DrumBeat: February 12, 2007
Posted by Leanan on February 12, 2007 - 10:11am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Record High Oil & Gas Project Costs Expected for ‘07: IHS/CERA Launch CPI-Like Index to Track Equipment, Materials & Personnel Costs
The costs of major oil and gas production projects have risen more than 53% in the past two years, and no significant slowing is in sight, according to a new benchmark index developed by IHS and Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA).The IHS/CERA Upstream Capital Costs Index (UCCI), which tracks nine key cost areas for offshore and land-based projects, climbed 13% to 167 during the six months ending October 31, 2006, compared with an increase of more than 17% in the previous six months. Since 2000, the UCCI has risen 67% -- with most of the increase in the last two years -- while the Producer Price Index-Commodities for finished goods (excluding food and energy) moved up just 7.5% during the same period.
“This continuing cost surge is central to every energy company’s strategic planning and to every energy user’s expectations for supply security in the coming years,” said CERA Chairman Daniel Yergin. “Rising capital costs rank right alongside more widely recognized issues such as world market trends, geopolitics, globalization and new technologies at the top of the agenda for the energy industry,” he said. “And this will be a central issue at CERAWeek in Houston,” referring to the CERA conference that opens in Houston on Tuesday.
Is Iran’s “Oil Weapon” A Doubled-Edged Sword?
Iran has to import about a third of its petroleum. It has been dependent on imported distillates since the destruction of much of its refining capacity during the Iran-Iraq war, and it holds only about 45 days of petroleum stocks. A cutoff of oil revenues would force the government to control and distribute food to the population, to reduce the budget of an army already desperately short of spare parts, and to cut back drastically its support for allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and various terrorist organizations around the world.
Raymond J. Learsy: Iran and Russia Learn to Dance the Natural Gas Contango
What's worse than one bully? A mafioso of them. And if Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has his way, the world's largest natural gas producers might try to form such a mafia to manipulate markets and keep gas prices high and ever higher, just as the OPEC cartel has so successfully and destructively done with oil.
Since the oil shocks of the 1970s, governments around the world have paid plenty of lip service to renewable energies such as wind and solar power. But only a few governments have been able to engineer policies that have begun to bring alternative energies into wider use.
EU Grasps at Central Asia for Energy
The European Union anticipates opening four new embassies in Central Asia by 2008 in order to further its influence in the energy-rich region. However, considering the competition Europe faces from the Russians, Chinese and Americans, it appears the EU will have to up the ante if it really wants to become a major Central Asian energy player—a key component of its strategy to reduce its reliance on Russian energy imports.
Global Wind Energy Markets Continue to Boom in 2006
Japanese nuclear power steams ahead
Japan's New National Energy Strategy calling for increased use of nuclear power to generate electricity and, more controversially, the need to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel for future use to power reactors has run into trouble because of repeated accidents and mishaps at various plants.So it was considered something of a victory for nuclear power generation when the Mihama-3 reactor in Fukui prefecture in western Japan resumed full-scale commercial operation on Wednesday, two and a half years after it was shut down in the wake of the nation's deadliest accident at a nuclear power plant.
Uganda: Giving Free Bulbs Starts Feb 20
The government will give three free energy saver bulbs to everyone of Umeme's domestic customers starting on February 20.
Massive Off-Shore Wind Turbines Safe for Birds
Significant cut in gasoline use is decades away
It will be decades before the world will see a significant cut in global automotive gasoline consumption, automakers and analysts said.While there have been major improvements in fuel economy and reduced emissions through the development of technologies such as hybrids and clean diesel, consumers are not adopting them quickly enough to make a serious dent.
Oil sheds 1 percent on Saudi comments
Oil tumbled more than 1 percent on Monday after Saudi Arabia's oil minister signaled satisfaction with market conditions and some Asian refiners reported a rise in anticipated Saudi supplies next month.
To leave Iraq is to leave the Persian Gulf oil fields. Since Americans will have a tough time obtaining oil at anywhere near the rate they have been in an open market, the American economy will suffer a trauma from this loss. And since those in power know that Americans will not tolerate an end of the era of happy motoring, they plan to attack Iran in the hope of retaining control of the Gulf.
U.S. Energy Experts Announce Way to Freeze Global Warming
As scientists sound daily alarms about the dire consequences of global warming, Americans are asking one question: What can we do about it? The American Solar Energy Society (ASES) has an answer: Deploy clean energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies now!
