DrumBeat: January 22, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 22, 2007 - 10:05am
Oil has fallen below $50/barrel. Will it fall further to $40/barrel? Or will it rise again to $75/barrel? Both scenarios are possible. Indeed, both price levels could be reached in the coming year, given the way oil prices see-saw violently.One thing is clear: the notion that global oil production has peaked and will now fall — a concept called Hubbert’s peak — has been proved wrong. Oil production has been rising steadily, to the point where even a substantial cut of 1.6 million barrels/day by Saudi Arabia has failed to stem the slide in prices.
We will have to be much more imaginative as a people if we are to take meaningful action to deal with global warming. It is a simple truth that economic activity that transforms the Earth into consumer products is the main problem.Yet, hardly anyone is proposing that such activity and products have to be mostly stopped. There is actually some thought along these lines, and there always has been, but it is frowned upon by those with industrial axes to grind or who have bought into "progress" and "growth." So it is hard to publicize the idea of ending industrialism.
Iraq to refrain from raising oil exports: minister
Iraq will not increase oil exports in support of fellow OPEC member states which want to underpin world crude prices, Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said.
Bush State of Union to stress energy security
Aides hint of a major pronouncement on energy in the speech before Congress and the nation Tuesday night. Yet the president is expected to take a predictable path, urging expanded use of ethanol in gasoline, more research into cleaner burning coal and on gas-electric "hybrid" cars, and greater nuclear energy.
Russia and Algeria Sign Energy Cooperation Agreement
Russia and Algeria, Europe's two biggest suppliers of natural gas, signed an energy cooperation agreement that the European Union has pledged to monitor because of concerns it may develop into a cartel-like alliance.
Russia to cut use of energy transit countries
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday that Moscow would reduce its dependence on transit countries, such as neighbouring Belarus and Ukraine, to help guarantee security of energy supplies to Europe.
Mexico feeling effects of ethanol boom
High corn prices are wreaking havoc on Mexico's inflation rate and forcing shoppers to pay more for eggs, milk and tortillas. But they're a godsend to farmers such as Victor Manuel Amador Luna....How long the bonanza will last is anyone's guess. What's clear is that America's thirst for corn-based ethanol is being felt around the globe, delivering fatter profits for grain farmers but higher costs for livestock producers, food processors and consumers.
Where Is the energy for freedom?
The hydrocarbon law is being sold to the public as a solution to the knotty problem of how to distribute oil profits among the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia in order to contain the growing civil war, but it does much more than that. The most critical part of the law is how it will essentially privatize most of Iraq's oil, granting profits and control to Exxon, Chevron, Shell and other oil companies. The Independent, a British newspaper, obtained a leaked copy of the draft law and reported that its provisions would lock Iraqi oil into 30-year Production Sharing Agreements with private oil corporations on what are absolute beggar's terms.
Mud Pies and Dunce Caps: Part 1 – Health
We are experiencing an epidemic rise in childhood diseases. What are the implications for their survival as we slide past peak oil and go into permanent energy decline?
Mud Pies and Dunce Caps: Part 2 – Education
What is the value of our current education system in preparing our children for a future that will be dominated by the impact of peak-oil, global warming and climate change, and other global disasters on the near-term horizon?
Mike Bendzela: The Iraq War Is Entirely My Doing
I'm still paying a mere 15 cents per cup of gasoline, in spite of declining production in three-quarters of oil producing nations; in spite of the gurgling sounds issuing from the tired, giant fields of the U. S. of A.; in spite of the mounting debt of war.Somebody must be doing something right.
Forget the old cliche that conserving energy is a form of abstinence—riding bicycles, dimming the lights, lowering the thermostat and taking fewer showers. These days conservation is all about efficiency: getting the same—or better—results from just a fraction of the energy.
Carbon plans that make you cut down
When Andy Ross weighs up the merits of putting on a woolly jumper or turning up the heating on a cold January morning, his gas bill is not the only consideration; there's also the small matter of the planet to weigh up.The civil engineer is at the vanguard of a small but growing band of people across Britain who have decided to cut their own carbon emissions rather than rely on the 'green salve' of carbon-offsetting, the merits of which are increasingly questioned by environmentalists.
Alternative Energy Refueling Systems Act Garners Praise
The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), a national industry trade association with nearly 1,500 members nationwide, has praised U.S. Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) for introducing the Alternative Energy Refueling Systems Act of 2007 -- a bill that would assist gas station owners in installing alternative fuel pumps through federal grants of up to $30,000.
There's a company that wants to throw solar panels on your house and reduce your electricity bill -- for free.Yeah, we didn't believe it at first, either. But Citizenre, a renewable energy corporation based in Delaware, looks like the real deal. Its REnU program (for Renewable Energy Unit) complements your current utility setup to take advantage of the sun's resources and reduce the juice you get from "the grid."
A Texas company says it can make a new ultracapacitor power system to replace the electrochemical batteries in everything from cars to laptops.
U.S. urged to ramp up geothermal power
Mining heat stored in rocks in the Earth's crust could meet a growing portion of U.S. electricity demand, replacing aging nuclear and coal plants with an environmentally friendly alternative, researchers say.
New nuclear power ‘wave’ — or just a ripple?
Buoyed by billions of dollars in subsidies pushed through Congress by the Bush administration, the U.S. nuclear power industry says 2007 is the year its plans for a “renaissance” will reach critical mass.
OPEC Dumps $10.1 Billion of Treasuries as Oil Tumbles
OPEC nations are unloading Treasuries at the fastest pace in more than three years as crude oil prices tumble, sending bond yields higher.
Many Contracts; but Is There Enough Natural Gas?
In 2005, world gas production has been 2763 bcm(billion cubic meters). The proved reserves of natural gas are 179.83 tcm (trillion cubic meters) according to BP Statistical Review. With 2005 consumption amounts, the natural gas reserves are enough for the next 65 years.There is more good news; the proven reserves are expected to increase as explorations are extended. So, there will be plenty of reserves around. However, the problem lies somewhere else.
Iran president wants to budget for lower oil price
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday proposed cutting the oil price on which the next budget is based to protect Iran from "enemies" trying to hurt the economy by lowering international crude prices.
Gas prices drop nearly 14 cents in 2 weeks
The average retail price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States fell nearly 14 cents over the past two weeks, but the drop may be over, as cheaper gas lures more people to hit the road, according to a leading industry analyst.
Kurt Cobb: The unknown unknowns
We are frequently assailed with the notion that knowledge is doubling every n-years and that the interval between doublings is shrinking with each doubling. We are even told that knowledge will someday be increasing at a rate that is so fast it will represent a distinct break in human history. After this turning point, often referred to as the singularity, machines will be smarter than humans and launch human society into an unprecedented orgy of invention and progress.An antidote to this kind of thinking is David Orr's, Ecological Literacy, a compilation of essays that remain as fresh and profound today as they were when they were published in 1992. While Orr would not deny the proliferation of knowledge, he posits an equal and opposite reaction. With each doubling of knowledge, we get a doubling of ignorance.
Pollution destroying pre-Aztec Mexican ruins
Oil refineries and power stations pumping acid air pollutants along Mexico's Gulf coast threaten to erase carved stone murals at the pre-Aztec ruined city of El Tajin, a scientist said on Sunday.
Calls to act on global warming precede Bush speech
Environmentalists, evangelical Christians and congressional and corporate leaders have called for action on global warming in the days leading up to President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech.
The ethical challenges of healthcare and peak oil
An ethical conflict occurs whenever the rights of two or more people, or groups of people, come into conflict. Put another way, it occurs when everyone can't get what they want, and tough decisions need to be made about the allocation of scarce resources.
Schreyer leads new oil, gas study group
Former Manitoba Premier Ed Schreyer is leading a new organization that will educate, and warn, Canadians about dwindling petroleum reserves and global warming.
We spent most of the time taking advantage of the drama on the financial news stations in regards to oil. The talking heads have officially gone from bracing us for $100 oil to an almost palpable sense of disappointment as they start to anticipate the price will drop under $30? What happened to peak oil? I think the point to take is that watching the news is no way to make money. Folks, wake up and use your charts or go broke!
South Africa: Power cuts won't hurt economic growth
The power outages that plunged much of South Africa into darkness last week will not hurt economic growth or cost the nation nearly as much as some have predicted, Finance Minister Trevor Manuel said on Monday.Factories, mines and homes throughout Africa's economic powerhouse lost electricity last Thursday without warning, prompting fears that a looming energy crisis could trim the nation's fast-growing economy.
Perhaps one of the most worrying aspects of last week's power cuts is the level to which South Africans have come to expect them.Shops, factories, banks, farmers and even small businesses have invested in generators so they can function when the lights go out - yet again.
This is sensible, but also disturbing, as it speaks of citizens who have accepted that the authorities can no longer be relied on to provide the foundation on which modern society is built: electricity.
Time. It’s the focal point in the discussion among the groups opposed to building 18 coal-fired power plants in Texas and those advocating such construction. Opponents say the governor’s executive order putting the plants on a fast-track to gaining a permit doesn’t give them sufficient time to conduct testing and raise money to mount a defense. These opponents also say the plants, including one in Savoy in Fannin County, will pollute the atmosphere for up to 50 years. And the plants can’t be built in time to solve the energy crunch predicted as early as next year. Opponents have sued Gov. Rick Perry, contending his executive order exceeded his constitutional authority and impinged on the authority of the judiciary.
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.
Here's a great line from Kunstler today:
Of all the president-wannabes who emerged from their thickets, mole holes, burrows, and termite mounds last week, the funniest was Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas who told a campaign kickoff audience that he was setting off on "the yellow brick road to the White House." Which raises an interesting question: is Brownback running for Wizard of Oz or for president? Brownback represents the Mid Western suburban evangelicals, a sort of death cult composed of people unaware that their own lifestyle has driven them crazy.
"a sort of death cult composed of people unaware that their own lifestyle has driven them crazy."
A rather perfect discription of himself and his herd. And I am no Brownback fan.
IMO, Simmons, Kunstler & Deffeyes are analogous to Churchill in the Thirties, trying to warn anyone who will listen of what is coming.
You may recall that Churchill was widely viewed as an abrasive gadfly, up until the time that Hitler started marching.
Matt Simmons said that if we fail to do anything to address Peak Oil, Jim Kunstler will have turned out to be an optimist.
Matt Simmons said that if we fail to do anything to address Peak Oil, Jim Kunstler will have turned out to be an optimist..
And we are failing miserably to do anything - especially anything useful - about peak oil.
Dmitry Orlov is being proven correct - "Don't pay any attention to national Politicians, it only encourages them. They are a colossal distraction."
Unfortunately, outside of a handfull of cities it appears the same can be said for state and local Politicians.
In the absence of policy changes, the only thing we can do on a personal level is to prepare as best we can. A copy of my post over on the "Chinese Finger Trap" thread:
I have read, it seems reasonable, that the majority of Americans live off the discretionary income of other Americans. Author Thom Hartmann addressed this in his book, "The last hours of ancient sunlight."
Hartmann described a software company that he used to consult for years ago. First visit: two or three people. Second visit: several more people, after another round of financing, bigger offices. Third visit: dozens of people, after another round of financing, very nice offices. Fourth visit: empty offices, they ran out of money, without ever delivering a product.
The point is that the majority of our economy is largely an illusion, albeit an illusion that consumes vast quantities of energy. Instead of gong to Vegas, you could just mail them a check for $5,000, and it would have the same economic impact.
We are facing a relentless transformation of the US economy--from one focused on providing "wants" to one focused on providing "needs."
Basically my ELP recommendations can be reduced to: Cut thy spending and get thee to the non-discretionary side of the economy.
As I have said about a 1,000 times, if I am wrong, so what?
You will have a lower stress way of life, less debt, and more money in the bank.
Westexas, I've come to the same conclusion a couple of years ago about cutting back. I've sold my apartment building in a rapidly appreciating area in Chicago - which is now slowing down, cut back on my hours at work , and bought a ten acre farmette two hundred miles south of the city. I've always wanted a small farm as I'm a life long gardener and avid outdoorsman. I’m a cabinetmaker/carpenter so I have skills that are very useful in a less energy intensive society. As luck would have it I might have oil on my property. The geologists were out Saturday placing orange flags where they are going to take seismic readings later this month.
Bruce from Chicago
Please keep us updated on your most remarkable, entertaining, and unbelievable story. When you first posted about that "knock on the door" I ROFL! So much for independent living in a pristine area that is away-from-it-all! Are you hoping they 1-find it, or 2-don't find it???
I have conflicted feelings about the possibility of having oil on my land. I purchased my land after a year long search for property that was isolated, suitable for farming, and within reasonable driving distance to Chicago. I knew within two minutes of viewing the parcel that this was the one. Last week a UPS delivery man commented that I was in the middle of “God’s country”. It is gorgeous and I would hate to see it ruined by oil exploration. My research into modern drilling practices, however, indicate that the footprint of modern wells is not as invasive as it once was. Every one of my neighbors, except for the retired engineering professor who has 100+ acres of dense woodland next to my plot, appear to have given permission for seismic testing on their land. I’m hoping that if oil is found that any infrastructure would be placed on adjacent properties rather than mine.
"As I have said about a 1,000 times, if I am wrong, so what?"
Pascal's Wager in the real world.
Today there was apparently a big meeting of the minds in NYC regarding Manhattan's declining role in the world of high finance... Senator Schumer, Gov. Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg were discussing how NYC could regain some of what it has lost the past few years, with Schumer lamenting the fact that if current trends continue, NYC will fall from the title of global financial center to merely just another "regional" center.
I just caught a quick report on this via the radio but the thing that struck me was when the reporter noted that the financial world accounts for $60 billion and 1 of every 9 jobs in NYC. I'd say that's roughly one million jobs in the NY metro area that involve moving alot of money around but produce nothing.
WT writes
"Instead of going to Vegas, you could just mail them a check for $5,000, and it would have the same economic impact."
LOL...
For those of you on a budget - open your car window, throw out a quarter and pull the gear shift lever.
I think that was an unfair anecdote. I don't know about that particular company but it is the nature of the business that most start ups fail some last for quite a while and once in a great while you get a spectacular winner like Google or Amazon.
There is so much churn in our economy it is difficult to get a real handle on it. So many products last just a few years (floppy disks) then disappear to be replaced by something else. Coffee shops and quick oil change businesses came out of nowhere.
Floppy disks... great example! Came and went in an eyeblink... what's 20+ years to the IT industry... oh wait...
Don't pay any attention to national Politicians, it only encourages them.
Like it or not, the national set of rules help bind that states into that more perfect union....
Some people on the national stage are aware of Peak energy (like Ron Paul)
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/
And if he makes a #2 or #3 in the poles....the topic of energy would be 'taken from him' as an issue to 'address' by the others.
After reading Deffeyes latest rant last night, I have to say that it was a complete eye opener for me.
I've tried to stay away from 'defaming' the 'big papa', but his dribble last night made me sick. Not at what he was doing, but at the fact that so many of you have been suckered into his money making scheme. He talked more about how he was cringing at the fall in his stock portfolio then he was about spreading the 'gospel' of peak oil.
The irony of it all is that in a world in which peak oil does arrive, and if the worst doomer predictions are to be believed, his stock portfolio wont help him at all. So why is he selling books? Why did he invest in several oil companies and has been 'grinding and grunting his teeth' at their recent slide? It's not like he works or has worked for free at Princeton all these years. Surely a man of his age has quite the retirement package to fall back on...
