DrumBeat: January 25, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 25, 2007 - 11:43am
Topic: Miscellaneous
California bans dirty power sources
California regulators approved rules Thursday banning power companies from buying electricity from high-polluting sources, including most out-of-state coal-burning plants.The rules _ aimed at reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming _ could have a far-reaching effect on the energy market across the West.
Nuclear energy's French connection
With help from the allies it funds in Congress and legions of highly paid lobbyists, the U.S. nuclear power industry won billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for its promised “renaissance.” But the biggest winner of all could be a French firm that most Americans have never heard of.
Is there enough corn for Bush ethanol plan?
Of all the proposals in President Bush’s State of the Union speech, the call for massive increases in subsidized ethanol production stands the best chance of winning Congressional support. With the campaign season getting under way, both parties are eager to boost federal funds to the Farm Belt.But even as the president hit the road Wednesday to highlight his plan at an ethanol plant in Delaware, some were already asking: Where is all the corn needed to make that ethanol going to come from?
Bodman: U.S. Needs More Ethanol Imports
The U.S. "will need to have more imports of ethanol," if it is to meet the new mandate to cut gasoline use, the Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Thursday.
Creating Myths About Oil Production is Easy, Too Easy
On 18th Jan 2007, the news agency the Associated Press issued a story which stated that Saudi Arabia intends to increase its oil production capacity by 40% by 2009. In fact, it intends to do no such thing.
Climate change 'fanning conflict, terror'
Global warming could exacerbate the world's rich-poor divide and help to radicalise populations and fan terrorism in the countries worst affected, security and climate experts said today.
Climate change: Public concern is rising fast
Thirty years ago, global warming was an issue restricted to a handful of climatologists who, clamouring in the wilderness, warned that uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels would damage Earth's climate.Today, opinion polls in many countries say climate change is now a concern that citizens often place just after unemployment, terrorism or a similarly key issue of prosperity or survival.
Developing nations dig in heels on climate change
Developing countries stand to suffer the worst effects of global warming, and should not have to pay for a problem created mainly by the rich, executives and experts said on Thursday.
Leaders not sold on global warming
Despite warnings from President Bush about global warming -- and in the face of what many experts and even industry leaders describe as overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue -- top leaders in Texas have continued to question the validity of man-made climate change.
Stern favours world carbon tax
Sir Nicholas Stern has spoken out in favour of a global carbon tax, warning that global warming represents "the biggest market failure the world has ever seen".
Harper: Canada won't follow Bush on reducing oil consumption
Canada won't follow the Bush administration's lead in setting hard targets for reducing oil consumption, but will instead impose tougher emissions standards on the auto sector and other industries, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Merkel calls for tough emissions controls
The twin demands of action to prevent climate change and enhance energy security requires Europe to commit to challenging mandatory controls on greenhouse gasses after 2012, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said on Wednesday.
ConocoPhillips' Woes Mount in Venezuela; 'A Difficult Situation'
U.S. oil major ConocoPhillips (COP) is licking its wounds in Venezuela as President Hugo Chavez tightens the noose on two of the firm's showboat projects.
Is the sun setting on oil sector's heyday?
Global pledges to slash use may put long-term pressure on prices.
Shell Canada Announces Plans for Oil Sands Growth
Shell Canada on Wednesday updated its long-term oil sands growth plans to increase minable bitumen production to approximately 770,000 barrels a day, while increasing upgrading capacity to approximately 700,000 barrels a day.
Militants kidnap oil workers in Nigeria
LAGOS, Nigeria - Gunmen attacked a Chinese oil company in restive southern Nigeria on Thursday, abducting at least two employees and stealing a large amount of cash, police said.
California agency sues over air pollution
The South Coast Air Quality Management District sued California public utility officials, claiming the liquefied natural gas that officials approved for use in the state could worsen air pollution.
Ford posts record loss of $12.7B in 2006
Ford Motor Co. lost $5.8 billion in the fourth quarter amid slumping sales and huge restructuring costs, pushing the fabled automaker's deficit for the year to $12.7 billion, the largest in its 103-year history.
After unlocking the secrets of the human genome, the controversial scientist Craig Venter now is trying to engineer a microbe to liberate us from our dependence on oil.
Eat To Live: Food or fuel in future?
Already, land for food is competing with land for biofuels. The decrease in land available to supply the food chain will result in global food shortages, which in turn will force food prices to rise.