Russia warns BP it may lose Siberian gas licence
Russian joint venture TNK-BP, which is 50 per cent owned by BP, has been told it is in violation of its agreement to develop Kovykta, its vast east Siberian gasfield. The move is the latest sign of Russia's tightening grip on its energy resources.The natural resources ministry gave TNK-BP three months to fix the violations or risk losing its licence.
With biofuels, consider: Who suffers? Who benefits?
The apparent free lunch of crop-based fuel can't satisfy our energy appetite - and it will not be free, or environmentally sound. Dedicating all present U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand and 6 percent of diesel demand. On average, corn ethanol - the leading biofuels candidate in the United States - provides only a 13 percent reduction of greenhouse gases compared to gasoline. This advantage is lost if, as happens in South America, carbon-capturing forests are felled to make way for biofuel crops.
Australia: Coal ban would crush economy
Calling a halt to coal exports would push Australia's economy backwards, federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane has said.
Investors may be too complacent about climate change
The scientific consensus in favour of man-made global warming seems clear. There is also evidence that voters are increasingly inclined to believe in the phenomenon, even in America.This might lead one to believe that politicians will be forced to take action. But, as Tim Bond, of Barclays Capital, points out, the futures markets appear to be saying something different. The forward curves for hydrocarbon fuels (such as oil and coal) are upward-sloping: higher prices are expected in future.
Global warming debate heats up in Washington
Global politicians and business leaders aim to turn the unfertile territory of Washington into a hotbed of action against climate change this week.
Oil future raises burning questions
At the height of last year's debate on oil prices, which led to governments increasing billion-dollar subsidies on LPG conversions for cars, a senate inquiry was launched into Australia's oil supply and the prospects for alternatives.The inquiry was prompted by a question posed by the Greens: whether Australia should be concerned about "peak oil", the theory that conventional oil production will reach a peak and then begin an irreversible decline.
High petrol prices a sign of worse to come
Rising petrol prices over recent years are giving Australians a glimpse of the future, the Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) warned today. The warning came as a Senate Inquiry into future oil supplies highlighted growing doubts about the ability of global supplies to meet projected demand.
Such lifestyle trends are helping shape the market. It's a familiar story by now: people are supposedly busier than ever; they don't want to lose their weekends to mowing lawns and painting weatherboards. They like to eat out. Peak oil has sharpened their interest in living closer to town.
Green movement grows in area suburbs
But author James Howard Kunstler, a critic of suburban development, said the eco-friendly push has come much too late to communities built on subdivisions and strip malls."The horse is really out of the barn on this one," Mr. Kunstler said. "The problem is the development pattern much more than the buildings themselves. It's pitiful that they waited until now to recognize the destruction they've already caused."
Plano Mayor Pat Evans disagreed. The "Live Green" campaign will produce results, she said.
Panelists at Summit Meeting Debate Oil, Environmental Issues
“On the plus side, we as a scientific, engineering community are much more focused on energy today than a generation ago,” [Paukl] Roberts said. “However, all it takes is a drop in the price of oil for there to be a collective sigh of relief and for people to think we somehow solved our energy crisis.”
Saudi Aramco hikes March crude prices sharply
Saudi Aramco sharply raised all crude oil grade prices for March deliveries to the United States by up to 2.30 dollars a barrel and to Europe by up to 1.45 dollars a barrel and increased the price formula for most grades destined to Asia, the Middle East Economic Survey reported Monday.The Cyprus-based weekly publication said that while the increases to western customers reflect stronger prices for sour crudes in the US and Europe, the size of the rises was greater than customers anticipated and was seen as an attempt to curb demand through pricing at a time of OPEC production cutbacks.
Putin: Russia, Saudi Arabia energy partners, not rivals
Kurt Cobb: Coin in the fuse box
Policy makers and the public are not getting the feedback they need in order to make informed judgements about such issues as peak oil and global warming.
Australian parliament recognises Peak Oil as real
The report is a most useful step forward. There is a lot of very valuable information in the depths of the report, giving a more balanced approach than the Executive Summary.
Report outlines energy scenarios for the future
"There's a tendency to look at recent history, extrapolate and forecast the future using just the last few years as a basis," Yergin said."But in energy, every three to four years the outlook changes dramatically. Scenarios give you a way to evaluate the major commitments you want to make."