Or has the 'prophet' been very liberal with his new found cash so far :laughs:
And yet here we have WT, praising his name and his insight, despite these facts. One has to wonder how much WT reaps from his support of the peak oil pyramid scam ~_~
As I said down the thread, I am trying to refrain from countless posts between people arguing the same points over and over again. But one quick general point.
I find it ironic that those who are warning about Peak Oil, and either explicitly or implicitly recommending lower consumption, are accused of trying to drive up oil prices.
In reality, it is those who are, in effect, arguing that we can have infinite growth against a finite resource base who are encouraging more (generally debt financed) consumption, and thus higher oil prices.
After reading Simmons, Deffeyes and Kunstler and after reading Yergin, Lynch and Huber, which body of work would make you more inclined to buy a large debt financed SUV to drive to and from a large suburban mortgage?
The problem is that there is not much money to be made by advising people to simply live within, or better yet, below, their means, versus the amount of money to be made by encouraging debt driven consumption. I just find it very interesting that as we see more data coming in that confirms slowing, and declining crude oil production and exports, we see more and more of a rising tide of invectives hurled at those who would simply advise Americans that we do live in a finite world.
"the peak oil pyramid scam"
I usually do not interfere in the discussion when PO will take place(though I have my own approach) but this is where you loose all, yes ALL, credibility, if you ever had some.
It is clear that Freddy Hutter (May 2005 for C+C), even CERA("undulating plateau"), aknowleges PO.
Hothgor, I wish I could say you are a joke, but it's not funny. The subject is a bit too important for the future of my children and you are doing us a great disservice. I want a refund.
Correction: IIRC Freddy Hutter put the peak of CONVENTIONAL crude in May 2005
Nice of you to ignore the multitude of other posts I've made about PO in the past and instead proclaim to all that I don't believe in PO! Bravo on being todays biggest spin master!! :laughs:
The pyramid scam I was referring to was the fact that Deffeyes is using his influence to sell books to the masses and 'scare' the market via influencing hedge funds to buy oil options to drive the price up. The only reason Deffeyes can have to moan about the drop in energy stocks is if he had invested in them. Thanks to his books and the stream of revenue you guys are constantly getting him, hes quietly investing and making a killing!
Oh how neat a package this is!
Talk about Peak Oil -> Write book about Peak Oil -> Make Money -> Perfectly time your prediction for a peak to occur in the same quarter your new book is to be released -> Make more money -> Invest in energy stocks as the price of oil skyrockets -> Make more money -> Repeat cycle.
Trust me when I say this: Deffeyes is laughing all the way to the bank! Don't believe me? Check out his end of 2006 post! :laughs:
And BTW, trying to evoke an emotional defense of a scientific subject only shows that you lack anything more then a conceptual grasp of the subject.
Thanks for your prompt reply Hothgor; didn't expect it so fast.
You are more or less correct in assessing that I lack more then a conceptual grasp of the subject(do I need more?). OTOH I understand demographics. But instead of labeling me a spinmaster you might try to choose your words more carefully ? Peak oil SCAM? And I have been reading here, your contributiones included, as much as possible.
It's the tune that makes the music and as long as yours' is offensive you are undermining your message.
Also, I think it's very normal to invest in sectors you think will make money, but it is rediculous to assume Prof. Deffeyes is acting in his own financial interests.
So, this being written, which was much delayed because I had to pour myself another dry white wine from the other side of the world, I recommend to keep :laughing: (we can al use that; it;s healthy). And please feel free to reply again, but I won't read it untill tomorrow as it is 2300 hrs. here and I'm off to bed.
Good night.
Is it so ridiculous to assume that Prof. Deffeyes is engaging in sensationalism for the sake of making money? How quickly people forget his Thanksgiving Day address in 2005, where he proudly proclaimed that he was no longer a Peak Oil 'Prophet', instead he was a Peak Oil 'Historian'. This of course was followed by the elated, if a bit misplaced, pronouncement that by 2020, we will be back in the Stone Ages.
In the meantime, you can click on a link on his website and buy his book for a nominal fee, just don't expect him to tell you what companies he has invested in to make himself a tidy profit as such a topic is grossly complicated and beyond the understanding of us lesser sheep.
Apparently he can predict doom and gloom for oil and the world, but cant give us any advice on stock picks :laughs:
You are right Hothie!
Deffeyes is part of the rascally Global Peak Oil Conspiracy!
See my abject apology down the thread.
WT said,
"You are right Hothie!
Deffeyes is part of the rascally Global Peak Oil Conspiracy!
See my abject apology down the thread."
yeah, as much difference as I have had with Deffeyes wildeyed hyperbole, I would have to think there is a faster way to make a buck than being a peak oil promoter....:-)
RC known to you as ThatsItImout
Hi Hothgar,
Thanks for posting this, as it brings up a number of issues.
I didn't see Deffeyes' most recent "rant" - what are you referring to? Perhaps his saying he was "cringing" at his stock portfolio tells you something. Most people wouldn't talk about their stock portfolio - would they? It seems to me, there's an element of Deffeyes kind of - if not laughing at himself, then, at least, being honest in a sense. A kind of self-mockery. My take on it is - the kind of "black humor" or "dark humor" is his way of dealing with the strong emotions most everyone experiences (see Robert Hirsch's interview on GPM) when they first realize the implications of "peak".
Saying "Starvation is on the agenda", for example, is more flippant than what I personally would like. It's not real straightforward. My take on it - this is the way he knows to talk about feelings. Shock, horror, anguish and other painful emotions are hard for most people to deal with. Let alone express.
So, the "facts" are really - Deffeyes words, his tone, the "observation" in an objective sense. I'd say your interpretation is different from "facts", as it involves an attempt to understand the motives of Deffeyes and others. And what's also important, are your feelings. (And the underlying need.) Not judgments or slams. Just feelings. What is it you felt? And what are you seeking?
Are you afraid Deffeyes' and others are not sincere?
Hello Aniya,
Thank you for at least having an open mind! His 'rant' can be found here:
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
Some quotes of interest:
Yes, I'm sure congratulations are in order to Prof. Deffeyes, as he has probably made a LOT of hedge funds in Asia AND the US make 'a hell of a lot of money." Not only that, he practically ADMITS that he makes the rounds to various financial firms 'informing' them of the peak oil problem! Yet people here at TOD seem to completely miss the implications of this!!!
Notice how we are all capable of 'grasping' the concept of peak oil and its ramifications, yet we can not possibly understand his recommendations for individual stock picks?
This dribble should speak for itself :laughs:
Yeah, Halliburton did such an awesome job with the 200,000+ bpd that was shut down at Prudhoe bay for the better part of 3 months.
He says: trying to fix it, not fix it..
Hi Hothgor,
Thanks for the quotes. I have a very different interpretation of Deffeyes's words than it seems you do. Just as an exercise, I'll share my version of what Deffeyes is saying:
First quote: Here he is trying to come to terms w. the enormity of the issue. It's a kind of bragging, in a way, but bragging more about the correctness of his views on "peak", than about his financial acumen or anything else. In other words, I think the experience of knowing about something that is so potentially enriching (to some) and cataclysmic (to others, probably to all, in the final analysis) - is a weird experience. (Very. Fortunes may be made - humanity may be lost.) He's just sharing here, like writing a travelogue.
Second quote: When he says "I don't have the patience" - he's not referring to you or me, the dear readers, he's referring to himself. He personally does not have the patience to turn himself into a picker of stocks. That's what he means. (IMHO, as they say.) His main point here is what he says about "whenever the price goes down, a lot of people think the problem has disappeared." This is not okay with him. This is terrible. He predicted volatility in his books, and he knows that volatility is not good for people.
Third quote: Here he is trying to describe in more detail how arbitrary volatility is. I think he's trying to say that over the long term, we see price increase, but with volatility, it's impossible to pick the price on any given day.
Anyhow, I'm trying to sincerely answer you here. It seems to me Deffeyes is genuine, in the sense he's open and honest...sharing as best he can in his own way.
Didn't someone say recently that Hothgor had improved and was trying to do better?
It is not his message but his manner of delivery, and placing his name on the same line as Deffeyes and Simmons is a rather brash curse on their names. Comparing him to Churchill may be accurate but it would have been one hell of an insult to Churchill. IMO
And Hothgar: I suspect your biggest problem is you could not marry his daughter. (Deffeys)
You realize his daughter would be like, what, 50?
I'm heartbroken, you can be sure.
WT...Now that's funny!
That's how it looks from outside the US as well. The counterpoint being radical Islam. Same crazyness, same Armageddon, same outcome, different rulebooks. Ahmedinijad (not sure if the spelling is right, but who cares? - you know who I mean) apparently wants to destroy Israel so the "Mahdi" can come. Meanwhile the US bunch are waiting for the "rapture" (rupture?).
Give me break. Kunstler is right and he is only doing his job; one he does rather well.
Can anyone get into Pemex's website? It appears to have been down for a couple of weeks now. Maybe they can't afford the hosting anymore :)
No problem just now.
I have been checking it daily for the last week or so, looking for the December numbers. They are not there yet. But I have had no problems whatsoever.
http://www.pemex.com/files/dcpe/eprohidro_ing.pdf
Ron Patterson
They post their monthly schedule here:
http://www.pemex.com/index.cfm?action=content§ionID=1&catID=237&subc...
The numbers come out today.
Wow - major further drop from November to December. This is looking scary.
I remain puzzled by Freddy Hutters confident statement last month that PEMEX would be over 4 mbpd the 1st qtr of 2007. I have been skeptical of his forecasts in general, but that was the most specific and off-the-wall prediction I had seen from him that could be verified in a short period of time from now. Where did that come from?
Oil exports were down by 263,000 bpd from November, although they had a footnote stating that part of the decline was due to weather problems (presumably in Houston).
In any case, as I noted yesterday and today, Pemex is notifying refiners that it is unilaterally cutting crude oil deliveries because of declining production. (Mexico has crossed the 50% of Qt mark on Khebab's HL plot.)
David Shields is predicting that Mexico's production will drop by at least 800,000 bpd from 2007 to 2008.
Again, IMO, the key difference between Saudi Aramco and Pemex is that Pemex has grudgingly admitted to the decline of its largest field. Otherwise, both companies are reporting lower production, lower exports and both companies are unilaterally cutting crude oil deliveries to refiners (below what the refiners want to buy).
But other than the near certain decline/crash of the two largest producing fields in the world, everything is just peachy. How about that hot new SUV?
"Mexico has crossed the 50% of Qt mark on Khebab's HL plot."
Come on WT, that's obviously just a coincidence :)
You will note that I provided the obligatory Peak Oil denial down the thread, to save someone the trouble of typing it.
Hello WT,
If David Shields is correct in his prediction of Cantarell's decline: did he predict how much of that 800,000 barrel loss affects exports to the US? 100,000? 400,000? 800,000 barrels--Yikes!
I believe most of this oil currently comes north by way of pipeline--is this correct, or am I confusing this with the natgas pipelines going south? So, if in the worst case scenario of US imports from Mexico down by 800,000 barrels/day-- does the US even have enough VLCC import transfer capacity to replace this huge amount of oil?
What I am picturing is a huge logjam of crude carriers lined up waiting to offload ASAP, but the refineries running at half-capacity because the ships can't unload as fast as the Mexican pipeline did back in it's glory days. Of course, this scenario is dependent on the US finding 800,000 bpd to buy from other countries--but your ELM projects that this will next to impossible.
Appreciate any response.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
PEMEX reports 3.384 mbpd in December, down from 3.5252 in Novemember, and down from 3.818 in December 2005. Indeed a major drop.
How's that wall coming along?
Hello Cynus,
Hard to tell. We seem to be reaching the crucial tipping point, due to Cantarell's collapse, whereby Bush & Calderon may have to decide this year: if SuperNafta & the Amero currency is the better choice to streamline the declining flow of Detritus MPP, or else a full-on border lockdown and shrinking globalization. Maybe the Shrub's State of the Union Address will address the Union of the States. Hope my recent suggestions somehow trickled up to the Oval Office, but I doubt it--no reply to my emails.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Toto, I like your choice of words. How cynical. And you know the outcome. Please keep feeding us your insights.
The figure the EIA reports is "Total Crude" which is the second column. It is down 185 thousand barrels in December, lower than it reached during Hurricand Emily in July of 2005. In fact Mexican oil production reached, in December, its lowest point since 1999. Looks like production from Cantarell is really collapsing.
Ron Patterson
I believe that Khebab's HL plot is just through 2004, but he will have to confirm that. In any case, this is another in a long series of what most people believe are "HL Coincidences."
An interesting variable, that I have speculated about before, is the effect on total production from a crash in a field accounting for more than half of a region's production, e.g., Cantarell and Ghawar. We may in fact see an early catastrophic crash, followed by some type of rebound, to a production level much lower than the peak production rate. In case, David Shields predicted a production crash of at least 800,000 bpd from 2007 to 2008, and it looks like Pemex is certainly on their way down.
Note that I had nothing whatsoever to do with preparing the following essay. This is 100% Khebab's work. Very good work by the way, Khebab.
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006/03/mexicos-ability-to-export-oil.html
Mexico's Ability to Export Oil
March 13, 2006
By: Khebab
No new information from what has already been noted, but here's an article summarizing the situation:
Mexico's December crude output falls 6 percent to 2.98 million barrels daily
So November to December production was down 5.7% while exports were off 14.5%. 2005 to 2006 average daily production was off 2.1%.
Also,
All of you people are clearly delusional. Mexico's reduction in production is clearly voluntary, and the reduction is simply an effort to increase their reserve productive capacity. Quotes attributed to Pemex insiders discussing involuntary reductions in production are clearly part of the global Peak Oil Conspiracy. Raving lunatics who believe that oil reserves are finite will go to any length to prove their point.
Keep up your good work, WT. My Mother, at the current age of 93, lived thru the Depression. She worked as a nurse for room and board and 50 cents a day. That's right, 50 cents a day. Needless to say, I picked up her habits of thrift. One thing for sure, when your bills are all paid and you have money in the bank, you sleep a lot better. Seeing all the people today that live from paycheck to paycheck, they are going to have a really rough time of it, I fear.
Hothgor,
I want you to tell me it ain't so. WT is turning on us. I guess you win....not
Calorie writes
"So November to December production was down 5.7% while exports were off 14.5%."
Oh Hothgor look at that. Could this be "exportland". No it's...(lack of demand at lower prices) yes that is what this is about. low prices = low demand, high prices = high demand.
I actually quit reading your posts Hothgor. I found that watching paint dry was a better use of my time.
Which is why you keep responding to them :laughs:
News dump, from an e-mail I just received:
Hugo's in rare form:
Venezuela's Chavez tells U.S. to 'go to hell'
Thank God for Hugo Chavez. South America needs a leader such as Hugo Chavez to escape bondage to the imperial superpower of the North. But I would like Hugo Chavez a lot better if he ceased all oil exports to the United States of America immediately and permanently. Of course, if he did so America would assassinate him and bring the Trojan Horse of "Freedom & Democracy" to Venezuela.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
First of all David, if Chavez ceased all oil exports to the US, it would have very little effect on the US but but would cost him a lot of money. Oil is a fungible commodity. If Chavez chose to sell to China or somewhere else in the Far East, it would only increase his shipping costs. In other words he would get less for his oil. And the US would simply get the oil from somewhere else, primarily those people who formerly sold to China but are now blocked out of that market because of Chavez.