Bush wants America to reduce its oil consumption - but subsidising ethanol production isn't the answer.
South Africa: Biofuel Demand Good for Farmers
One Planet Agriculture – preparing for a post-peak oil food and farming future
The Soil Association is the UK’s leading campaigning and certification organisation for organic food and farming. This recent interview with Soil Association director, Patrick Holden, talks about the potential impacts of peak oil, the role of organic food.
Bangladesh: Quick Remedy to Energy Crisis Not in Sight
No light is seen at the end of the tunnel immediately for the solution to the current severe energy crisis, which has already taken a heavy toll on the country’s economy, according to sources.
An energy crisis is steadily approaching, and swift and decisive action is imperative.In the 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush said "America is addicted to oil."
One year later, we are just as hooked.
Though poisonous when eaten, the jatropha genus and its species hold immense potential for improving human life in this new age of biologically-derived fuel.
Higher Angola Oil Output Not Seen Affecting Oil Market
A move by new Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries member Angola to raise its crude production to record levels is unlikely to have a long-term impact on the group's production quotas or the West African cash crude market, traders said Wednesday.
John Michael Greer: The Hesperotechnic Phase
The neoprimitivist movement seeks to replace the myth of progress with a myth of fall and redemption in which technology plays the role of original sin. It’s a clear and compelling narrative, and has the advantage of recasting our current predicament as a cause for optimism. I’m far from convinced that their myth makes any more sense of our actual situation than the myth of progress does, and a myth that defines the mass death of six billion people and the loss of every trace of eight thousand years of human culture as good things has obvious problems of its own, but at least they have taken the mythic dimension seriously.
Declining oil reserves will impact hugely on energy prices and the way we eat and farm. Is Britain ready for a new agri-culture?
Russia's oil habit hampers economy
Oil prices have been falling and western European customers, rattled by disruptions of Russian supplies, are looking for other sources of oil and natural gas.That might be a wakeup call for Russia to stop relying almost exclusively on hydrocarbon exports as the backbone of its economy. Yet Russia is doing little to diversify -- and analysts say its dependence on energy resources is only getting stronger.
Nigerian Oil, Curse of the Black Gold
The Niger Delta holds some of the world's richest oil deposits, yet Nigerians living there are poorer than ever, violence is rampant, and the land and water are fouled. What went wrong?
How about a "Don't Feed the Trolls" moratorium day?
Resist replying with non-value added arguments with Posters that only take up thread space.
(Yes, Including this post)
Only a moron would suggest something like that.
Please inform yourself.
:laughs:
If it weren't for the trolls what sort of conversations would occur here?
Hothgor and Infinite Possibilities seem to make the same arguments every day and experience the same results:
Hothgor: You're wrong about Peak Oil.
Anyone else: You're an idiot, Hothgor.
or ...
Infinite Possibilities: Technology will save us!
Anyone else: You're an idiot, IP!
Certainly not enough changes from day to day to justify repeating the same argument over and over again. It makes no difference if these two individuals actually believe what they repeatedly affirm: An argument which was not resolved yesterday will suffer the same fate today.
Time will resolve these arguments in a more effective manner than perpetually engaging in the same arguments ever will. The only significant contribution of the daily threads is the news stories which Leanan and others provide throughout the day. The news is interesting and occasionally very important (such as the reports coming out of Mexico today, the world certainly is changing).
These daily debates which degenerate into insult exchanges don't benefit the Peak Oil movement at all. Do they? Does anyone seriously believe that they help?
As for myself, I believed in Peak Oil from the first moment that I heard that it is an approaching threat. The only real argument is about the timing, and that argument is irrelevant within the time scales which concern me. Undoubtedly Peak Oil will occur within this century, perhaps before 2010, possibly it has already occurred. Regardless of the various opinions about the matter there is no possibility whatsoever that information gleaned from the news today will resolve the issue conclusively either for believers, skeptics or the disinterested public.
Why then go through the trouble of repeating the same tiresome argument every day?
The Peak Oil controvery cannot help but resolve itself in time. Patience is a virtue, incessant strife a vice.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
It is rather ironic that you say this, seeing as you exhibit the same kind of eristic tendencies, over-attachment to baseless and opiniated rhetoric, and compulsive urge to post that mark, say, IP and some others.
