the support system I have built in exchange for their help in working it and protecting it. I cannot work it by myself without fossil fuels, nor can my family cover all the skill bases that would be necessary for a reasonable degree of self-sufficiency. We will need the help and expertise of others and are prepared to offer to share what we have in order to get it.

I could chose the market option and merely offer to employ others, perhaps at very low wages if they were sufficiently desperate, but such socio-economic disparity would only breed resentment. I would have to watch my back all the time, which would be a unnesessary waste of energy in an energy constrained environment. I realize that this option is not without its problems, human nature being what it is, but every other option seems even more fraught with difficulties.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on December 8, 2005 - 2:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Stoneleigh, I agree with you completely.  I don't have enough land of appropriate quality to truly be a farm, nor do I have the skills (yet).  But nonetheless, I believe that those who can become a useful part of their local community will be at an advantage compared to those who adopt a bunker mentality.  I am a pretty capable individual - I enjoy hard work, both mental and physical, and learning new skills, and I take pride in that - but I am not an army of one.  To be a part of a community means giving back to that community as well, it does not mean giving up one's individuality.  To be known within your area and thought of as someone of worth and value is a far better defense than a Glock by your pillow.

And to some extent it does scale up.  They don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because of our actions.  But even given our past, if we had spent the hundreds of Billions doing basic things to make life tangibly better for people in the areas that generate the terrorists, support for the small fraction of radicals would be low.  And by being an involved and valued member of the world community, we would be far more secure than we are now, without giving away our personal freedoms.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on December 7, 2005 - 8:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Don, do you have enough waste straw/stalks, manure or the like to run your essential equipment using bio-methane or gasogenes?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

44 comments on A different view of the gas situation

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version