The Fastwalker Effect is the confluence between full disclosure of incontrovertible evidence conclusively establishing the presence of off-world civilizations on Earth and, the role that will be played by the sophisticated, free and non-polluting energy sources used to power their interstellar craft; ultimately eliminating humanity's need for fossil fuels, thus resolving the energy and environmental chaos facing our planet's future.
'...some Asian refiners reported a rise in anticipated Saudi supplies next month.' is in the first paragraph of the linked article from http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070212/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc_2;_ylt=Ak1m.xA0...
But if you read further, it says -
'Industry sources said state oil firm Saudi Aramco would supply them with about 7-8 percent less crude than stipulated under their annual contracts, a shallower cut than the 10-13 percent curbs it handed out for February.
Although the rise in supplies could still be offset by deeper cuts to U.S. or European refiners, who pay less for their crude than their Asian peers, the news unsettled traders.'
I am starting to get a certain through the looking glass feeling these days, both from some of the articles, and from some of the new TOD posters.
Notice, that in reality, 'Saudi Aramco would supply them with about 7-8 percent less crude than stipulated under their annual contracts' which in the first paragraph is rendered as 'a rise in anticipated Saudi supplies.' Even more interesting, even when presenting the cuts, it is described as 'rise in supplies' which could be offset by deeper cuts somewhere else.
No, it isn't a rise - it just a lesser reduction than had been anticipated, but it is still less, and to make the cuts for Asians even shallower, the West would have deeper cuts.
My measure of peak oil is what flows out of the pipeline, and my way of determining when it begins relies not only on various published statistics (and they seem to be getting a bit harder to tease apart - all liquids indeed) but also on such interesting misuses of language to obscure that reality. There is absolutely no rise in Saudi deliveries to Asia - the anticipated decline for March is 7-8%, after a 10-13% decline in February. That is, the oil being delivered by Aramco is less than previously contracted for, for whatever reason.
This reduced delivery is not being disputed, by the way, it is being presented as an increase, giving the impression to the very casual reader that oil is becoming more plentiful, while describing such trivial boring facts as 'traders said they had been notified of a force majeure that would cut seven crude oil cargoes from Nigeria's February lifting schedule and another 11 cargoes from its March program.'
The Red Queen is gaining, and hiding her race from an inattentive public is requiring some very sharp skills.
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
I bet America could run in place 3 times as fast, without breaking a sweat, after all the practice it has had over the last couple of decades.
Note the significant increases in Saudi oil prices, in the other Saudi article that Leanan posted. I suppose that one way to hide an involuntary decline in production, it you don't want to admit that you have less oil to sell, is to keep hiking the price until buyers start refusing to buy. BTW, we are fast approaching the one year anniversary of the Saudis announcement that they could not find buyers, "even for their light/sweet oil."
Edit: I just read an interesting article in the WSJ. They quote Ali Naimi as saying that in May, 2004 the Saudis "went almost all out" to produce 9.5 mbpd, because of rising demand. I thought that the Saudis had millions of barrels of excess capacity?
Ali Naimi confirmed that production was down to around 8.5 mbpd (twice the cuts that the Saudis agreed to under the OPEC quota).
Another interesting quote: "If you are asking me if are we going to take additional cuts or increase supply, I do not know." He went on to say that there may not be any reason to change production rates.
Interesting. Al-Naimi's comments were reported by the wire services, but not the one about going all-out. Hmmm...
Excerpt from the WSJ (two key quotes highlighted):
Saudi Oil Minister Says Market
Is Balanced, Requires No Changes
Naimi Confirms Reduction
Of 1 Million Barrels a Day
In Kingdom's Production
By KAREN ELLIOTT HOUSE
February 12, 2007; Page A3
When I hear the Saudis talking about increasing production, I am constantly reminded of comments by the Texas State Geologist, at an industry meeting in 2005 (in response to a pointed question from me): "While Texas may not be able to equal its peak production, we can, with the use of better technology, significantly increase our oil production." Of course, Texas production has fallen almost continuously for 35 years (we are still finding small fields, but we couldn't offset the declines of the old, larger fields).
That article was at the bottom, and was noticed too late - the post was getting a bit long anyways.