Second, Chavez has a considerable investment in the US. One of the USA's largest refiners, Citgo is a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). And of course I am sure you notice those Citgo service stations almost everywhere. Chavez has a lot to lose if that market disappeared or if Citgo sales suddenly dropped because of pissed off Americans.
And since we know Chavez is not that stupid, he is not going to try anything stupid. As if it would make much difference if he actually did.
Ron Patterson
Hello Ron,
I don't particularly care about money or the economy as both are figments of humankind's collective imagination and little else. I want Hugo Chavez to cease exporting oil to the United States based upon principle and nothing else. South America needs to severe the political, economic and military ties which bind it to the dying colossus of the North.
And, no, I do not advocate Hugo Chavez selling this oil to China. South America's oil ought to stay in South America. And, I might as well add: Mexico's oil ought to stay in Mexico and Africa's oil ought to remain in Africa.
Hugo Chavez should cease exporting oil to the United States based upon the theory that the people of Venezuela probably will still need oil a century from now. There is no reason why America's SUV drivers to have cheap gasoline today rather than Venezuela's poor having some resources left over for their great-grandchildren's consumption.
America's enraged oil-addicted obese consumers can become enraged but they must realize at some point that our particular hallucination has run its course and is now passing away. Americans are overindulged and gluttonous. We Americans have no Divine right to consume the rest of the world's oil. The impoverished people of the world need to rise up in unity and say "No!" to the obese, bloody Americans right now rather than wait for this issue to become settled with bullets-and-bombs in a lot of little wars of overwhelming murderous American military force against nations which are militarily weak but resource rich.
I have a theory that if Venezuela cut off oil exports to the United States right now it would have a pretty tremendous impact and global historic and political implications.
Hugo Chavez won't do it, though, because he is not suicidal. America would murder him in a moment if he were to follow my advice. Addicts are often violent and deranged, just as the United States of America is right now especially violent and deranged.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
David, ah, if but it were a perfect world. Yes, Americans are gluttenous, just like every other nation in the world if but they had a chance. China, Mexico and yes Venezuela would just love to have the living style of Americans. That is what they are striving for.
We, Americans, Chinese, Mexicans and whomever, are just humans. We all wish to live the good life and gurantee a good life for our offspring.
Painting Americans as the world villains is just not correct. We are all victims of the circumstances we find ourselves in.
And you wish that every nation would hoard its own oil for itself. Well, the US would have been a lot better off if we had done that back in the sixties. Hubbert always complained about our oil policy of what he called ”Drain America First”. He said that when we were the world's largest exporter. How utterly stupid of us to behave in such a manner. And how stupid of every current exporting to behave exactly as we did back then.
But if every exporting nation on earth were to suddenly stop exporting oil, chaos would reign upon the earth. Production in every exporting nation would suddenly drop to only what they could consume themselves. Japan, the US, China, and every other importing nation on earth would be thrown into a situation where billions would suddenly be unemployed famine would be everywhere. Billions would starve in the first year of no oil imports.
But all this David, you and I arguing about what Chavez or other exporting nations should do, is just an exercise in futility. It is a little like my dad used to say: “Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if everyone was honest?” Ah yea, but they are not. It is just not in the nature of the human species for all of them to be honest. People will always behave in what they perceive to be in their own best interest. Exporting nations will not cut off their primary source of income, income that supports their booming populations. And importing nations will continue to soak up those exports as if there were no tomorrow. And soon, for billions of people, there will be no tomorrow.
Ron Patterson
Hello Ron,
I would say that the "good life" is not good. Have you seen how people behave? Rationality and self-restraint are impossible for an addict. Greed and gluttony are not compatible with seeking "the best" for future generations.
America is the victim? If America is a victim it is only a victim of its own folly. The impoverished people of the world are victims of the crimes that America commits on a routine and very profitable basis.
I agree, and that is why I encourage all of the oil exporting nations of the world to stop immediately.
Billions are already starving so the bad results described above would merely serve to redistribute the starvation on a more equitable basis. There is no reason whatosoever for Americans to continue growing more obese while Africa is dying. Nor is there any reason why Nigeria should export oil so that America's self-involved SUV drivers can burn it up as quickly as possible.
You are right. Human greed, gluttony and destructiveness are all vital components of the apocalypse which is fast approaching. Too bad for humankind.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
David, we are all living a life that even previous kings could never even dreamed of. As for how people behave, they behave just as humans for centuries have behaved. We have never sought the best life for future generations. We, that is we humans, have always lived for the moment, and for the few myopic moments in our future. That is we plan for next year and perhaps a few years further out than that. But humans have never planned for the distant future. You perhaps expected human nature to change just because you can see disaster a decade or so in the future?
David, please, please, please do not put words in my mouth. I never singled out Americans as victims. I said we are all victims of circumstance! We are behaving exactly as those of other nations would behave if they were to find themselves in our shoes. We were born Americans, we had no choice in that matter. And we are all behaving exactly as our heredity and environment has molded us to behave. A few rant about our style of living, like you David, but then they just go on behaving like other Americans or Europeans.
Redistribute the starvation! Absurd! I am sorry David, that I am so outraged by that remark, but it is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of. There would be no redistribution of starvation there would only be a vast increase in starvation if all exporting nations stopped exporting today. Do you think the starving people of Zimbabwe would be helped if all their oil imports were suddenly cut off. Well over ninety percent of the starving people in starving nations export no oil. Their starvation would only be increased! And Japan would turn into a starving nation, more Chinese would starve, more starvation in India and Bangladesh and Pakistan and…..everywhere.
Do you actually believe that Nigeria and the other nations of Sub Sahara Africa are the only ones with starving people. And that some of their starving people would be redistributed to Zimbabwe or perhaps South Africa, or perhaps even Japan if they stopped selling them oil? By what logic do you arrive at this conclusion?
What we are talking about David, is all those nations that use imported oil for industry, would suddenly be without oil to run that industry. They would be laid off, laid off in the US, in Japan, in China, in Bangladesh, and every other oil importing nation of the world. They would have no money to buy food. And food prices would skyrocket because so many farms would not have oil to produce food.
There would be no redistribution of starvation, starvation would simply increase by many billions. Of course that will eventually happen anyway, but that is another story, and it will be a couple of decades in the future. It would not be tomorrow like it would if all exporting nations stopped exporting oil tomorrow.
Well, tomorrow is a slight exaggeration. Actually it would be months before people started dying on a massive scale.
Ron Patterson
Hello Ron,
I don't expect human nature to change at all under any circumstances. If human nature could change Homo sapiens could avoid extinction.
Perhaps so. That is exactly why the other nations of the world need to fight for their own self-interests rather than passively accept the exploitation and violence of American imperialism. The American Way of Life would end quickly once the oil stopped flowing to America.
These nations are starving and America doesn't care. If the oil imports ceased the Americans would soon begin to starve. Hence the cessation of oil exports will serve to redistribute the starvation from strictly limited to the impoverished South to now reach the overindulged-obese North.
So you do understand what I am meaning. Yes, it is good for the West to lose these industries and all the income associated with them. The West is going to lose them anyway, so it might as well happen now.
There is no reason why the impoverished people of the world should continue to starve while America remains obese.
Hello David
David, you simply do not understand. To “redistribute” means to move something form one place to another place. There would be no redistribution of starvation! More people would starve. Is that good? Perhaps it is good for all the animals going extinct, and good for the environment and such, but it would not be good for humanity!
If Nigeria stopped exporting oil, along with every other nation of the world, would there be less starving people in Nigeria? Absolutely not! The starvation in Nigeria would increase. Nigeria is a net importer of food. Niger exports oil and imports almost everything else. They would have no money from exports to buy food and even if they did, there would be no food to buy. From the CIA world factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ni.html
Bottom line David, if every oil exporting nation stopped exporting oil, then oil production would drop by about two thirds. Food production would drop dramatically and there would be famine throughout the world. Yes, this will eventually happen anyway but I am not going to say that it would be better if it happened right now. Some say we can mitigate the crash, at least slightly. If it happened right now there would be no mitigation.
And it would make you feel better if all America starved while the starvation in the rest of the world increased dramatically? Well, I guess everyone has their druthers.
Ron Patterson
All for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
[loud applause]
Hello Ron,
I reject this notiong that more people would starve. America's oil imports from Nigeria, Mexico, and Venezuela serves to power America's fleet of SUVs. Do you suppose that these SUVs are feeding the poor people of the world?
Nigeria's people are not benefiting substantially from their oil exports. These Nigerians are suffering and dying right now.
I am in favor of oil production dropping. Would you rather this happen right now while the human population is 6.5 billion or should we allow it to occur once the human population reaches 9 billion?
And what of the people who live a hundred years from now? Do you have any concern for them at all.
David, you should do a little more thinking before you write such as this. World petroleum does a lot more than power SUVs, yet your argument here only mentions SUVs and suggests that that is all oil does. Are you really that naïve or did you just go off in never-never land for a moment? Oil powers industry that employees billions of people. Oil powers the machinery that gave us the green revolution. Oil transports the food from agriculture to all those people living in the cities. Bottom line David, oil feeds the world! And yes goddammit, more people would starve if all oil exporting stopped exporting oil.
If every exporting nation stopped exporting oil, what would power Japan’s fishing fleets? Japan imports most of its food. How would they get food? What would all the all those hundreds of millions of people do who would be out of work? There are limits to charity. There would be no charity for them, they would just starve.
Of course there are. But my point is many more would starve if they had no money to purchase imports, and anyway there would be nothing to import. Over half Nigeria’s population would be dead from famine within a year or two.
Hey, now you are changing your argument. You said that the starvation would simply be redistributed! I said NO, it would just increase many fold. More people would starve everywhere; including those formerly oil exporting nations.
Hey, you are doing it again. This had nothing to do with your original argument, and that was the argument which I objected to. Of course I am concerned with future generations, and I agree we are headed for a hell on earth. But if every nation suddenly stopped exporting oil I believe things would be much worse. If we move slowly into this chaos, I think more people can be saved. And for sure I would never hope to be the one who decides if they all die now or die later. I just hope to live out my life, which will be just a few more years as I am 68, hoping to convince my family and friends to prepare and increase their chances of being among the survivors.
Yes, the demise of the oil age will eventually be what saves the world, but not the world's massive population of Homo sapiens. But I shall have no input on when that happens or how. And I am thankful for that.
Ron Patterson
Hello Ron,
This is silly, Ron, and you should know it. The United States of Ameica is consuming 25% of the world's daily oil production. A significant percentage of that oil is burned away in America's fleet of cars and SUVs. That is the amount of oil which I would like to see disappear from America's imports. America's own oil production and all the oil that it received from its colony to the North will serve to fuel the agriculture industry and keep America and the world well fed. America can lose its SUVs and consumer culture without any loss whatsoever of its agricultural production.
Japan's fishing fleet should cease operating. Japan's an industrious nation. I am certain that Japan can find adequate means to feed its people without operating a fishing fleet.
You are speaking a pure absurdity in the above, Ron. I suspect that you don't really know what you are talking about. Feeding obese America's SUVs is not keeping the Nigerians alive. The Nigerians would suffer very little from the loss of Nigeria's oil exports. In fact, Nigeria would be much better off today if Nigeria never produced its oil resources.
The Universe is possesses four dimensions, Ron. Redistribution of hunger relative to time is still redistribution. The present generation should accept sacrifices & suffering so that future generations need not suffer so much. Or would you prefer that Americans burn up all the oil now and let future generations go straight to hell?
If we stopped exporting oil there is a distinct possibility that some oil might remain in a century. If we burn all of the world's oil now, that won't be an option.
Americans should make sacrifices now rather than allow the world to go straight to hell tomorrow.
David, I am finished with this silly argument. You obviously haven't a clue as to liquid petroleum's role in feeding the world's people. If all exporting nations stopped exporting oil and only produced enough to satisfy their own internal needs, then the world's production of oil would drop by over one half, perhaps by two thirds. This would have a devestating effect, virtually overnight, on the world's population. Chaos would reign throughout the world. Those not killed in the wars that followed, would starve within two years. Only a few million people would be left alive when the dust settled.
But to you that would mearly be a "redistribution of the starvation!" Good God, how absurd can one get?
Enough already. You may have the last, very absurd word if you are true to your colors so far.
Ron Patterson
Hello Ron,
Thanks for providing me with the last absurd word to our conversation. Here is is:
I have never suggesting that the world cease agriculture. Very specifically, from the beginning of this conversation, I have advocated that the oil-exporting countries of the world cease exporting oil to the United States. I have also suggested that these countries save their oil for future use rather than send it somewhere else for some other consumer's frivolous consumption.
What I am advocating is the extermination of the consumer culture and, specifically, America's consumer car-addicted pollution-excreting culture. That is why Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria and other countries ought to cease exporting oil to the United States of America.
In order to alleviate this problem, I will state explicitly: All oil and natural gas usage which is explicitly involved in the agriculture industry ought to continue. I am only opposed to the frivolous consumption of oil by the world's most obese, frivolous people: The United States of America.
Haven't you noticed, Ron? Chaos is already reigning throughout the world. Billions of humans are impoverished, warfare and bloodshed are occurring everywhere, and plenty of people are hungry, starving and dehydrated. The Earth is in bad shape, the apocalypse is already occurring, and Americans are too distracted to notice and too self-involved to care.
Yes, I am in favor of obese Americans walking & starving. I am not advocating that Americans die from starvation. No, I just want Americans to feel a little hunger in their bellies. And I certainly want Americans to walk.
The end of the world is approaching and Americans are fighting to save their SUVs.
Are Americans selfish? Ofcourse they are; they are selfish because they are human. I have lived in the US for over 20 years and I am originally from India. Let me assure you that people in India are even more selfish :-) Tax evasion in India among self employed and rich people is so common that it is taken for granted. Millions are malnourished in India (with one of the highest rates of child malnutrition in the world), hundreds of thousands literally starve to death, millions of kids die of simple diahorrea, the state of public health is horrendous, hundreds of millions don't have access to clean water and sanitation and India's urban middle class simply doesn't care. The urban middle class in India is dealing with an obesity and type II diabetes epidemic while millions don't have enough to eat; they splurge on consumer goods while thousands of impoverished farmers commit suicide.
The point I am trying to make is that the world is not divided into selfish Americans and selfless others. We are all selfish because we are all human. Americans don't care about the suffering in the third world; the elite in the third world doesn't care about the suffering of their own less fortunate citizens.
OTOH, I meet Saturday, at the 10 PM to 4 PM New Orleans Planning Meeting III#, an Indian-American structural engineer. He came through Katrina with little damage and had a skill that was in great demand (able to assess structural damage) after Katrina.
Ke said that New Orleans had been very good to his family for 30 years, and devoted himself to pro bono (free) work instead of making as much money as possible. Many nights he told his wife that he could not handle the emotional effects of his work any more (seeing so much devastation and telling homeowners with so little the truth about their homes), yet he got up the next morning and did it again.
Best Hopes for Humanity,
Alan
# The second planning review had 2,530 New Orleanians spend a day reviewing plans. With our limited population, this was a VERY impressive level of community involvement and dedication.
And hats off to your Indian American friend who has selflessly devoted his time and skills to the city. But I was talking about how people in general are preoccupied with their own cravings, hankerings and desires and oblivious to the suffering of others. This is a human trait - not an American trait.