Leanan, we had a hint of the rot in a certain aged poster and his plentiful off-topic references to the prowess of his dong (now thankfully a habit he has grown out of - and about time, at seventy-odd years of age), then OilCEO, who was banned (correctly), then IP, and now it appears dmathew. All these are, unfortunately, symptoms of a wider ill - the urge to talk complete BS to the wider public on what is, ostensibly, a Peak Oil site. Yes, I have done it myself. So I say unto you and the rest of the Oildrum crew: SHOOT US ALL! Disable the comment feature and spare posterity all this. Or let the comments show only RR and Westexas duking it out, and similar. The rest is dross, and should be confined to oblivion.
(For our non-American friends and young people, FYI re Nancy: In days of old, When knights were bold, And Ronald was our White House Resident (circa 1980-88), Good ole' Nancy came on TV with great fanfare and show, To suggest to all our addicted young people a simple Just Say No.)
yea i am getting tired of the same arguments too..
For those interested in hearing a scientist speak about the future of humankind and life on the Earth in a serious fashion with an appropriate mixture of doomsday and naive techno-salvationism, visit the Princeton University Webmedia page:
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/
Listen to Peter Ward's lecture series, "The Undesigned Universe", and in particular the first two lectures (January 9 and 10). Peter Ward also presents a substantial argument against human space exploration in these lectures, too, so we pretty much can forget about any sort of Star Tredk-type future for our species.
For another scientist's view on the approaching catastrophes facing humankind, there is the eminent Tim Flannery. He advocates:
Ending the coal industry is an excellent idea but these alternatives won't provide the energy-intensive lifestyle that prosperous people demand. Too bad for the consumers, or (more accurately) too bad for the environment because that means that humans will keep on burning coal until civilization itself collapses.
How could civilization collapse? Tim Flannery provides a chilling scenario:
But no one should imagine that humankind is wise or honorable enough to cease all of these self-destructive activities until the oceans actually do rise and take away the world's coasts. At that point the climate change skeptics will concede that the climate has changed but they probably will still deny that humans bear any responsibility for the change.
The destruction of the Earth continues ...
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Thanks D. Mathews for the headsup and link.
That lecture series by Peter Ward is excellent. I watched the first two last night (stayed up waaaaay past my bedtime ;) and look forward to watching the last one tonight.
There were several other interesting lectures in that list that I look forward to hearing - e.g. "Department of Physics Steven Chu, Director of Lawrence Berkeley Labs: "The energy problem: our current choices and future hopes."
And try not to feel too badly about the possible fate of our species. Remember that jesus guy said something like, "forgive them father, for they know not what they do." Being the stupid aminalz we are I think we could switch out the "father" part and replace it with "Mother Nature" and apply it to our current situation.
Unfortunately I think that deaf, dumb and blind Girl also says, "ignorance of The Lawz is No Excuse."
D.Matt,
ditto,
thanks for the link
I couldn't stay awake thru the whole 1st lecture (1.5 hours) --but it's fascinating stuff. Here's to our current mammalian epoch.
Hello Everyone,
I have a question addressed to The Oil Drum's Editors (sort of like asking God a question, I know ...):
When you allowed Robert Rapier to become a prominent contributor at The Oil Drum you did know that he is employed as a lobbyist for a major oil corporation, right?
I had to look into this myself since I had formed my opinion of Mr. Rapier intuitively simply by reading his posts. I never actually researched it until today. Using a simple Google search I found the evidence:
I fear that anointing an oil lobbyist the primary authority regarding ethanol on the Oil Drum constitutes some sort of ethical violation. Would the editors kindly justify this decision and, more importantly, never explicitly identifying Robert Rapier as a lobbyist employed by an oil corporation?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Any of us following TOD for any period of time knows he's employed by an oil company. So what?
If you have a quarrel with his data you are free to challenge it here.
In Trollheim, it is the next day - 'ethical violation'?
I guess you approve of the name 'Self-aggrandized Trader' then, but I am not sure that OilCEO is actually an oil CEO - another case of what? Apart from 'so what,' that is.
Please, get some sort of perspective - I do not belong to a peak oil movement, and this is a forum - which means anyone who can type is allowed a soapbox, which other people then ignore.
Oh - to use something I'm sure you would approve - in the interest of 'full disclosure' - I am an expat, but that can be read a couple of ways - care to offer any insight which ones are not ethical violations?
The editors don't care, since they have better things to do with their time.