At some point, the reality that less is coming out of the pipeline will be unavoidable. 18 tankers less - how many destined for America? - is not exactly a blip, it is at least several million barrels (too many variables in the information easily searched for, but this snippet about the Nigeria Yoho project http://www.rigzone.com/data/projects/project_detail.asp?project_id=60 says 'The FPSO with 13 crude oil tanks and a total capacity of 2.1 million barrels of oil ... originally [the] dwt tanker “Amazon Falcon” converted to a FPSO' which suggests a large scale is implied).
However, no single reason for these production declines is proven in my mind, apart from the fact that they have been happening, they are happening now, and they seem to be reasonable to expect to continue into the immediate future also. As for that flood of oil, well, that wave is still on the cloudy horizon, which has a few less tankers sailing into the sunset these days.
What is interesting is that these declines are no reason to question anything, or get concerned, or actually start to change how we live, because the decline is less than anticipated, thus becoming a rise in supply.
The Cheshire Cat may be making an appearance soon.
More than likely, KSA simply knows that it can sell its oil closer to OPEC market price to Asian and western companies after seeing them do so at $75+ a barrel for most of the summer. It's a good thing you were not a businessman, else you would have run Saudi Aramco into the ground with this nonsense.
I feel compelled to comment on how remarkable it is when doomers talk about oil demand. They often site that demand destruction could not possibly occur because oil is an in-elastic commodity: its use is hardly curved by its price. Strangely enough, when the price of oil goes down, these same doomers remark on how people are rushing out to buy SUVs and wasting more oil because gas is cheap, then when the price rises, it's simply a vast conspiracy to cover up declining production because raising the oil prices by $12 below WTI to $10 below WTI is really going to cause a lot of demand destruction. :rolls eyes:
The hypocracy is astounding.
Hothgor, the word is properly spelt hypocrisy.
:laugh:
Thats a good dodge. Comment on the one misspelled word and ignore the rest of the valid points :P
Cite, not site. Your spelling errors and poor syntax fit with the near absence of logic.
Yes, let the doomer spin cycle begin! Its funny how when the 'voluntary reduction' ends, you guys still point out that they are shipping less oil out then they were before. KSA, supposedly on its 18th month or so of 8% annual decline, magically finds away to halt their supposedly unstoppable decline.
Honestly guys, their announcement completely contradicts everything you have been saying, and confirms everything that RR, FH and myself have been saying. Its sad that a bludgeoning to the head like this wont snap you all out of your doomer centric world view.
Oh well...
What end to voluntary reduction? Cutbacks in deliveries to one market are being marginally reduced, but cutbacks continue.
A doomer discussion would turn on the anticipated impact of a change in conditions, such as declining energy availability, or climate change, or a general decline in human intelligence, your contribution to TOD providing an indication of the latter. It does not turn on an critique of the reporting of comments of a Saudi official.
When you first appeared on TOD, I wondered aloud if you were a paid disinformer. I have concluded that on balance it is more likely that you are akin to an untalented graffiti 'artist', who takes pleasure in destroying things, in this case, informative discussion.
Something tells me that Mr. Rapier will shudder at his inclusion in your trio.
Hey Hothgor:
Would it be possible for you to express your views without insulting 90% of the readers of TOD in every post??
I don't read the threads every day like I used to. Too much of this sort of crap! So if your intent is to simply drive people away from this site, you're doing a fine job!
"Would it be possible for you to express your views without insulting 90% of the readers of TOD in every post??"
Seems to be "the" goal.
Um, those 18 missing Nigerian tanker loads have nothing to do with 'voluntary' cutbacks - and they have nothing to do with how sharp the business skills of Aramco are.
And the numbers from the article of real cuts to real customers in the real world concerning real contracts with real refineries involving real money are reality.
Please, don't try to impute any motives - sometimes I truly miss Oil CEO, with all his flaws, as he seemed to understand just how incredibly complex this discussion truly is - for example, I am still personally convinced that the world economy is about to suffer a large decline, akin to the 1920s boom/1930s bust, and it wouldn't surprise me if some very smart business people are doing their best to profit from it, including creating scarcity to drive prices higher before the bottom falls out. So what? As noted, my measure of peak oil is what comes out of the pipeline, and nothing else.
But a cut of 7-8% compared to a cut of 10-13% in deliveries is not a rise in deliveries, it is a reduction. Force majeure on a commodities contract is not a voluntary cutback.