I believe that dmathew1's self flagellation is not only unnecessary; it is counterproductive. Some of the impoverished people in Africa for whom his heart bleeds will gladly exploit someone below them in the hierarchy for a temporary advantage and will not hesitate to use violence and genocide to take the resources from their weaker neighbors. A lot of men in subsaharan Africa view women as nothing more than sex objects and rape/coerced sex is fairly common. In India, people who come from stigmatized and marginalized groups (poor, low cast, widows, people from NE part of the country, HIV+ people, etc.) are treated pretty badly in general. It is not just the Americans who are insensitive to the plight of others; you see it in every country.
If the economic collapse that dmathew1 is rooting for happens it will make everything worse. During times of stress and scarcity there is more exploitation, violence and cruelty.
True, but I have also seen many more cases of sharing, helping, compassion and humor in New Orleans.
Best Hopes for Humanity,
Alan
BTW: The cities reaction to the loss in Chicago by the Saints was summed up in the Times-Picayune headline "Bless You Boys"
Thanks, Alan,
Good to have your perspective. I'd like to support this with another example:
http://www.combatantsforpeace.org/ "We are a group of Israeli and Palestinian individuals who were actively involved in the cycle of violence in our area. The Israelis served as combat soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinians were involved in acts of violence in the name of Palestinian liberation."
Here we have men reflecting on their individual experience and trying something different.
Hi Suyog,
I just wanted to say I appreciate your bringing up the treatment of women. Support for the legal rights of women and children (i.e., human rights for all) is a fundamental basis for dealing with "peak oil", both from a strategic perspective (for example, to address the issue of population) and from a fundamental perspective, as support for healthy emotional, physical and intellectual development. People *are* treated pretty badly in general. And, in general, there are always people who treat others well, when they could easily do otherwise; and those who yearn for peace and work for it.
Insofar as India is screwed and its middle classes 'selfish', it is a result of India in general having 'benefited' (high-order sarcasm) firstly from the Raj, and secondly from integration into the US world order.
People are not inherently selfish, nor inherently unselfish. How people behave depends on the social and economic structure in which they live. We had hundreds of thousands of years of exemplary 'unselfishness' in hunter-gatherer societies, not because people are unselfish, but because the societies did not support selfish behaviour. And now we have the opposite, for similar reasons.
Please leave off with the blanket statements about human nature. As has been said in another context, 'It's the economy, stupid!'
A majority of people are inherently selfish because it is necessary for survival. You compete with others every day in order to survive physically and psychologically as a separate mind and body. The hunter gatherers were selfish too; did they not compete for food, women and territory? Did they not kill each other? There is some evidence that the Neanderthals and Cromagnon were killed off by our ancestors. The hunter gatherer societies didn't have surplus wealth; so they didn't have anything to fight over other than the most basic things.
Anyway, my statements were directed at dmathew1 who talks as if only the Americans are selfish and responsible for all the misery in the world.
I am done with this thread. I have nothing more to say.
As I recall, French scholar Jacques Ellul wrote in his book :The Betrayal of the West" that he was in love with Western Civilization and yet he was aware that human civilization is rooted in bloodshed and slavery.
Civilization reflects the tension that exists within all of us. Fear and rage motivate us quite often, as do the lust for food, sex, power (a sense of mastery or control over environment and people), and something we could call "security" or even "eternal life" or "eternal youth." Hummers and Plastic surgery all defy our relative impotence and our mortality. Our weapons and wars reflect our fear and rage related to a great many collective and individual experiences. Look at today's confluence of our petro-fueled collective madness combined with a leader who sees himself as a Messiah for an apocalyptic time.
Peak Oil is one of the ways that our habitat shows us our limitations. We don't like that whether the limit is resource depletion or the anthopogenic factor in Global Warming.
We are in trouble but we'd rather not know, for the most part. We are going to die, but we'd like to pretend that it just isn't so.
War and slavery are a universal manifestation of rage and fear. I am aware that some tribes lived with less war and conflict than others, but I do not see any "Golden Age" or "Garden of Eden" we can get back to.
I try to do my bit for the environment and peace. I try to live more in tune with the earth through using cargo trikes and pedicabs as much as I am able to. I also have been trying to change my diet to be much lighter on the meat and dairy. I plan a good food garden for the spring. I talk with people all along the way in life about Peak Oil and Global Warming.
I won't save the world, and ultimately won't even save my own life. We are all absolutely vulnerable. It is frustrating to see such extreme injustice and violence as a part of our civilization, and truly we must speak out against it and try to shape a world that is more just and peaceful.
Bloom where you are planted, Friend!
Such nonsense !
Emotional, nonlogical hate seems to be the driving force. I could expound further on that but will not waste my time.
There are few posters that I never read, but David Mathhews has joined that short list.
Alan
Hello Alan,
What is so nonlogical about the notion that oil exporting countries have the right to use their resources as they see fit?
America's entire behavior in this world is one governed by the sort of hate which only naked selfishness and gluttony can motivate. Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran and Mexico are not obligated to feed an obese monster which is using its military as a negotiating tool to acquire the natural resources of the poor.
Ofcourse they have the right to curtail their exports. But the crux of the matter is that they export oil not because they love America; they export oil because they need the money.
I agree.
Its nauseous to read his ugly tripe. dmathews you need counseling and I suggest Oil CEO for the job. Two kindred souls in search of the limits of depravity and ignorance.
I don't write for your sake, Airdale.
"I don't write for your sake, Airdale."
Thanks to Deity for small favors. Thank you ,thank you.
Thank Oil CEO too after your couch time and when did you say you were moving out of the country?
Maybe you didn't get the message. There isn't any sort of conversation occuring between us, Airdale. This is a Divine Blessing for both of us.
"and when did you say you were moving out of the country?"
airdale did you not promise to quit posting and resign your account?
BTW I don't think OIL CEO (or many other classic TODers) frequently post anymore......
That's cause OilCEO was banned.
He still posts though, he just uses other names. Lately it was Jamesbond and now its lipstickjihad or something.
Oilrig,
Yes I was going to be selling the farm and moving back to an older lifestyle. Back to the suburbs in N. Carolina.
That meant my survival plans were shot and that I would likely not be posting as in the past on this website.
I have since altered my plans to keep some acreage and my barn here. Enough land for a landing strip so I can return here via a sport rated personal aircraft WTSHTF or slightly before. If the crazies inhabit the interstates and other surface areas then I intend to simply fly over them. I can takeoff and land within quite a small distance either on a hard surface country road or farm field. My neighbor a few miles to the south has his own airstrip and a few Cessenas as well as a hangar. Several folks have ultralights around here. We have few restrictions on the airspace and lots of landing sitess in case of inflight emergencies. I used to fly quite often in single engines GA type aircraft as well as some taildraggers. Actual flying is not that difficult. What is difficult is the regulations and rules in more crowded areas. My good friend up the road was a bush pilot for oil companies in Alaska as well as a one time crop duster and chopper pilot. He has a hangar as well.
My plans then still include survival and in this place where I have a long footprint. As well my buddy owns or has control over more than 3,000 acres of prime land and woods plus owns a couple farmhouses. I have no problems returning to the outback and surviving here but the problem was how. The aircraft I am going to build is a two seater.
65 horsepower Quad City Challenger in 31 ft. wingspan and soarable as a motor glider as well. 2.6 gals / hour and it comes out to 30 mpg with no head or tail winds aloft. I can carry extra fuel as well with a payload of 500 lbs. Gross weight of 800 lbs and airframe weight of 300 lbs. (if I recall accurately the values).
So I will likely continue to be somewhat active on TOD, watching the numbers and the data, looking for good ideas,and sharing some of my views.
It is the premiere website IMO and surely we will be able to see the future unfold since such great focus on the events are discussed and observed here.
Its winter and time moves slowly out in the countryside. Later this month I will be starting to move resources back to N.Carolina and will have less time to be active.
Sorry to disappoint but I never PROMISED nor is there a mechanism to delete one's account to my knowledge. I told the site owners via a comment that if they wished they were free to delete my account at their discretion. That was back when there was significant disruption on TOD and many contributors were dismayed at what was occurring.
Yes OC is still here under varying IDs. Many other classic TODers?
I do see a lot of newer IDs posting. Some have agendas apparently they wish to air quite boldly on TOD.
airdale
I hope you have a thick enough skin to put up with this dribble and keep commenting dmathews. Your views are worth 10 times more than the crap we have to scroll through on TOD to find some comments worth reading. I don't think Americans realise how poorly their nations' actions are viewed from outside their country, including allies in Aussie & Europe.
Hello bigcahunaau,
There is no lack of thick skin. I have dealt with enough angry anonymous nobodies in my life to handle these people.
But how does anyone engage in a rational, reasoned discussion at The Oil Drum? Speaking with one or two people is easy enough but these threads are not discussions. Chaos and anarchy characterizes every thread here and it is nearly impossible to follow who is talking to whom or the proper context (both relative to time and subject matter) of any individual post.
The Oil Drum's threads degerate into shouting matches every day because that is the only sort of interaction which is possible in a chaotic environment.
In this case all you really had to do was mention Hugo Chavez in a positive light. Big red flag for many here.
Some of your rhetoric is a bit over the top but so what. None more over the top than Ron.
Your idea of Venezuela witholding oil from market is something freely discussed here with slightly different trappings. Westtexas, as respected as they come around here, walks up to that notion with his ExportLand model.
No, you just waved the Chavez flag and the predictable followed. Getting discussion online not easy. Possibly loses fewer friends than attempting same points amongst your familiars, possibly you get some reply you'd never have expected.
Hello Oldhippie,
The problem with ExportLand is that it is assumes that the oil producers of the world are under a special obligation to burn up their own oil as quickly as possible either through exports or internal consumption. What I am suggesting is that Hugo Chavez, Mexico, Nigeria, Iran, Russia and so forth withhold present-day oil production on behalf of preserving the resource for future consumption by the citizens and future close allies of those nations.
The moral argument takes the following form: No oil producing nation is obligated to produce and export its oil resources.
The moral argument may also take this form: Militarily powerful nation(s) which threaten to kill in order to seize the world's oil resources ought to lose their oil imports.
Or, in the most explicit manner possible: Those oil producing nations which are militarily threatened by the United States of America ought to cease exporting oil to the United States immediately as a means of collective self-defense.
Not only would this collective action confront America with an enemy too large to conquer and/or kill, the economic consequences of the Eternal Oil Embargo would serve to weaken the American economy so seriously that it would render militarily adventurism impossible.
Well, I haven't just stumbled upon The Oil Drum. I have followed discussions here for over a year and am very familiar with the manner in which these discussions routinely (i.e., on a daily basis) degenerate into shouting matches and abuses hurled by a set of Anonymous Angry Nobodies who seem to exist only for the purpose of engaging perpetually in frivolous but overwhelmingly negative conversation.
If The Oil Drum wants to become the bastion of rational, reasoned, calm discussion about the world's energy problem it could easily do so immediately by requiring all of the posters to identify themselves by their name and (general) location.
The other requirement that I would suggest:
All posts should be at least a paragraph in length. I.e., single-sentence replies seldom add anything beneficial to a conversation and usually just add to the clutter and often serves only to provoke shouting matches between people.
That's how I would improve things around here.
Me too.
This is simply not true. The impoverished people of the world are victims of the heartless tyrants and the elite who rule them. They are also victims of the dysfunctional culture. Africans are not starving because Americans drive SUVs; they were starving even before SUVs were invented; they will starve even if all Americans take to riding bicycles. They are starving because of Mugabe and people like him; they are also starving because they are unable to forge a common national identity and forsake their tribal hatreds.
All true Ron, but how does that make the American ranting vs Chavez look?
Bit empty, maybe?
And no, the US could not easily replace Venezuela's oil. All those empty Citgo stations would leave quite a gap. Maybe they could try with all that extra oil the House of Saud had no idea what to do with. But wait, there's them transport costs again.
HeIs, we have thrashed this straw many times before. If Chavez simply sold his oil to someone else, the only effect it would have is that transportation costs would go up slightly for everyone. Again, oil is a fungible commodity. People who advocate that one nation stop selling to this nation and to sell to this other nation instead, simply do not understand what the word fungible really means. But as I said, we have thrashed this straw before and I have no intention of doing it again.
And Chavez would simply not abandon his refinery and service stations. He would simply sell them to someone else. He would simply sell everything to the highest bidder. And there would be plenty of bidders.
Ron Patterson
I'm still waiting on your apology, Ron ~_~
You blooming idiot! Saudi did not offer their curde at a discount. The URL you posted said they discounted their sour crude by $5 to $8 a barrel. At that time the world price for sour crude was being discounted from $11 to $17 a barrel. They offered their sour crude at a premium not a discount.
I don't expect an apology from you but I do expect you to be man enough to admit you were wrong.
Ron Patterson
Oh Ron, it seems you have once again, completely failed to grasp what was actually happening on KSA. Their discount was an additional 5 to 8$ discount over the world spot price for heavy sour :laughs: Not only that, you asked me to prove that KSA was discounting their crude under the OPEC basket price to prove my point, which I did. You of course ranted about how I could offer no proof and if I could you would apologize, but it seems that is beneath you :laughs:
And yet, after being soundly smarted repeatedly on this issue, you persist. Do you enjoy making yourself look like a fool?
Say, Ron -- and all -- I thought Venezuela was going to sell Citgo.
Wasn't the Chavez plan to pull out of the US market and focus more on China and Latin America?
Maybe I'm wrong -- I'll try to google around a bit! :)
Have you ever considered that with out oil you and many others on this world may not now or would have ever existed? Would that be a bad thing or a good thing? I know that I have enjoyed my time here versus having never existed.
Hes too busy decrying the 'imperial superpower' to realize that :laughs:
Hugo Chavez is my hero.
I believe if someone in the U.S. said something like that, we would call him a racist or a sexist.
"missy" ! i just hope it sticks
Bush State of Union to stress energy security
Ignore price signals, rhetoric on ramping up KSA production...Why is our president soooo focused on "energy security" at this time? There is plenty of crude sloshing around the markets. What do we need to be concerned about here? If I didn't read TOD on a regular, I would certainly be confused by the information being thrown out for public consumption.
Re: Bush State of Union to stress energy security
As they say, actions speak louder than words.
Recall the news item about the Saudis unilaterally cutting crude oil deliveries to some Asian refiners?
Recall the news item a few days ago about US refiners asking (begging?) the Canadians to dramatically increase their oil production rate from their bitumen deposits?
It's only a mild exaggeration to say that: (1) If the Army has someone who can pull a trigger, they are headed to the Middle East (ME); (2) If the Air Force has a plane that will fly, it is headed to the ME and (3) If the Navy has a vessel that will float, it is headed to the ME.
But this is of course a series of unrelated "coincidences."
In fact, if you look at the Lower 48 production plot the right way, it shows rising production. All you have to do is make a transparency of the plot and then invert it. So viewed the correct way, Lower 48 production fell until 1970, hitting its low and then production started rising. Don't you see? All you have to do is to look at the data the right way.
Don't worry. Proceed with your plans to increase your consumption using debt, and party on dudes!
I know...I know...all the signs point this and that.
So, do think ole Bushie will use them words...ya know...maybe just mutter it under his breath on national tv...kinda subliminally, like Will Ferrell used to do on SNL...
"And with more Islamic Fascists trying to run things in the ME...[peak oil]...we will need to remain steadfast in protecting freedom and democracy in these countries....[peak oil]..."