Robert has been very clear that he works for an oil company since day one. He has also described his position as being other than a "lobbyist" as you claim three times in your rant.
I suggest that you document this claim, or apologize.
I agree, Jack.
Robert is an authority by force of argument. Everyone here knows he works for the oil industry. What he says stands on its merits, even when it is unpopular (see the debate with WT, which has gone over the heads of most people posting here).
You are asking for trouble if you think you can easily win an argument with RR. Or perhaps you are banking on the fact that he will be too busy settling into a new role in Scotland to bother replying...
Hello Franz,
I have no quarrel with Robet Rapier's argument against ethanol. What I am pointing out is that The Oil Drum is functioning as a lobbying - public relations device for the oil industry. His presence and prominence indicate that The Oil Drum itself is a website which is working on behalf of the oil industry.
If Robert Rapier is lobbying on behalf of the oil corporations, how many other people here are doing the same? Was The Oil Drum established specifically for the purpose of lobbying on behalf of the oil industry?
How can anyone trust anything said on The Oil Drum if the website serves only as a tool of propaganda on behalf of big oil?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0701250028jan25,1,5110...
You would probably need a tax around 2-3 dollars per gallon. That'll get you kicked out of office.
The most cost effective way to reduce GHG emissions is to ban future coal plants and streamline nuclear licensing.
So,
put it in place now.
Get kicked out.
As the raw, untaxed price rises, the tax can be reduced by a corresponding amount , thereby easing pain over time.
Sure, in 100 years time, the President that gets kicked out will have schools named after him and statues in (walkable) town squares.
Probably a few railway stations as well...
But naaah....
Nobody has that level of bottle or vision.
What schwarzenegger's team have picked up on is the meat and bones of the presidents remarks. "Other alternative fuels" unequivocally equals coal to liquids. His playbook is the American Energy Security Study released last July from the American Energy Security Working Group.(funded by peabody, rentech, DOD, railroad and mining groups, among others)
http://www.americanenergysecurity.org/studyrelease
Re: Canada won't follow Bush on reducing oil consumption: Harper
Regarding oil, Canada is practically two different countries, with Western Canada exporting oil and with Eastern Canada importing oil.
I wonder the outlook is for net energy exports from Western Canada?
Western Canadian oil and gas consumption is, I assume, increasing, while conventional oil and gas production is declining. To show an increase in net energy exports, unconventional production has to take care of rising domestic consumption and then offset conventional declines.
I continue to find it interesting that US oil refiners have asked (begged?) Western Canadian producers to vastly expand their unconventional oil production rate. I somehow don't think that Gulf Coast refiners are oblivious to the fact the world's second largest producing field is crashing, practically right at our back door.
I'm sure they were similarly worried about the other 13 fields that crashed/are crashing over the past 27 years or so, yet 'miraculously' we've managed to increase global oil output by over 20 million bpd!
I guess the US was 'begging' the invisible hand :P
Hothgor,
I continue to apologize, and I yield to your superior oil industry knowledge. I am sure that the near certain decline/crash of every single field that is or was producing one mbpd or more is certain evidence--nay, absolute proof!--of rising production ahead.
It has been for 10 of the 14 fields, what is stopping it from happening during the decline of the last 4 fields?
You are of course correct. We can easily replace the production from crashing giant and super giant oil fields with the production from smaller fields. After all, isn't that what happened in the US as the East Texas Field went to a 99% water cut and as Prudhoe Bay went to a 75% water cut? Aren't we setting new production records every year in the US?
I'm sure that Gulf Coast refiners are completely complacent and unconcerned over the prospect of Mexican oil production dropping by 800,000 bpd in the space of one year.
My continuing abject apologies for questioning your superior oil industry knowledge. So, given the certain flood of new oil from smaller oil fields, what kind of SUV do you recommend that we buy?
Good answer...I appreciated it.
Rick
I'm sure that Gulf Coast refiners are completely complacent and unconcerned over the prospect of Mexican oil production dropping by 800,000 bpd in the space of one year.
Thank you for using this as an example. I like to use Mexico's depletion as the center of my P.O. discussions. It works.
1) folks identify and respond to the event-next-door.
2) they can readily imagine the economic consequences as Mexico loses its largest export commodity.
3) they can immediately see the ramifications: immigration for example...
Peak Oil will not be one EVENT. It will be the sum of events. The specific event that makes it real for the United States will be Cantarell. We will have to address severe economic and social problems on our border.
Peak Oil will not be one EVENT. It will be the sum of events.
Well... this sum of events can be tracked back to at least a century ago. And per capita oil peaked in 1970-s, AFAIK. What we are about to see is maybe some intensification of these events, but nothing new under the Sun, IMO.
In fact, I think Hothgor and Freddy should be in charge of all decisions concerning energy in this country...no, no...the entire globe. They appear to have all the answers and are enlightened beyond any of us here.
I think my father was wrong when he told me the following:
"In life you will always be asking questions and you will learn something new every day...you will never know everything..this is the root of being humble...the day you think you know everthing should be the day that you die."
...I think Hothgor and Freddy are living proof that you can know everything and not be dead.
WT, regardless of your pat-on-the-back-entourage here, your beginning to make yourself look very foolish. In the 1980s, we had 14 1 million bpd fields production around the world. Today, only 4 of those 14 are still producing over 1 million bpd. Since the 1980s, our global production rate has increased by over 20 million bpd. This is all despite the fact that 10 of the fields that produced 1 million bpd declined/crashed over the same period of time.
This is your problem, WT. You think small, and attempt to apply your lessons from one very small piece of the puzzle to the entire world. There have never been that many super giant fields. Most of the oil we produce has come from a host of much smaller fields. Their combined production current eclipses the super giants by a VERY VERY large margin. For those who actually have an open mind, WT line of thought is this:
1. Look at a region where a super giant exists.
2. Drill down to focus on a small portion of this region around said super giant.
3. Project the inevitable decline of the super giant.
4. Model the production ratio for this small area.
5. Point out that when the super giant of this small area crashed, so did the total production for the area.
6. Ignore the regional production rate.
7. Apply the production decline ratio of the small area to the entire region.
8. Ignore the global production rate.
9. Apply your estimated production decline for the region, based on the small areas decline, to the entire world.
10. Project a decline in total global oil production.
Once again folks, there were 14 super giant fields that produced over 1 million bpd in the 1980s. There are only 4 that still do so today. Oil production has increased by 20 million bpd globally during this same time period. It's time for WT to stop using a very small brush to paint a picture of the entire world.
Now I am not saying that production will increase forever. I am only saying that we now have 27 years of production history that PROVES that despite the decline of the super giants, global production rates have been increasing. At some point in the future, we will undoubtedly reach a maximum in oil production, but this point most likely will NOT occur in tangent with the decline of the last of the super giants.
Hothie,
A couple of minor points.
Daqing is now less than one mbpd, with a 90% water cut. The Kuwaitis have admitted that Burgan is in a long term decline. Cantarell is absolutely crashing, with just leaves Ghawar--which only in the most hyper-technical sense do we have to describe as a "near certain" decline.
However, you are swinging after the bell has run. I continue to offer my abject apologies for questioning your superior oil industry wisdom. It should be transparently obvious to even a doofus like me that crashing giant and super giant oil fields suggest rising, and not falling, oil production. I don't know what got into me.
I mean why would the near certainty that every field that has ever produced one mbpd or more is in decline, combined with near record high crude oil production (down only slightly from the 2005 peak), not suggest rising crude oil production?
Keep up the good work.
Over the same time period :1980-present: we have had 7 different occasions in which global oil production has decline by 1 million bpd or more. The longest period spanned 37 months before production began increases again to set new heights. The point is that we will not know we are at peak 1 year after the projected date from the 'Prophet' until we are certainly more then 37 months into a cumulative and steep production drops.
Hi Hothgor,
Could you please state in a little bit more specific terms your criteria for determining when the world is in confirmed decline? i.e., post-peak? So, you are saying:
1) after 37 months (3 years and one month)
2) of cumulative
3) and steep - could you please specify how steep?
production drops...
then, this is your criteria for confirming peak was at the initial month?
WT, in support of your fears, the point I put to doubters here Downunder, is how was the world oil system able to pump an additional 7mbpd between 2002-2005 (a 3 year period), and yet has been unable to push above 85mbpd over the past 2 years? This is the worry for me, where down here we have been celebrating the drop in petrol prices of 5c per litre, and drop in CPI over the past 3 mths. I'm holding my breath for the next 3-6 mths and suggesting to people in govt I lobby to look at the fundamentals of what is actually being produced/decline rates etc.