Welcome to Feb. 12, 2007. But that flood of oil is just about to arrive, right? But it looks like the date got pushed back a month or two more, unless we find a few full tankers ready to go - maybe the Saudis misplaced a few that got lost on their way to those short changed Asian refineries?
Agreed.
Where is Oil CEO?
And can he come out to play?
Re: Mr. Naimi said that beginning in May 2004, the kingdom "went almost all out" to produce 9.5 million barrels a day to satisfy rising demand.
The significance of this remark is that Saudi Arabia went to virtually 100% of capacity at the same stage of depletion that Texas went to virtually 100% of capacity. The Texas RRC went to a 100% allowable in early 1972 (except for the East Texas Field and one field in West Texas--thus Texas "went almost all out" in 1972).
As I have pointed out several times, Saudi Arabia also started declining at the same stage of depletion that Texas started declining.
The reversal of exports was discussed last week, Jeffrey, with Charles Mackay's posting of a report that OPEC Exports had increased by 2-mbd in early February. I know this thread screws up your recent stance but your continual restating of your tired tirade will not make it come true...
"Exports from 11 OPEC members were 24.64 million barrels per day in the week ending Feb. 4, Lloyd's said. January exports averaged 22.6 million bpd, down from 22.8 million in December."
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2259#comment-158156 (see previous post by Charles Mackay also)
The topic was Saudi exports, not OPEC as a whole. That said, both Saudi and OPEC-10 exports have been dropping:
It's no surprise that exports are dropping after the announced November 1st OPEC cut. The only real question is why OPEC decided to cut exports during a period of sky-high prices (at least historically), and that I believe is what WT has been asking. It might be just to boost the price, as they've stated, but it would also be a great way to conceal a production problem. Of course they also could be bracing for something like this:
Time will tell.
Hothgar-
Please let the us know what is the set of facts and standard of proof required for you to acknowledge that the world has reached peak oil production.
Can someone who speaks Romulan translate "The Fastwalker Effect" for me?
LOL!
Extraterrestrials are going to save us! They've got infinite clean energy to power their spacecraft, and they're going to share it with us.
And we were worried...
We're saved!! Dmathews can go away now!!
That's right. ETs will give us lots of non-polluting energy sources,
for free.
Why? It's so our meat is pristine and clean, and 'free range'. Increases market value significantly. :)
Seriously, even if these ETs did have this non-polluting energy source, why would they give it to us? What's in it for them?
Besides cleaner meat.
Ummm, think I'll wait until you earthlings become a bit more mature. Be back in 10,000 years or so.
ET
If I were ET, I wouldn't give us a new energy source. The first thing humanity would do is make a weapon or steal one of their ships.
If your only understanding of our culture was television and radio transmissions, would you land here and try to make friends?
The military would attack you, the religious fanatics would claim you were demons and the corporations would steal your tech and do experiments on you.
The colored bands on the gas giants are probably alien warning signs that translate to “Danger, do not approach the third planet!”
Peak Oil mitigation relies on "savior" technologies or movements to displace our energy needs.
The Fastwalkers are putting their eggs into the “alien technology” basket. Of course it can’t be like V (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085106/) this time since we don’t have a lot of good water left to take…
I believe that as these articles push the fringe of ideas farther out the closer to reality based major problems we are. People are searching for solutions, and they are running out of ideas. I’m not sure how much farther the fringe can be pushed, especially since the last book of the Left Behind series comes out in April of this year.
Does anyone have an approximate figure for the amount of reduction in GHG required to stabilize CO2 at present levels? I see the Canadian government going through all sorts of hoopla to try to meet the Kyoto standards which, while a nice gesture, seem to only mitigate the problem as far as going to hell in a handbasket at the rate that got us into the current mess. What would it take, an 80% reduction? Is there an increased absorption rate with increased concentration or do X amount of plants and algae consume Y amount of GHG regardless?
My take is that Kyoto is a procurement contact for peashooters in an air raid. That's why I opposed it. It appears laughably irrelevant. Whether the Greenland ice sheet collapses in 2036 or 2042 won't signal a great international achievment in cooperation but a global bureaucratic boondoggle signifying nothing.
Without some sort of scientifically plausible target of equilibrium to shoot for, it seems rather pointless. What atmospheric comcentration would preserve, approximately, our curent climatic 'norm'?
George Monbiot, a writer for the Guardian, in his book Heat, says that we need a worldwide reduction of 80%. Arguing that this should be the responsibility of the richer, developed countries, this would mean that the Europeans and the U.S. need to reduce their emissions by 90%. Yes, Virginia, meeting Kyoto, while perhaps a nice gesture to get the ball rolling, would just delay disaster by a few years but not change the basic scenarios resulting from global warming.
You may still have a beef with Bangla Desh, who use even much less, but first things first.
The Oil Depletion Protocol: foresees everybody decreasing their use on a percentage basis, but that only means that Americans will be allowed to use more than Chinese for years to come. Why would China accept that kind of conditions?
Cut first, talk later.
Developed countries will never accept drastic cuts of their emissions unless they are given a "way out" to do it and preserve economic growth simultaniously. Same goes for developing countries.
Economic growth is non-negotiatable for anyone, period.
Therefore, ironically I respect more the position of US - "we will not do it because we don't want to". The position of all the rest is more like "We want to cut emissions. But we want economic growth much more than that. We don't know how to do both. There are some options how to do both but we don't want them either."
One of the most evident options is an international effort to replace all coal powered stations with nuclear in the next few decades. This has the potential of shaving off 40% of world CO2 emissions for just 30-40 years and and to eliminate much of the projected growth of CO2 from places like China and India. With standartisation and economies of scale kicking in this will also raise the living standards of everyone who joins - bringing low-cost, clean electricity within reach to both developed and developing countries.
Alas, the world lacks the level of cooperation such initiative would require. And this is exactly where USA is to blame, not for non-participationg in the Kyoto circus. Instead of assuming the role of a world leader in facing what may turn to be the biggest challange of our century, USA is persuing nothing by its short-term interest - waging oil wars, intimidating countries, sabotaging international treaties, exporting $$$ inflation, etc.,etc. All of this of course is nothing new, but is escalating to unbelievable heights with the approach of PO.
So where is this all going to lead us? It's going to lead us straight in hell IMNSHO.
Another former optimist goes over to the dark side ;-)
Kidding aside, Levin, I would have to agree with you that the US needed to take the lead in helping the world transition to a future that is less dependent upon fossil fuels. As the world's leader in per capita consumption of resources, no other country could have fulfilled this role.
Unfortunately, there is a deep distrust amongst many Americans of international organizations and agreements -- witness the vitriol that is constantly aimed at the United Nations. It is an unspoken truth of American politics that a certain portion of the populace is -- shall we say -- "armed and dangerous." And these folks do not like "international agreements." Period. Hence, any thought that the US would enter into some cooperative agreement with the rest of the world -- especially if that agreement asked that the average US citizen give something up -- is out of the question.
In my opinion, the only people that could possibly break through to red-meat America on these problems and change our thinking are our "leaders" -- the politicians and the captains of industry. And how likely is that to happen? Apart from being too self-interested, the truth is that they fear the "armed and dangerous" factions as much as the rest of the world does.
Well this is quite broad-grained discussion, but I don't really think this is uniquely US phenomenon. European and other countries with longer history have gone through centuries of distrusting their neighbours and in many cases doing all they can to destroy them, before arriving to the conclusion that this is not exactly in their long-term self interest.
Same will inevitably happen with the US as a state, but heaven knows what we have to experience in the meantime. I think that the people here are like people everywhere - there are good and bad, but the enormous majority of them would rather land you a hand than stub you in the back. It is probably my opinion only, but fierce competition is not genuinely rooted in human nature, it is our system that is encouraging it at the expense of cooperation. While in a more balanced world both need to have their place for different sets of problems.
In US, what needs to happen is the real power to be taken from the corporate elite and returned back to people. If this happens people would naturally demand more balanced and less antagonistic policy. Not that they wouldn't want it now, they are simply presented a much different picture by the corporation-controlled media. It is well-thought of propaganda machine and it works fine.
Luckily or unluckily, this country is headed full steam to a total bancrupcy, which can very well facilitate such a change... or not.
As far as Americans being armed and dangerous explosions of personal ammunition dumps during home fires are a real hazard in America.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-103887
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040505/ai_n1457466...
http://ci.marshfield.wi.us/fd/fdhistry.htm
Many more links can be found via google.