I thought we were going to sit back and wait for the numbers, WT. Looks like you have a bad case of 'do what I say, not what I do.'
I think that it is significant when we start getting these new reports of oil producers unilaterally cutting their crude oil deliveries, because they had no choice, especially in combination with a full scale US military mobilization in the area of the world with the world's largest remaining net oil export capacity.
What I was suggesting was that it was pointless to have 20 to 30 exchanges almost every day between the same people arguing the same points over and over again.
How about if I just add a phrase at the bottom of each post that you, Robert and Freddy, et al, disagree with the foregoing post?
WT, I also think that the actions of producing countries are a significant part of the data puzzle. This is all the more true given the reluctance of some to provide transparent numbers.
Another key bit of information is to watch the military action of the USA, as you are doing.
Michael Klare is right on target to warn us of emerging "Energofascism" as the real fascism to watch out for.
Numbers can be helpful, but words spoken by various leaders can be as well. And then there are actions, which speak much louder than words.
It does seem that we all bring our "Big Picture" viewpoint to these puzzle pieces and then try to integrate them into a whole scenario as best we can.
We are all doomed to do the best we can with partial data -- that's life.
Right now the scenario I see involves expanded warfare in the ME. Bush may be trying to intimidate Iran, but he may follow through.
I think the Neocons see the Overshoot problem and have decided to control resources and try to manage global conflict so as to induce "die off" in other places while leaving the "Homeland" relatively intact.
I can see the PNAC gang arranging a concentration of men in a general area and setting off a tactical nuke. Get China, India, Iran, Iraq to march the troops toward the ME and take out as many as possible. If the boys are massed east of the producing fields you might hope to get a billion out of the way and the nuke fallout would spread over an area that the US cares little about. Of course you would have to the Chinese and Russians on board to prevent escalation of a nuclear launch.
I personally do not see this happening now as a matter of planning, but later as World leaders recognize the reality of Overshoot associated with Peak Oil.
In the end, China shares the interest of the USA as oil importer, but also as a rival for that same oil.
Russia, as a substitue oil exporter has opposite motivations: they would benefit fabulously from a uranium-induced lack of Mideast export capacity.
I think the Neocons see the Overshoot problem and have decided to control resources and try to manage global conflict so as to induce "die off" in other places while leaving the "Homeland" relatively intact.
The neocons may have "plans" for the Homeland too : There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution (See the full transcript of Gonzales v/s Specter at the end).
The Russians are happily encouraging the fascism scare : US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war.
And the Chinese use "non-verbal communication" China's New Chip in Space War Poker.
What a Wonderful World.
Your main gripe is that the 3 of us dare question your assumptions on the issue. You repeatedly called for us to simply be quiet and wait for the numbers to come out, yet you refuse to do so. Your reports add little more then speculation on what is going. If you want me to be quiet on the issue, you need too as well. That being said, I will make a firm prediction that inside the next year or two, we will reach 86 mbpd.
Where do you think we will end up at?
Hothgor,
You do not have the first hand, no questions asked, information to back that up. No one does, and if you did, you would post it. Pulling numbers out of your rear end and/or blindly repeating and trusting other's guesses (IEA, CERA) distracts from your normal charm.
Oooh, all the way to 86 in two years. Bold prediction! We need more than that to fuel continued economic growth, don't we??
And to get to 86 we have to avert any major disruptions in the ME oil supply. I'm sure peace is going to break out any second now...
No. My main point is that as Deffeyes predicted (as the most likely year for a production decline), world crude oil production is declining (EIA data). And as I predicted (as the most likely year for a production decline) Saudi crude oil production is declining.
You, Robert and Freddy have gone into this frenzy of attacks on the HL method, even while the latest production data are supporting the HL models. As I told Robert, the recent crude oil data are not going to materially change to support your predictions for rising crude oil production, and we can't magically get two years of future data.
So, why the constant and repetitive attacks on the HL method, especially as the data continue to support the HL models?
I expect average world crude + condensate production for 2007 to be down by at least 1% from the 2005 average.
You, Robert and Freddy have gone into this frenzy of attacks on the HL method...
There you go again. Guilt by association. Loaded language. You know what you are doing. But if you don't mind I would rather just debate the merits of the data. I won't lump you into a category and stereotype your position if you will stop doing that to me.
First, there has been no frenzy of attacks. In fact, the argument I made on Sunday was a challenge to the model, not a frenzied attack. You in response have started to react emotionally. In fact, you misrepresented my position on Sunday and never acknowledged it after I pointed that out. Do you think the HL model should not be challenged? All models should be challenged. I do a lot of computer modeling, and I can tell you that if you have a model that hasn't been properly validated, or one that regularly makes incorrect predictions, you don't have a very good model. To validate this model, what you have to do is show that it could have consistently predicted a peak given the data available leading up to peak (and that it doesn't have a lot of false positives).
So, lately I have done some backcasting of the HL method to validate the model. It is true that years after a peak, it works quite well. However, there is incredible wiggle-room before that point. Huge. Where the peak is predicted can span a huge range, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to where you call the peak. Is it at 53% of Qt? Or 60% of Qt? Well, that's all based on a lot of arbitrary factors, and no real science. Yet this range spans many years.
As I have pointed out, using HL in Texas would have predicted an imminent peak for about 20 years. Using the HL for KSA would have started suggesting an imminent peak several years ago. But we have the benefit of hindsight now, so that's why we don't consider 2003, for example, as a candidate for the peak. Yet any peak starting several years ago and continuing into the future (in fact, Qt increased based on last year's production numbers) all fit the model. It can accommodate a great deal. That's why I am starting to discount it as a truly useful predictive tool.
Finally, a couple of people have started to question my motives. Fair enough. So, what could my motives possibly be? Well, they could be what I say they are, which is that I am concerned with credibility, so I want to make sure that the data and methods used are defensible.
Or, I could be just trying to reassure everyone that Big Oil has the situation under control, that there is no imminent peak, and that there is no need to prepare. Ha! My preference would be to make a convincing case for an imminent peak so oil prices would start climbing again. That would potentially get us kick-started on some conservation efforts and increase our chance of transitioning to post-peak. But I can't make a defensible case that peak is this year or next year. Other than the actual production numbers, which have fallen at various times in the past, there isn't much to me that suggests that we have peaked, or will this year or next. I think I could make a defensible case that we will within 10 years. And by defensible, I mean something that the scientific community couldn't rip holes in and that would withstand scrutiny from the Lynchs and Yergins of the world.
I do a fair amount of modeling for a living (materials scientist) and I can vouch for the need to validate a model's predictive ability, as opposed to just post-fitting. I'm not surprised at the poor ability of the HL method to predict a peak. Prior to a peak, any temporary fall in production might be fitted by the method in such a way as to extrapolate a peak. I've seen a lot of erroneous results based on "curve fitting". I'm not saying that the HL method is wrong, just that it should be used with caution. The backcasting that you've done is a good indication that it cannot predict a peak in advance with any precision.
I do a fair amount of modeling for a living...
I have always enjoyed telling strangers who asked about my profession that I do a bit of modeling. :)
The truth is, many people don't appreciate the need to verify the model. If I am process modeling, for instance, I can build a nice theoretical model of a distillation column to predict the separation. But if I don't feed real process data in and confirm that it is behaving as expected, then the model is of little value. If it only gives me correct answers part of the time, then my model is of little value. I have to demonstrate that it can accurately handle the situation that I am using it to predict by modeling historical data. I don't know how many times in my career I have been asked "How did you validate the model?"
I'm not saying that the HL method is wrong, just that it should be used with caution.
And that's exactly my message as well. Any model that hasn't been validated, or has been shown to make inaccurate predictions, should not be used to make strong conclusions.
Some how I just cannot picture a Mike Lynch or Daniel Yergin slapping their forehead and saying, "Boy, did I ever get it wrong! That Rober Rapier fellow certainly has his data ducks in a row! From now on, I'm a true Peak Oil believer!"
....Not!
This is the reason why I am a peak oil believer. If we were proved wrong we would accept it based on the facts. The cornucopians however, refuse to question their own assumptions.
Some how I just cannot picture a Mike Lynch or Daniel Yergin slapping their forehead and saying, "Boy, did I ever get it wrong! That Rober Rapier fellow certainly has his data ducks in a row! From now on, I'm a true Peak Oil believer!"
....Not!
Because of course that's a straw man. What you do is present your argument, preferably in the literature. They go to Lynch for a rebuttal, but you have provided an argument that is much more difficult to rebut. You force concessions that the argument you made is plausible, and supported by the data.
It may be an exaggeration, but not a straw man.
I think it is entirely admirable that you are a stickler for accurate data. However, my main point is that I believe you vastly overestimate the effect that the accuracy of a few data points will have on public opinion. I agree with Leanan that people and their leaders are beginning to accept the premises of Anthropogenic Global Warming largely because of strikingly anomalous weather, not because of tightly argued science (see Jason Bradford's critique of the IPCC. Some of the science is hugely suspect).
Likewise, higher prices gasoline and petroleum-based products will eventually bring Peak Oil into the mainstream. Then the Lynches and Yergins will get overwhelmed by the tide of public opinion (rightly or wrongly), not by tightly argued, narrowly focussed data points.
But if you look at the BP C+C yearly production data you will see plently of examples of 1% or greater yearly declines which were temporary in nature. The point here is that a few folks here feel that the HL has an error range of, what? ... a few years perhaps. In other words you might be right about the timimg of PO or you might be a few years off. And we won't know until the numbers come in. I just wish that you would qualify your peak date with a plus or minus range.
And we still don't really know if SA production reductions reflect economic, geologic realities or, perhaps most likely, a combination of the two.
As for GWB's speech tomorrow, it will be interesting to see if there are any lightly veiled threats directed at Iran. After the mess they've made of Iraq, I really think that it's a stretch that they will next get into a fist fight with Amadinejad & friends.
I'm really surprised nobody picked up the ball on the recent TOD:NYC report on water consumption.
OMG! Peak Water in 1979. Well, no actually. A lot of economic factors changed and water consumption decreased.
The HL model is a valuable predictive tool. Recent history is reflected in the prediction, but it doesn't validate the prediction.
KSA keeps secrets, lies, and is ambiguous about its energy capabilities as a matter of national security policy. They are not alone in the ME in this regard. Isreal maintained until recently that it was not a nuclear power. The so called slip was unlikely a slip, but rather a change in national policy. Even Saddam appears to have maintained ambiguity with respect to his weapons capability as a deterrent to renewed aggression from Iran, a policy the US was able to take advantage of.
It may very well turn out that the HL model is spot on correct. But with all the ambiguity above ground we can't know it is correct for some time to come. Drop one nuke on Iran and we may never know that it was correct.
Jeff,
I would suggest that if only for common decency's sake, let's let Robert's views and writings stand on their own, and not rake them together with other people's. That he doesn't deserve. Nor do you.
Because your predictions are based on an old trend line that completely discounts the last 4 years of production. On numerous occasions, you have dismissed this new production paradigm as a 'dog leg up' anomaly that will soon correct itself a la Texas. Unfortunately, the Texas 'dog leg' was 2 points on the plot, this will soon be 5. At some point, you have to see the truth. Your HL rants are under attack because you, like Colin Campbell, refuses to acknowledge the truth of the matter. The longer you turn the blind eye, the more damage will be done to your credibility.
Instead, you have changed tactics to try to shore up your argument. As you stated so many times, a good argument stands no matter how many holes are punched into it. Well RR has punched enough holes into your theory that the entire thing is starting to list and sink. Your response? Instead of modifying your argument, you now seek to discredit the one who did the hole-punching by grouping him unilaterally with others that are similarly 'disgraced'.
That is a despicable act, even for you, WT. You should be ashamed.
My Good Friend Hothgor,
My abject apologies.
If two people with the wit and wisdom and vast oil industry knowledge that you and Freddy have are in support of Robert's views, clearly I have been error.
Please forgive me.
As a way to make amends, I have launched an attack on the rascally Global Peak Oil Conspiracy with the following missive that I posted up the thread:
Earlier today, I pointed out that if you make a transparency of the Lower 48 production plot and invert it, it shows declining production up to 1970, when production hit a low, and then rising production since then. So, clearly if you look at the data the right way, Lower 48, Saudi and world crude oil production are increasing, not decreasing!
Jeffrey, why do u continue to make these juvenile statements and wrongly attribute quotes. I have corrected u three times to say that i have supported Linearizations for many years. We publish the Laherrere updates annually 'cuz he has studied them for two decades. OTOH, your analysis of them is immature and grandstanding.
My website declared the Peak of Conventional Oil in the Spring of 2005. We collaborated with Colin Campbell, who agreed and moved his Peak to 2004 from 2006 in his Aug/2005 Newsletter. You will see my url in a subsequent issue as well. As mentioned yesterday, new data on past consumption and future discoveries is jostling the Peak Date to and fro; and our last calculation (made in August) was April 2005. And it will likely change many times again ...
Your bold prediction that this narrow definition of oil supply will drop in 2007 is hardly NEWS. It dropped in 2006 and it will drop forever. Its passing was "UNCEREMONIOUS" 'cuz nobody cares. Nobody. Everyone watches the All Liquids and has done so since the "apparent" peak of Conv Oil in y2k at 64-mbd. For three years stats showed it was stuck at 60-mbd and everyone stopped watching. All Liquids was flying at 77-mbd.
All Liquids is the international measure. OECD's IEA has been the recognized international "keeper of the archives" since 1974. Oil hit a monthly high of 86.13-mbd in July and that remains the record. Q3 remains the quarterly record at 85.6-mbd. The present call on producer nations was suppposed to make Q1 a new quarterly record. Inventories were drawn down by 0.5-mbd in December so the stage is set for 2007 to surpass 2006 albeit OPEC is panicking to pay the phone bills. They have just sold one fifth of their 2006 Treasury purchases to take care of accounts payables. The world is unfolding as it should and as i speculated in October at TOD when inventory levels and surpluses were revealed and graphs posted.
Please refrain from misrepresenting my position and statements for your own immature purposes.
Your bold prediction that this narrow definition of oil supply will drop in 2007 is hardly NEWS.
I've responded several times to multiple WT posts that total liquids needs to be looked at - not just C + C, not suprisingly, I haven't received any responses in return.
Only looking at C + C gets those who are hoping for peak to a point where they can say "I told you so" in a quicker time frame.
Fortunately for those in the real world, total liquids is what matters and it looks like they will continue to increase for at least the short to medium term. After that looks to be highly dependent on geopolitics but is most likely to have a somewhat slower decline than many around anticipate because substitions will begin to contribute at different pricing points.
The masses will continue to dismiss the peak predictions that obviously come from unobjective analysis, and rightfully so.
"Fortunately for those in the real world, total liquids is what matters ... "
I'll drink to that!
ADJUSTED Total liquids are important, but ´total liquids´ is misleading.
Orimulsion should just be thrown out (as it was in prior years). 30% water + 70% asphalt
Ethanol totals should be multiplied by 0.6 to equal energy content with real oil products.
Tar sands should be net of oil used to extract and upgrade the tar (those dump trucks use quite a bit of diesel).
Alan
The double counting has some merit, but not as much as you're giving it. The oil based inputs for ethanol are roughly 20%.
I would think this percentage would be significantly less for tar sands.
10 gallons of ethanol are counted as 10 gallons of "total liquids", but they will drive your SUV as far as 6 gallons of gasoline. Subtract out the oil used to produce and ethanol is more than half misleading in "total liquids".
The EROEI of tar sands is in the 4 or 5 to 1 range. The "E" is a mixture of diesel and natural gas and varies by production method and even individual mines. AFAIK, no one keeps close tabs on this for the public record. Flying in workers daily has an effect as well.
Orimulsion was not counted in "total liquids" until circa 2005 per memory. It was a mistake to include it and creates a subtle bias in historical vs. current data. It is not a liquid fuel in any meaningful definition of the term. I think it is a couple of hundred thousand barrels/day distortion in the data.
So "total liquids" (w/o adjustment) is more misleading than C + C. A barrel of WTI reduction is not offset by a new barrel of ethanol, Orimulsion or even tar sands syncrude. There is a net loss not reflected in the data.
My working assumption is that the "Other Liquids" part of "Total Liquids" is worth half to 2/3rds of a real barrel. Orimulsion = 0, ethanol = 0.5 and syncrude = 0.85 - 0.9 or so.
Alan
10 gallons of ethanol are counted as 10 gallons of "total liquids", but they will drive your SUV as far as 6 gallons of gasoline. Subtract out the oil used to produce and ethanol is more than half misleading in "total liquids".
Huh? No it's not misleading.
The input calculations are done on a btu basis, this accounts for the fact that the ethanol output contains less btu per mass than say diesel. There is no need to do the conversion post the btu input to btu output calculations. There has been plenty of thorough research done on the subject, here is an example if you would like to learn more
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/energy_balance_report_final_R1.PDF
The EROEI of tar sands is in the 4 or 5 to 1 range. The "E" is a mixture of diesel and natural gas and varies by production method and even individual mines. AFAIK, no one keeps close tabs on this for the public record. Flying in workers daily has an effect as well.
The input and output is what is important to any liquid fuel. Again, as with ethanol, the 'mixture' you speak of is mainly natural gas - although this is likely to change in the future as natural gas becomes more expensive and more plentiful/cheaper energy inputs are subsequently substituted in it's place.
Essentially in both of these cases we are converting corn/natural gas/etc to a liquid fuel. Too much emphasis is place on the EROEI argument with many in the peak oil community. This is debunked with simlpe economic theory. The 'input' is what is important, and if it's plentiful, it doesn't matter if it's natural gas, coal, solar, whatever. If we can convert an energy source that is plentiful and in it's present physical form is not usable/or desired, to another form of energy that can be readily used and is demand - it makes sense on an economic basis.
The main issue I have with these two liquid fuels in the future, and with where I disagree with Lynch/Cornucopians/etc in this area, is their scalability and the sustainability.
It is news to me that the EIA & IEA make energy density adjustments in their total liquids reports (according to you, the only or most important metric for energy production). I thought they were strictly volume totals.
To illustrate, one month US oil production might drop by 5,000 b/day and US ethanol production might increase by 5,000 b/day for stable total liquids production (although the US is down the >= of 2,000+ b/day in transportation fuel). A loss hidden by the flawed methodology of "total liquids" AFAIK.
I looked briefly in the definitions at EIA and found nothing on energy density adjustments.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/
If I am wrong please show me a link, perhaps I overlooked it.
Alan
BTW, I distrust reports sponsered by special interests groups like corn growers.
Speaking of News,
The Producers over at NYT have a new hit song:
Springtime for Ethanol
Signs of intelligent life from "Springtime"
Alan, don't forget the energy that could have been derived from the natgas used to heat water, and then the tar, and then to hydrogenate the tar to make synthetic oil - someone posted here a few weeks ago that it is 1700 cu. ft. per barrel.
Which real world are you talking about, the geological world or the agricultural world? If you are talking about agriculture then you must count ethanol, palm oil and biodiesel. But if you are talking about geology then agricultural products do not enter the picture.
Ron Patterson
The 'real world' I'm referring to is Bob down the street who has never heard of 'peak oil', and if he has, it was just too much for him to handle or deal with so he forgot about it.
Ron, no matter how bad you want it to go away, ethanol production is most likely to grow rather significantly in terms of production from where we are now. It must be counted, as it will have a direct impact on fuel availability, regardless of the negative impacts associated with this trend. In fact, I would not be a bit suprised if Bush, as well as well as the other politicians we currently have in place, push for an even more agressive production increases from ethanol in the future than what is currently planned. IMO, I believe we should take a different route, but at the moment it's the reality of our situation.
As far as the other 'total liquids' that I'm referring to, they will come from NGL's, CTL's, Tar Sands, etc which are geology driven
And don't get me wrong, I'm not that optimistic farther out - but near/mid term I'm relatively certain that total liquids will be increasing, which is in sharp contrast than what most think will happen around TOD.
Austex... although the total liquids is obviuosly important, C+C is also important. As C+C declines, the total liquids will have to comprise more and more ethanol, Tar Sands, CTL etc. So the composition changes. This is very important in the real world because it affects prices of other commodities. As ethanol use goes up, the price of corn and food more generally goes up. Most people care about that. So I think composition of Total Liquids is very important. Tar Sands are more expensive to produce which mean real oil prices will have to rise to ramp up prodauction (not withstanding the issue of how much we can actually extract).
I think the study of C+C is very important. So it is useful to look at C+C and we have a model to do that. Obviously you can apply HL to things like ethanol production or Tar Sands.
Oops... I mean you Can NOT apply HL to ethanol and CTL, Tar Sands etc.
Dear WT et al,
Could you let me know how you view these questions below, and possibly clarify or expand upon them:
My questions to Robert and Freddy are:
1) Do you have criteria, a method and/or set of conditions, and/or a theory for predicting "peak"?
2) If so, what is it? (What are they?) How about for determining we are at peak?
3) Past peak?
In other words, do you think there are *any* criteria? If so, what are they? If there are, but there are other problems, such as "lack of transparency of data", then how significant are these problems? Given full transparency, does your criteria say we *can* determine when we are: pre-? , "at"- ? and/or "post" peak? Specifically? Also, can you specify exactly what further data would do? (How this might fit in with your specific set of conditions?)
Aniya, we will two Peaks. While MK Hubbert shows in most of his illustrations that the Peak Rate and the half-way crossover of consumption coincide, it is not a given. Having said that it seems to have happened with the Regular Conventional Oil component of All Liquids. The halfway point was April 2005. And the Peak Rate was May 2005. Awesome.
With All Liquids, concensus sees a Peak Rate in 2020 with an implied URR of 3092-Gb. However, should Reserve growth or Resource growth continue over time towards the 4-Tb or 5-Tb new estimates we are seeing this decade, it is likely that this 2020 Peak Rate will be followed by a halfway crossover many years or decades later.
There is no accepted definition of Peak Rate. There will be a record for monthly Supply, for Demand, quarterly Supply and annual Supply. We will not know that they are the ultimate records for several years. There have been 7 instances to date of annual setbacks since 1975.
Mathematically we can calculate the consumption crossover for URR studies and say that will be Peak. URR estimates are presently 3010-Gb. That is less quantity than indicated above cuz this includes five more studies than there are Outlook models.
Mathematically we can use Laherrere and khebab or other available linearizations to indicate URR. I like these methods very much. But as RR has eloquently described at TOD, the method is a guide only as well due to the margin of error created by geopolitical events etc. A variation on linearization is the loglets approach.
U have asked if we will know if we are at peak or post peak. Not likely. But scrutiny of geopolitical events in play, quota restrictions at OPEC, capacity builds under way and forecast demand ... to give us some clues as to the "chances" of a new Peak on the forefront.
In the case of Regular Conv Oil, tho the Peak was seemingly 2005 and supply is falling, capacity and refinery builds under way and the fact that there are still 145-Gb in undiscovered resource, give wiggle room for one more shot at a surpassing the 66-mbd annual record. There is even a better chance of beating the oft used TOD definition of C+C with that activity as it is more within grasp.
There are also confirmation patterns for a continuing rise towards Peak or admission of being post peak. It is by watching the monthly data and its seasonal cycles and looking for progressively higher troughs or peaks vice versa. In watching for new annual records, i often watch for quarterly records as an indicator. It helps with the noise. Stuart's method of observing the moving average is similarly helpful.
My confidence in All Liquids not being post Peak has its foundations in the monthly record (86.13-mbd) set in July prior to the production slowdowns based on inventory surpluses. It was given confirming merit by the subsequent quarterly record (85.6-mbd) in Q3. Q4 was a whisker of that qtr record and Demand call for Q1 is even higher.
Price is not an indicator. Price in the present regime is a reflection of surplus capacity. A year ago we had none and the price was accelerating. Today we are approaching 2-mbd surplus and the price has been subsiding. Of course the demand destruction factor is a dynamic as well.
On your point of transparency on reserves, it is better with JODI but Russia or anyone else can go for exclusion or misrepresentation. While it would be nice to have, it is a demand that is futile in a commercial environment. Americans, as the highest consuming nation, have the most to lose by continued industry secrecy. But there are no moral, ethical, precedent or legal foundation for making that data available to the USA. Consider it a trade secret.
Unfortunately, lack of secure and ample supply going forward has mitigation consequences. In retrospect that is likely good. Globalization, effective monetary policy and improved fiscal policy has assisted in giving consumers world wide a low inflation rate amid sustainable growth rates in GDP. It is an opportune time to implement the mitigation measures of alternative and substitutive energy vehicles. If wrong, there is little down side. The situation leaves options and additional resource for a future generation(s).
Relax. It's over.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300585_mcdonaldschina22.html
And I thought the KFC in Beihai Park was bad...
"a Chinese-speaking Ronald McDonald"? Oh, the tears of sorrow, or is it laughter? Either way I think it's a clear signal of the end of civilization. ;)
I think it's time to start a SHAME campaign against corporations such as M. Bring back the apartheid activism... let's flex our muscles, develop our voices. I'm tired of this crap.
Is Sinopec also providing the raw materials for the burgers, etc.?
I am also wondering what the child-emperor is going to say in his speech on Tuesday, but I am not optimistic. I suspect the push will be on for increased supplies. Biofuels and CTL, and barely a mention made of reducing demand. Some of the things that he will be pushing will be useful (such as plug-in hybrids), many will be a waste of time.
And for that matter, I think they still haven't come to grips with global warming and the types of changes that will ultimately be required.
Admittedly, not finishing an article before commenting on it is not a sterling virtue, but at some point, Jan Lundberg was just too much. After spending a few minutes searching, I still have the impression that he has not yet given up his personal fortune, which makes this -
'How can people live without the benefits of industry? But, equally vexing and dispiriting: How can people exercise their freedom when they gave it away for the regular paycheck -- to remain within four oppressive walls away from home and nature for forty or more hours a week? Trying to answer these questions, and to grapple with the challenges of giving up privilege or the aspirations of wealth and power, can result in little more than frustration, denial or mental depression.'
seem a touch out of touch, much like this -
'Under the current regime of industrialism, getting sick is -- but should not be -- a normal part of life. Primitive and many Third World people lack industrial medicine and much of the stress of modern life, and are normally free of runny noses and dental problems.'
Yes, commenting on this stuff is probably a touch wasteful, but truly - 'Another even bigger return-phenomenon will be primitive living and living as a tribe; the two seem to go together. These concepts have been demonized, even though they are 99.9% of our history -- before global problems emerged with civilized agriculture and its offspring industrialism.'
seems to say that the glorious existence of life in Papua New Guinea (including that cute retrovirus passed along by eating the brain of the revered dead) is what we are missing out on.
What makes something like this so disappointing is that actually, it seems to start well enough -
'Rather than say "Get rid of all industry" or "Get rid of technology," one can visualize local crafts-people soon making due with scrap materials and some renewable resources. The individual's possessions will not be so voluminous and overbearing when the change comes. There will no longer be a great number of things used daily, because new stuff won't be available and cheaply shipped to everyone the way it once was. So, re-using finally becomes the rule of the day.'
but then relentlessly goes downhill.
Though I don't think credibility matters much in terms of the geologically based reality of oil depletion, an article like this isn't really all that thought provoking, especially as it seems to skim over what happens to a few billion people (Imagine all those people dying, it is easy if you try...), before we all become happy, healthy, dentally well off members of some spiritually superior tribe.
Exposing people to a broad range of ideas is good - separating the wheat from the chaff is what comments are for, especially in discussing why something is worthwhile or not. And he is certainly a peak oil figure, and one with a solid technical background, which makes posting his writing at least reasonable.
But I'll admit - there was no way to keep reading without thinking 'Bay Aryan' (and yes, that is meant as biting satire, not a Nazi jab - the term is used in the Bay Area among those who are disgusted by wealthy botoxed SUV driving liberals who think that visualizing peace while driving is more worth their time more than wondering why their 2 year old child can't speak English, without noticing that the Central American 'nanny' is the child's true parent), and seeing 'San Francisco, Calif.' after simply scrolling down just confirmed that opinion.
I'll take Kunstler any day, even at his worst (which can be pretty bad) - at a minimum, Kunstler knows how to write a well turned phrase.
All these billions of people are already dying, Expat, and you aren't doing anything for them except for walking over their corpses to grab their resources. Americans simply don't care about Nigerians and Iraqis dying, even when America is murdering them!
That's why my policy is very simple: All of the impoverished nations of the world must cease all oil exports immediately. The more oil that is left in the ground forever, the better. The West has committed too many crimes and murdered too many millions of people to deserve the further sacrifice of billions of people today in order to preserve the depraved-consumer culture for several decades longer.
Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria ... these are the countries which must seize the initiative and take control over their resources. Instead of allowing Americans to burn everything up the impoverished people of the world have to say, "No!" to the obese gluttons who are tearing the world apart in their insane, insatiable hunger to consume everything today.
But there is little point in hoping for this ideal outcome when America is behaving like a crazed addict waving its weapons all over the world threatening to kill anyone who gets in our way or impedes the flow of oil. We are quickly entering the worst phase of human history: The terminal phase.
The 20th century was horrendous, but the 21st will be much, murch worse.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Dave, Great idea why don't you move to one of the aforementioned countries and lead the poor exploited peasants to your version of enlightenment. I'm sure they would embrace your perspective and be forever thankful. By the way could you please ride your bike at least to the border as the guilt associated with using oil/gas refined or imported from any of those countries would put probably put you into a huge state of depression.
Since you feel that importing energy is a crime against humanity could you please hurry as your consumption is just padding numbers. Please hurry! Asta la vesta .... Hey!you could add a picture of you and Hugo to your website. By the way how was riding your bike to all those great places? You must have buns of steel. Hugo will like that!
You are living on stolen Indian land so you better bugger off too.
Hello dissident,
Yes, you are correct: European civilization murdered millions of people and eradicated entire civilizations to conquer this land. Isn't it wonderful that European civilization is now weak and dying?
Western civilization is now polluting the entire Earth and driving Homo sapiens to extinction. God bless Western civilization!
And your likely living on stolen Neanderthal land as well. Better give it up.
Myself I am not living on stolen Indian land since no Indians claimed Kentucky as their land. They said it was the land of the white ghosts. Thats me...a white ghost.
So everyone but Kentuckians need to move on and out. That means the whole world and all you Euros as well.
airdale--a rebel on the level
True about Kentucky, but what of the uninhabited swamps of New Orleans ?
There were some Indian villages in what are now sprawl suburbs, but none in New Orleans itself.
Alan
Except that it has happened just 200 years ago, not 100'000...
Hello Kansascrude,
The poor exploited peasants are already fighting against the imperialists and winning. This is the primary reason why Hugo Chavez has taken Fidel Castro's mantle as America's greatest Western menace.
Come on, Dave. Use a broad brush much?
"Americans simply don't care about Nigerians and Iraqis dying, even when America is murdering them!"
One, there are a multitude of different Americans. Can they individually influence the Federal Policies or the actions of the Multinational Corps? Not usually, or not in really measurable amounts.
Can they stretch their necks up above the walls that are painted for them to keep them at the 'HappyFamily Trough'? Not usually, tho' when they do, they've already helped prestretch their own necks for those who might want to extend them further.
I don't dispute that the consumption here in the US is central to the energy/population/economic policy problems we face (we being all nations) .. but to paint the civilian population of the US in one, single stroke is to 1)Ignore the power centers where so much contorted policy and disinformation grows and 2)oversimplify a complex variety of people where numerous individuals and groups ARE trying to elevate the level of information and action, and have to be regularly identified and enhanced. It's too easy to demonize 'The Americans', when the entities of both Industrialism and Imperialism have been steadily removing themselves from any answerability to their 'sponsor nations' or their people.
Be Fair.
Bob
dmathew,
I like your conviction to stand to the many dissenters. TOD does not allow people to make statements they can't back up. Well, Hothgor has been trying for awhile, but I don't think he has an credibility with anyone who cares. I digress.....
I agree that the "west" has made decisions that basically raped all of humanity. So what. WTF cares? I often boil complex issues down to some simple problems. The problem you present is based mostly on the past, not the present. I consider myself a part of nature. Due to this I am in constant competition wether you see it this way or not. My nation is no different. Tribal nations have been fighting for #1 status since man originated. That won't change either.
Exploitation is what life is about unfortunatly. Predators exploit advantages to find their next meal. Small prey nations, are simply that, small and to be preyed upon. If those countries lack the skills to compete, they will be eliminated. Life's not fair, deal with it.
Actually, a lot of oil exporters are well on their way to ceasing oil exports, but not quite in the way you are recommending. Many exporting countries are showing declining exports--because of a combination of rising domestic consumption and/or declining domestic production. Case in point: the UK, which went from exporting one mbpd in 1999 to being a net importer in 2005. Mexico may cease to be a net oil exporter as soon as 2010.
However, I can't really argue with your description of America as a "crazed addict waving its weapons all over the world." I did find it pretty hilarious (in a Dr. Strangelove kind of "hilarious") that the talking heads on Fox News a few months ago discussed whether Chavez was using oil as a "Weapon of Mass Destruction." In other words, cutting off oil exports to the US is equivalent to the use of nuclear weapons. It does give one an idea of the kind of thinking going on in Neocon circles.
In any event, as Jim Kunstler said, by refusing to negotiate the American Way of Life, we will soon get a new negotiating partner forced on us: Reality.
"However, I can't really argue with your description of America as a 'crazed addict waving its weapons all over the world.' "
Just curious, Westexas: Would you say that your dawning awareness of Peak Oil in recent years (or however long it may have taken) has also radically changed your political orientation? Or is it pretty much the same as it was before?
Not to completely disagree, but you don't have too much idea of how I live - the wood I cut by hand (no chainsaws), the food which often comes from the region, and more generally from Europe itself, the train I use to get to work, the fact that I don't have much in the way of consumer goods (my monitor is from 1997, for example, we don't have a dryer, dishwasher, microwave, TV, etc), most of my clothes are worn for 10 years or more (high quality and cold water washing only, no dryer - amazing how long well made things last when treated well, never had a credit card or any debt), and so on.
This is not really a debate about purity - I am very aware of the externalities which support my comfortable life, even if looks somehow poor to an American - but living in a country which did just happen to kill millions of people tends to make such hyperbole as 'Americans simply don't care about Nigerians and Iraqis dying, even when America is murdering them' a bit dramatic, especially when compared to my childhood, in which the number of dead Iraqis in a year would have been a slow couple of weeks work in Vietnam, as I watched the body count - we were winning right up till the end - 50,000 or so dead Americans, 1-2 million dead Asians.
But you are right - the Nigerians (who don't exist, by the way - instead, a number of different groups of people who share little to nothing in the way of language or religion, live in an area which is currently defined as 'Nigeria') or whomever, get trampled when somebody more powerful wants what they can't keep - welcome to being a member of the human race.
Which is why Lundberg is so irritating - he doesn't seem to care about a few billion deaths himself, as that will bring mankind back to paradise, but his purity of essence will see him through.
Rant as you wish - I certainly do at times - but keep in mind, you don't really know that much about the people you are addressing.
As a guess, just a guess, you have just discovered that humans are really not what they think they are - but after realizing that, also realize a lot of us here already know that.
Can we help this by bombing their oil fields into unproductivity?
It's better after all to leave the oil in the ground right?
Why get a late start on it?
Against my better judgment, I started reading Lundberg but stopped reading about at the point that you did. The man is simply incomphrehensible. I support and believe that we need to get along with less, but he just takes this to the point of absurdity and wishful thinking.
I've spoken for some time about electrifying our fleet of cars. On many occasions, people have dismissed my suggestions as a crank, stating that battery technology is 10-15 years away from being able to hold enough energy to be a viable powr medium.
But now its looking like the confluence of breakthroughs I've been talking about is taking place. Leanan posted a link discussing EEStor's new ultra capacitors. I've been following these for a week, ever since they posted about them on the Energy Blog. These of course are even a step above and beyond that of Altirs batteries, in that they can store 15 kWh of energy in a battery pack that weighs only 100 pounds. In addition, they work in a range of -20 C to 65 C, well outside the normal operating parameters that most cars endure.
You may not believe that Altir had a similar, although costly, breakthrough, but can you start dismissing EEStor as well? I hope not. Keep in mind that when you couple this breakthrough with the ACCC power lines and the DoE report that states that we can replace 84% of the energy we 'use' in cars without even upgrading our power production and transmission capability, you begin to see the bigger picture!
A link of interest:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/01/eestor_on_sched.html#more
The ball is in their court, Hothgor. It's theirs to prove, and this week's tests were promising.
I surely look forward to seeing someone truly prove a breakthrough in batteries, and tend to expect some movement forward on this, considering the amount of research being applied to chemical and ultracap techs.. but it isn't a breakthrough until it has broken through. They've crossed some hurdles, and I wish them well, but I'm not putting on the FlightSuit and doing my strut on an aircraft carrier just yet.
1) Will it be economical, or like fuel cells cost hun's of thousands per auto?
2) Are the Materials available in the quantities for any kind of commercial-scale operation?
3) How bad are the fumes/heat/blast-radius if the thing blows up under the BabySeat? (You're concentrating a LOT of energy in a pretty small space.. it doesn't usually come free or cheap)
They are being fairly reserved about their pronouncements so far. I hope you are patient enough to do the same.
Bob
practical considerations never got in the way of polyanna's optimism either.
Check out the 'loremo AG' 157mpg for the satndard, 80mpg for the sport.
I realise its deisel but those are great milages. And there is space for a passenger too!
But now its looking like the confluence of breakthroughs I've been talking about is taking place.
Right now a confluence of Hype. Blacklight Power was claiming that they would have 'a battey the size of a briefcase in 2007 that would power an electric car 1000 miles' back in 2001. I still don't see one. Or the 'perendev 20kWh foever dynmo' thingamajig.
Solar based stirling engines were gonna be out 'in bulk' by 2005. One firm had $89 1hp Nitrogen working gas engines by 2002. ($89 price by the 40 foot container load)
When EEStor (Or whomever...maxwell?) ships units consumers can buy in a product, then the actual lifetime testing begins. For your hyping to be 'right', it'll be a few years after shipping.
I'd love to see it happen. For my design project, a 52kWh 200-300 lbs pack would solve many of the design issues with the product development cycle here. (A 8 hour day is possible on that pack...20 outta 24 hour duty cycle w/o lottsa copper to move about power. Assumes that you can fully charge/discharge that 52k pack VS having to watch the rate like ya do with a battery set, Charging the pack is a big draw of power, but at least doable with the present grid.) Even a 15 kWh pack would be useful, the rotation of a pack would then be the design concern.
But I've waited too long for software and hardware promises to be fufilled, so pardon my 'show me' position on what EEStor is claiming. And the people making arguments about the dielectric constant of the eestor process (as known to us outsiders) does bring up concerns.
The bigger picture is that even government cornucopians still believe in Jiminy Cricket, Tinkerbell, and right-wing stink tanks with their promise that we can all get something for nothing.
Hothgor…
Yes, very promising. Evworld.com has been following these advances. Can the US national grid withstand, a rapid transition to electric vehicles?
Let's compare EEStor's energy density to a gas tank:
EEStor: 15 KWH=54 MJ (megajoules), packed in 100 lb. (constant weight).
Gasoline: 6 lb/gal, plus say 2 lb steel tank/gal, for 131 MJ. Drop 3/4 of the energy as waste heat, leaving 33 MJ, packed in 8 lb. (declining weight).
Of course the engine and drive train are much lighter in electric vehicles, so all I can say is, the 100 lb. capacitor is equivalent to more than two gallons of gas.
For powering a behemoth SUV with a 40 gal. tank, you'd need a ton of capacitors for the same range. (You'd need to pull heating and A/C from the capacitor, too.) Of course with lead-acid batteries, you'd need kilotons.
so all I can say is, the 100 lb. capacitor is equivalent to more than two gallons of gas.
Thank you for the summary of weight/energy.
Breakthroughs hyped in press releases are rarely that.
The bigger picture:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/page3/
Glaciers may vanish from Alps by 2050
So they are actually expecting the melt to decrease with time? A simplistic linear extrapolation gives 33 years for them to disappear. But in reality the loss will increase as the glaciers get thinner so they could be gone in 20 years.
That's too logical dissident. What are you, some kind of commie? Don't use simple arithmetic when it points to answers we don't want. You're causing trouble.
He said: "The future looks rather liquid."
It looks to me like the future looks rather chaotic. Overall, it looks more oceanic, with expanded desertification.
Those glaciers provide water that will need to be replaced somehow. More rain?
A "liquid future" is more of a poetic licence than a description of fact.
And looking at the chaotic nature of liquids, the terms seem interchangeable.
Right-you-are, HISF!
I honestly understood what the guy was saying "...more liquid..." but was thinking of the possible outcome -- more water in the oceans, but less to drink for plants and animals on land.
Thanks for the "Cali Furnace Nation" quote as well!
I have family in CA. Plenty of population and agriculture -- and water sources seem to be drying up.
Summer of 05 I was visiting Glacier N.P., MT and stopped in to the visitors center in West Glacier. I was surprized that there were no glacier photographs among the countless ones of wildlife, scenery, etc. on the walls. I expected a series depicting retreat of some the prominent ones.
I searched out a NPS ranger and asked him about it, at least photos of glaciers. He noted his multiyear career with the Park Service, that those glacier photos were a thing of the past, that he couldn't comment any further on the subject. When I pressed that it was the namesake of the park we were referring to, he replied that they now believe the park highlights "the process of glaciation" and it's effect on the landscape.
In that case they should call it "The Process of Glaciation National Park". Another use of the "memory hole".
Looks like things are heating up with Iran...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_4
The IAEA is disputing the story. Apparantly Iran has merely requested the withdrawal of the designation of certain individuals as inspectors which is not an unusual request. There are ongoing discussions re the request. There are still 150 inspectors in county. As with Iraq, the US media is hyping the story to make something of nothing. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/UN_nuclear_watchdog_clarifies_report_t...
Khebab...
That post showing the Eiffel Tower next to last years oil production was quite telling...do you think you could make one of those to the scale of total recovered oil so far? A whole post of landmarks would actually be excellent. i.e. The US uses the Twin Tower's worth of oil per day. Last years oil production next to the Seattle Space Needle, total cumulative oil production next to the entirety of New York City, Great Pyramids, etc. Just those things visulized next to a whole bunch of things so that someone somewhere can find a visual to wrap their mind around it.
How does this relate to peak oil, you say?
Well, maybe it's time to ask yourself if you really want to live through it all and be alive, depending on your age, 30-40-50-60-70 years from now.
It seems clear enough that the world will be a dramatically different place.
Just that some of us see human intelligence finally live up to expectations, and solve a few problems instead of creating them, while others don't see that as a realistic option.
Will the world be a pleasant place to be when YOU reach 100? What do you think?
And guess what, all those areas have something in common: they eat a diet low on the food chain (vegan). John Robbins' "Healthy at 100: The Scientifically Proven Secrets of the World's Healthiest and Longest-Lived Peoples" is basically a book his visits to many of these long-lived populations, where to no surprise, he finds they eat diets heavy in whole plant foods and minus meat/dairy.
Al Gore at HBS on reexamining externalities. I've no idea whether Generation Investment Management is any good (or by what metric you'd use), but we do need the discussion.
For those interested in how new political developments are affecting the world of green automobiles, check out the Green Machines Road Trip (http://www.greenmachinestour.org/). It follows the story of a team of green bloggers that travel from Minnesota to Michigan writing about how fuel-efficient vehicles have been and will continue to transform America’s heartland. Also, provides links to commentary on the politics of green machines (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/24/17371/067)
I see! I see! Reduced Saudi oil production proves that peak oil is not upon us! How could I have missed that?
OPEC Cuts Bite In December As Oil Output Falls To 28.79Mn B/D
MEES released a teaser about its OPEC December production estimate. They have a subscription firewall, but there were enough goodies in one paragraph . . .
For any and all of you who still shop at Wal-Mart, I'll make it a point to post the entire article, and you're lucky it's not 4 times as long.
There is a price to pay, and you ain't paying it. Pay attention.
People pay with their lives for the Christmas gifts you don't even want. How much clearer does it have to get?
What do you mean Wal Mart? This applies to anyone who shops, period, which I'm guessing would be about all of us.
Sounds like England during the industrial revolution.
On the other hand, what if the United States and Europe, for starters, cut their consumption of Chinese related consumer goods in half. What impact would this have on the Chinese and the people in these poor villages?
We all have some responsibility here, which includes Wal Mart, but also includes all the other retailers and companies that import goods from China. In some degree, we have exported our pollution, and then blamed China for their irrepsponsibility.
For starters, I think we need international standards that apply to the production of all goods produced anywhere and everywhere. We could start with by insisting that the Chinese have to meet the same environmental standards as exist in the U.S. and Europe. We are not only outsourcing jobs; we are outsourcing pollution which drives down the cost of goods which leads to outsourcing.
Our contribution to global warming and particulate pollution is much greater than reported if one includes the indirect effects of imported goods.
What if the U.S. and Europe really got serious about cap and trade? This would probably accelerate the movement of even more polluting industries to places like China. Somehow, we need to figure out a way to include the external costs for all goods consumed, wherever the source.
At the end of the day, the biggest crime is to sacrifice the planet. If stopping this has a negative economic impact, the price must be paid. But clearly, the biggest price should be paid by the wealthy countries. Despite China's growth, it still does not come close to being a rich country in terms of GDP per capita.
Just for my own personal satisfaction: I called this in my circle months ago.
Litvinenko had named Prodi as the top KGB/FSU man in April 2006, but when he died, there was no mention of Prodi. The UK press published the link in April, but it all vanished.
I never figured out why. Now, today, someone decided to let the truth come out. Why? No idea.
Nothing easy here: you have KGB/FSU + Italian Secret Service + Mafia + Italian politics + Russian politics, and for good measure, rest assured CIA and MI5 have infiltrated all of the above.
But Prodi, now Italy's prime minister, and formerly head of the EU, is the key. And a very wrong man.
That's all I'll say. Follow the news.
So where is the suitcase full of evidence that Litvinenko calaimed to have about the apartment bombings? This accusation against Prodi is Scaramella's which Litvinenko, the ex-security guard and not some FSB "agent", repeats like a good little sock puppet.
What retarded conceit, some two-bit stooge in London who makes insane asylum level accusations (e.g. Litvinenko claimed Russia staged 9/11 and the Danish cartoon scandal), is going to be a high level target for the FSB. Why? So that credulous western russophobes can feel re-affirmed in their hate? What possible damage could Litvinenko and his empty suitcase and cranium do to Russia? He was a bigger threat to his handlers by making them look like fools on a regular basis.
Litvinenko was murdered by agents of the Russian gov't.
Indisputable FACT !
The means (rare radioactive isotope with perhaps a half dozen possible sources in the world, ALL strictly controlled) have the clear fingerprints of the Russian gov't (and deliberately so, there was a message in the means, a thousand alternative means to kill Litvinenko).
Russia used a weapon of mass destruction (a small dirty bomb) on British soil.
Truly monsters in the Kremlin,
Alan
Or maybe the CIA. Whoever did it, I think this guy wasn't worth the hue and cry.
The means used, a radioactive isotope i.e. "dirty bomb" is extremely alarming ! The muted response (think if an Arab group had used exaxtly the same means) is testament to the power of energy in the hands of former KGB agents.
Given the downplayed response, this rules out Western agencies. Besides the CIA has targeted, perhaps, a few hundred murders in it's history. The death toll for the Cheka/NKVD/KGB/FSB is several tens of millions. There is a difference between them.
Alan
Well you had to know it was coming sometime: Terror Free Gas
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/01/22/pet...
We have had some very weighty and highly contentious comments on TOD of late. I think we need a little pause and to acquire a bit of lightness.
And so, what better way to relieve the tension than to throw out a little scientific riddle taken from real life? (Humor me, please!)
I happen to have near our side porch a little (roughly 5 ft by 7 ft) shallow pond in which I have about 10 koi, plus in season many floating water hyacinthes. It's quite pleasant and offers me many hours of contemplative joy.
In the pond I also have a large copper dragonfly, which I had hand-crafted from scratch myself using copper pipe, copper sheet, and wire mesh for the wings. It turned out rather well, if I may say so myself, and is a very credible giant dragonfly.
This dragonfly is about 24 inches long and has a wingspan of at least 30 inches. It is mounted on a steel rod which is anchored to the bottom of the pond. The copper dragonfly hovers about a foot about the water surface of the pond. Thus the scene is set for..... The Question.
I have noticed a very curious physical phenomenon regarding this copper dragonfly. When the pond is covered with either slushy ice or snow, the area of ice and/or snow directly under the main cylindrical body of the dragonfly is usually melted away and thus exposes an area of free water in the approximate shape of the dragonfly's shadow.
Now why would this be? The body of the copper dragonfly essentially shields the snow/ice from the direct rays of the sun. So why should the shadow of the dragonfly be melted ice/snow rather than even colder than those areas exposed to direct sunlight? This seems to occur whether it is sunny or overcast. Why is this happening?
I have my own theory and explanation, but what do all of you who are scientists and engineers out there think is the reason why I have this readily observable anomolous phenomenon?
This obviously has jack to do with Peak Oil, but let's have a bit of fun in a small area of scientific speculation.
Anomalous evidence is a pet subject of mine, and I have many more examples which I won't burden you with. Suffice to say, as my good ol' friend Hamlet once said: "There are more things on heaven and earth than you dream of in your philosophy......"
So then, why is the area under the body of the copper dragonfly melted when it obviously receives even less solar insolation than the surrounding area? Hmmm?
joule,
That is interesting, and my first guess would be radiation. Copper absorbs the heat, and radiates it back off to a greater degree than the shade it provides, to the distance below the copper dragonfly at the surface of the water. This combined with the heat that travels by conduction down the pipe thaws the ice at the surface. That would be my quick guess, but tell what you think....
-------------
now, on another light note, but one that is peak oil related, I have been stuck with something to think about for the last few days..., and it will not leave my mind:
The other day, on a very interesting and thought provoking post right here on TOD, there was a fascinating graphic and explanation showing that the total volume of oil produced in the world last year was one cubic mile.
I have thought about that for the last couple of days, and frankly, cannot resolve it to my own satisfaction, at least in a way that is consistant with my own prior perception of the energy issue. I keep thinking:
It MUST be more than that! ONE CUBIC MILE? That is JUST not that much! The more I turned it over, the more I thought about it, the more I began to have a sacriligious thought....If all we consumed in oil last year was ONE CUBIC MILE then the whole energy "issue" and "peak crisis" is much ada about nothing....sorry, but I just cannot push it out of my mind...
Think of it this way....if you grouped all the milk produced in America together in one place, how big of a square would it be? The stat was given as 13.3 billion pounds for November alone....13.3 billion pounds, in one month, from the U.S. alone!)
Or group all of the say, waste wood chips, bark and and paper from one year production....?
OR my favorite, BEER? DOES America alone produce one cubic mile of beer? I see more beer trucks on the road than gasoline tankers! Would you believe that there are more than 35 BILLION gallons of beer produced worldwide! :-)
Isn't that something like 833 million barrels? Now, I know, before you say it, we couldn't run the world on only that volume of beer....but let us think about the beer, the whiskey, the rum, the gin, the vodka, on and on.....and now let us turn to colas, soft drinks and fruit juices.....o.k., so that stuff doesn't have energy density you say, but my first issue is to deal first with the "liquid" handling capacity of this nation, which absolutely dwarfs the scale of the oil industry.....
So, I now am trying to visualize the scale of change that is possible and is needed....I read the other day that the world produced (get ready) 65 million automobiles and light trucks last year...65 MILLION seperate, complex, technically advanced units! If someone had tried to tell me we produced 65 million coke bottles, I would have been surprised, but 65 MILLION CARS!
Robert Rapier's work on Butanol has me interested. Is the raw material out there to make it, the infrastructure available to transport it? helll yes, don't let anyone kid you. I am interested AGAIN in methane recapture from food production, from plant and animal byproduct, from sewer gas, from landfill gas.....is there enough to make a difference? YOU CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE!
Because biobutanol ( http://www.butanol.com and bioDiesel and methane DO have energy densities to compete with crude oil.....and because they DO have the potential to be produced in one cubic mile if the effort is made, and because they DO have the ability to be used in a great deal of currently existing infrastructure. A change is coming on.....
That one cubic mile, on the WHOLE SURFACE of the earth is not much more than a pizz in the sea if you look at it right....think of the THOUSANDS of square miles that exist to catch solar, in the "brownbelt" areas in and around the decayed industrial areas of EVERY city, on the tops of the miles and miles of malls, warehouses, furniture stores, Walmarts, office parks.....MILES of energy catching area.....
Well, you get my issue I hope. The more and more I thought about that "one cubic mile" of combustable dirty sticky expensive black slop, most of which is carbon WE DON'T WANT TO TURN LOOSE ANYWAY, the more I began to "see the world from both sides now".
And I can't shake the thought: It's just not that much, it's just not that good, and the only reason we are putting up with having our lives controlled by it is habit. There is NO technical reason we HAVE TO BE SLAVES TO OIL. NONE. WE JUST PLAIN LIKE THE STUFF. But we are learning not to like it. We are learning what it is costing us, and we are getting ready to leave MILLIONS of tons of oil based infrastructure, drills, pumps, pipelines and refineries behind. ONE CUBIC MILE, with all we WASTE, only ONE CUBIC MILE? THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN GETTING IN AN UPROAR OVER!!!
So you can see, I am suffering a "perception" crisis, re-evaluating all I thought I knew, and I am doing some hard, hard, thinking.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
The shadow cast by the dragonfly will move as the sun moves across the sky, so I don't think it's some solar isolation effect. My guess is that the copper dragonfly reflects radiant heat from the pond back to the pond surface.
A couple of other ones:
Why do egg whites whip much faster in a copper bowl?
When making mayonaisse, whipping an egg and a cup of oil to get it to emulsify, why does this not work if there is an approaching thunderstorm?
The snow is white and reflects light. The copper absorbs a good portion of the visible but emits IR in all directions. This melts the snow/prevents the water near it from immediatly freezing.
For an experiment make a styrofoam dragonfly and use a pvc pipe. I bet nothing happens.
Also the water below the ice is warmer and some heat will conduct up the pipe 24 7 without sunlight.
How close is the sculpture to the water?
Yes, I do believe that one (but not necessarily the only) mechanism involved is the absorption of reflected radiant energy and the reemittance back to the surface of the bond as IR.
As I mentioned, this appears to occur whether there is direct sunlight or not.
Now this phenomenon only occurs when the ice is thin and the ambient air temperature is at or slightly above the freezing point. I have not observed it when the ice is very thick and the air temperature is well below freeze.
So the other thing that might also be happening is that the body of the dragon fly which is at ambient air temperature (or even slighly higher if the sun is shining) is directly radiating IR to the slightly colder surface of the ice, which if close to the freezing point gets warmed up just enough to melt.
I don't think that conduction has any appreciable effect here, as the stand upon which the dragonfly is mounted is only a 1/2-inch dia. steel rod. Also, there is a larger vertical brass pipe in the pond, and I observe little if any melting around it.
Now why would this be? The body of the copper dragonfly essentially shields the snow/ice from the direct rays of the sun. So why should the shadow of the dragonfly be melted ice/snow rather than even colder than those areas exposed to direct sunlight? This seems to occur whether it is sunny or overcast. Why is this happening?
Your metallic decoration also shields the infrared from radiating away into the cold sky, in much the same way CO2 does for the entire sky. While the open water loses heat and freezes (or remains frozen), the sheltered area under the dragonfly does not.
It might have to do with copper ions dripping off the sculpture and into the pool. Easy to test-cover the knick-knack in plastic wrap and check
I have a large barn with an old galvanized metal roof. Nothing grows in the dripline. I've since painted it, but it will be a while before that is normal. It might be a favor to your koi to remove the dragonfly. Cu is one of the most toxic to fish, and toxicity is synergistic with zinc or other heavy metals which might be in your water, and decreasing pH.
I'm well aware that dissolved copper can indeed be toxic to aquatic life, which is one reason it was used to cover the bottom of sailing ships to prevent marine fouling and why copper sulfate kills algae.
However, in my case the copper body of the dragonfly is supported on a steel rod and is not in contact with the water. However, there could be a small amount of copper dissolved due to rain water dripping from the dragonfly into the pond. It's been my practice to remove about four gallons of pond water each day and replace it with fresh water. I do this to bleed off various pollutants. In the spring I put water hyacinthes in the pond, and these soak up nutrients and pollutants so effectively that the water becomes crystal clear.
I don't want to make an issue of it. Just thought I'd throw a suggestion. I've raised salmonids on and off for thirty years. The cardinal rule is always remove all copper, brass and galvanized material when setting up for any species. And that's with continuous flow, not makeup. I've also done quite a few operations with various spiny rays and other types of aquaculture, including Koi and biomass removal. Probably won't kill them, but you might do them a favor.
I don't have letters after my name but here goes
first the snow that fell landed on the dragonfly thus a good starting point for the relief in the snow
second when the sun came back out the solar energy stored/ gained by the copper melted the snow faster than the snow on the water. the melting water fell strait down into the butterfly foot print.
While what you described CAN happen, this phenomenon occurs when there is no snow whatsoever.
It mainly occurs when the pond has a thin layer of ice or slush and the ambient air temperature is at or near freezing. For example, we had no snow yesterday, but as I look out my window I can plainly see the outline of the dragonfly as partially melted ice.
I think this mainly has to do with the emittance and/or reflection of radiant energy in the infrared spectrum causing just enough heating to raise the temperature of the ice or snow to just above freezing.
I'd like to do some experiments (such as wrapping the dragonfly in aluminum foil), but this winter has been so warm that we've
seldom had any ice on the pond so far.
Here's a free WSJ article:
Cheap Gas Worries Auto Makers
Maybe he IS dealing with it by taking an impractical, yet possibly moral viewpoint - before you know it he'll go vegan too, hehe.
I found this at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16722174/site/newsweek
Sacrifice
23%
Moneymaker
65%
Not sure
11%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.
When the majority "unscientific" vote sees this a moneymaking opportunity, then i am convinced we are head straight for a brick wall at full speed!
Really?
Interesting; I see it as a sign that most people view saving energy as in their best interests rather than an imposition, and hence it's something they'll do voluntarily.
If one believes saving energy is good, that's good news.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/22/070122074327.pbtqfqv6.html
It just keeps getting worse doesn't it? These aren't electric vehicles either. How many more millions of cars are going to be hitting the roads while we wait around for the those sustainable technologies we've been promised?
Rethin asks,
"How many more millions of cars are going to be hitting the roads while we wait around for the those sustainable technologies we've been promised?"
The answer is, as many more consumers as there are who can afford them.
You see, people in other nations do not see the right to drive as a divine right given only to Americans. They think that they should have that right to, and many have spent years in prison and house arrest struggling for it.
For most people in the world, the automobile is not considered a horrific evil, but as item of technology which gives them something humans have always wanted, still want, and will continue to want: freedom of mobility, access to a bigger job and education market, the ability to visit friends and family and the ability to go to entertainment and cultural events.
There are other interesting facts that should be considered:
+ Fossil fuel was being burned before the development of the automobile.
+ There are other consumers of fossil fuel today beside the automobile.
+ There are other sources of carbon and greenhouse gas beside the automobile.
+ There are ways to propel an automobile beside fossil fuel, albeit due to the extreme cheapness of fossil fuels, most of them have not been developed.
+ The automobile is NOT necessary for the continuation of human life, despite what some may believe. Civilization and Cultural developed before it.
(by the way, the same is true of the computer, the radio and the television, along with the electric guitar) However, if given the choice between operating all the above or not, most cultures have demonstrated they prefer the opportunity to operate them.
+ Last year there were 65 million automobiles and light trucks built worldwide. If the U.S. chooses to renounce the automobile, that is a choice, but it in no way means that the other nations of the world MUST renounce the automobile, and given the growing world market, if we choose to renounce the auto, it has less and less of an effect on world auto population with each passing year. All we will have done is renounce one more way to have access to world markets in the automotive trade.
This last one is not a fact, but more of a theory, (I think evidence does tend to support it though: The fastest way for the love affair with the automobile to be ended will be caused by the continuing success of the automobile. Gridlock and traffic jam or far more annoying to the automobile drive today than fuel considerations. At the pace we are going, the car will suffer Bob Shaw's yeast example and strangle itself to death by being rendered stationary by fellow cars....which kind of ends the whole purpose for cars, doesn't it?
When I was young, I used to love to drive. As I got older, and traffic got thicker, I started to enjoy being driven more than driving. As it has now become packed liked sardines in a can on the so called "expressway" (boy, does that bring back memories of actual high speed motion!), I have gotten to the point I would rather walk down the block to a local play or show, and watch anyting further away on TV. I am thinking about moving into a nice hotel and letting the world come to me. And guess what, there is still plenty of fuel...the "car" is strangling in it's own success.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout