DrumBeat: March 27, 2007
Posted by Leanan on March 27, 2007 - 9:05am
Topic: Miscellaneous
The nation has proven reserves of 15.51 billion barrels of oil equivalent, enough to meet demand into 2016, state-run petroleum giant Pemex said Monday.The proven reserves are 955 million barrels less than reported in 2005.
Iraq assigns $60m to set up oil refineries
The Iraqi Oil Ministry signed contracts with state-owned and private Iraqi firms to build two oil refineries at the cost of $60 million in northern Iraq, Iraq Directory reported.The project will be established to ease the load on other refineries and meet increasing demands on fuel among Iraqis in all provinces as the country is currently facing a major shortage in fuel, especially in transportation and heating.
Will Al Gore get us to Solartopia?
What's not being said is that the solution to the problem---the necessary transition to Solartopia, a world based on renewable energy---is also the key to the future of our economic well-being, and would be whether global warming was a problem or not.In short: even without the dire disaster of climate change, a transitioning to green power is the only hope our global economy has for future prosperity.
Africa: Is Africa Ready for Nuclear Energy?
SOUTHERN AFRICA is facing energy shortages as climatic changes intermittently turn off the switch on hydroelectric power generation and oil prices remain exorbitantly high.As regional energy powerhouse South Africa ponders uranium enrichment, there is need to explore whether other uranium-producing African countries that are still in the dark on alternative sources of energy, can take a bite of the "yellow cake" (energy rich uranium oxide) and generate nuclear energy.
Sunrise In Coal Fields: Coal’s Role In A Peak Oil World - an interactive slide show by Matt Simmons.
Exxon Sees Technology, Local Needs as MidEast Key
Exxon Mobil Corp. is betting that soaring domestic energy demand among the booming economies of the Middle East will spur regional leaders toward offering improved access to their energy resources, with technology the key that may unlock the door.International oil companies searching for hydrocarbons are struggling to secure exploration rights in much of the Middle East, home to some 60% of global oil and gas reserves, as oil-rich nations emboldened by high crude prices tighten up on contract terms and access rights.
The tight relationship between the crude oil price and the USDollar valuation is historically well known, firmly in place for over three decades. While the United States owns control of the world reserve currency, a delicate PetroDollar linkage factor remains in force. Since large oil purchases are conducted in US$-based transactions, entire banking systems are designed accordingly so as to handle those transactions. Some Persian Gulf nations like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have diversified more of their reserve assets away from the USDollar and its related (in)securities. Instability in the region is very likely to deliver some additional instability to the USDollar itself. What the current hellbent political leaders seem to ignore is the potential for continued and amplified economic and financial retribution and vengeance on the most vulnerable facade to the United States monolith, its faulty financial flank.
Cuba Shows Off Oil Works to Foreigners
Cuban oil officials took foreign geologists and petroleum experts on a tour of the island's oil and natural gas works on Saturday in hopes of sparking more international interest in investment.Attendees at an earth sciences conference were taken by state oil company Cuba Petroleos to several extraction facilities in a deposit-rich strip along the northern part of the island, including the US$200 million (euro150 million) Cuban-Canadian ENERGAS natural gas plant in an area called Boca de Jaruco.
"The geology we find here is very similar to that of eastern Mexico, of the southern United States," said Rafael Tenreyro, a drilling specialist with the state oil company, known as Cupet.
Australia's Woodside, BHP, Santos Halt Output; Cyclone Nears
Woodside Petroleum Ltd., BHP Billiton Ltd. and Santos Ltd. said Monday they have halted production as Cyclone Kara builds off the coast of Western Australia.
South Korea wants in on Saudi refineries
South Korea is pressing Saudi Arabia for a role in $12 billion worth of refinery projects in the kingdom.Trade Arabia business news reports Saudi Arabia has already signed deals with France's Total and U.S.-based ConocoPhillips.
EU Energy Chief Warns Russia, Others Against Gas Cartel
E.U. Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs on Monday warned natural gas producers such as Russia and Algeria that if they considered forming a cartel, he would strongly push the development of nuclear power to meet the E.U.'s energy needs.
Aramco, Sinopec, Exxon to join Chinese venture
Saudi state oil giant Aramco, US major ExxonMobil and China’s Sinopec will hold on Friday a formal signing ceremony for a multi-billion dollar joint-venture in China’s Fujian province.The three announced they had finalised the deal to triple the capacity of the Fujian oil refinery in February, pending government approval in both Saudi Arabia and China. When it was agreed in 2005, the project had a price tag of $3.5bn.
Another Hearing to Examine Interior's Royalty Program
The House Natural Resources Committee turns this week to problems with the Interior Department's management of royalties from energy production on federal and Indian lands.The committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday entitled "Royalties at Risk." The department's oversight of billions of dollars in oil and gas royalties has been called into question by press reports, lawsuits and the department's inspector general.
Give Me Incentives, Or Give Me Death
It was there, while attending a breakout session about energy rebates and incentives, that Mark Jewell, founder and president of RealWinWin, an energy efficiency consulting group, offered this query: Should the tail of incentives wag the dog of energy efficiency?You would think not. But this is truly the scenario in which we currently find ourselves.
Two Foreign Hostages Released in Nigeria
An Indian and a Lebanese man kidnapped in Nigeria's oil rich south last week have been released, a diplomatic source said on Sunday.
China car firms gear up for booming sales
Shanghai's urban planning museum has a useful exhibit - a series of photographs taken from the same spot, now, and 20 years ago.The transformation is startling.
Where once there were muddy lanes, now concrete highways soar.
In two short decades, roads that were crammed with bicycles have given way to highways choked with cars.
China's landscape is being remodelled by the car.
Petrobras May Confirm Campos Basin Oil Discovery, Globo Says
Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Brazil's state-controlled oil company, is close to confirming the discovery of a ``gigantic'' field of light-grade crude under the Campos Basin, the Globo daily newspaper reported, without saying where it got the information....The field, if economically recoverable reserves are confirmed, would be one of the largest of its type in the world, Globo said. Petrobras, as the company is known, on July 12 said it found a new exploration frontier under a salt layer that sits beneath existing Campos Basin heavy oil fields.
Between revenue from oil exports and foreign aid, over $100 billion has been pledged to Iraq’s “relief and reconstruction” in the last four years. Yet there is precious little to show for it. About half of this amount is Iraq’s own money. The United States has allocated a total of $38.28 billion in aid as of the end of 2006, but only $12 billion has been spent on civilian reconstruction with most it going to the Iraqi army and police. Other donors have pledged just over $15 billion, but most of this has not been delivered because of the chaos and violence in the country.
Amid security risks, China may lead way for Iraqi oil
China has sat out the Iraq war, but it could be the first to take advantage when the Iraqi government finishes a law opening up its oil fields to international companies.
China, Norway, U.N. sign climate change agreement
China, Norway and the U.N. Development Program signed an agreement on Monday to develop programs to combat the effects of climate change in China's rural areas, including the melting of glaciers in Tibet.
George Monbiot: If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels
Oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people. People - and the environment - will lose.
Edwards Unveils an Energy Plan with Substance
Forget flash, Edwards seems to be about substance. He just unveiled a bold energy plan that addresses some of the great challenges of our time.
Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming'
Environment ministers from Austria, Iceland, Ireland and Norway said Monday that nuclear power was not the solution to global warming.In a joint statement following a meeting in Dublin, the four ministers from the non-nuclear countries said the "inherent risks and problems associated with the nuclear energy option remain and it can not therefore claim to be a clean alternative to fossil fuel use."
Cairn Energy drills 41-million-pound loss
British oil firm Cairn Energy said on Tuesday that it dived into the red in 2006 with a net loss of 41 million pounds (82 million dollars) after downgrading energy reserves estimates at its Sangu field in Bangladesh.
New, unknown climate zones seen by 2100: study
Global warming could re-make the world's climate zones by 2100, with some polar and mountain climates disappearing altogether and formerly unknown ones emerging in the tropics, scientists said on Monday.
Norway's Lutheran Church calls for climate change efforts
Eleven bishops from Norway's Lutheran Church on Monday called on the country's authorities to step up efforts to fight climate change, which they say is particularly harmful to the southern hemisphere.
Stockpickr: Trade Like Goldman Sachs
True, it's going to be hard for Exxon, with a $423 billion market cap, to double in size anytime soon. But it's hard to find a safer bet. Exxon trades at just five times cash flows, has more than $20 billion net cash in the bank and, if any of the peak oil theorists such as T. Boone Pickens are right about the price of oil, it will continue to have steady profits.
Public transportation lacks adequate funding
In the fight against global warming, using public transportation is by far the number one way to reduce carbon emissions. In Vermont, 46 percent of those emissions come from the transportation sector and most is caused by driving to and from work. What is not well-known is that if only four commuters ride the bus, instead of drive cars, then emissions are reduced.
Future biofuel farmers of America
Substituting food or feed crops with energy crops has dubious benefit. Fortunately, there's huge potential in two other feedstocks that don't replace crops. New processes allow virtually any cellulosic plant material, including waste and slash, to be made into ethanol. And then there's, of all things, pond scum. We think of algae as a plague in our lakes, but it's now seen as one of the most promising biomass materials for biodiesel production.
The Wall Street Journal reported that, in response to Inhofe's outburst last week, blogger Lou Grinzo has created "The Inhofe Scale" to measure statements "that exhibit a noticeable and willing detachment from reality."The scale uses Inhofe as the prime measure at 100, with 30 to 50 applying to those who refuse to see the gradual effect of such phenomena as peak oil, and 100 to 200 applying to what Grinzo calls "Apocalypticons," the extremist range of doomsayers, many of them misanthropes, who see the abrupt end of the world as we know it.
Comments, corrections, clarifications, and c*ckups
As a voter it's hard not to be cynical about the weekend’s election. It was largely irrelevant to our futures. "Rearranging the deckchairs" is a phrase that springs to mind. For without doubt the defining issue of our times is energy; and that was hardly mentioned. The mainstream media in Australia, even Crikey, haven't cottoned on to Peak Oil which likely is happening right now. Two-thirds of the world's oil producers are in decline including Mexico, the North Sea and Australia. Saudi production dropped by nearly one million barrels per day last year, but that didn't make the news.
The IEA just released its March 13 Oil Market Report(pdf) free to the public.
They show Saudi Arabia at 8.32 m/bpd(crude oil) for February and have left both December and January at 8.42 m/bpd(table 3, pg 45).
The decline continues...
Saudi Arabia is merely doing its part to help slow climate change, and they should be commended for it.
Any other intepretation of their current level of oil production is merely a malicious aspersion, lacking any factual knowledge of Saudi intentions.
Just doing my bit to help accentuate the positive.
expat writes: "Saudi Arabia is merely doing its part to help slow climate change"
In the last Monbiot article on biofuels: "Biodiesel from palm oil causes TEN TIMES as much climate change as ordinary diesel."
Nice try, but they must stop immediately and provide us with not-so-bad oil until we find a sustainable solution, if there is one.
I think maybe something got by you in expat's comment.
Sarcasm has a difficult time working through text.
In IEA's latest report the world production (Table 3) for Feb 2007 is 85.5 Mb/d. Table 2 forecasts world demand at 87.7 Mb/d for the fourth quarter of 2007 (Oct-Dec). This is a difference of 2.2 Mb/d.
Given that non OPEC is unlikely to increase their production significantly, OPEC will have to increase production by 2.2 Mb/d. Guess which country? Saudi Arabia will be expected to increase their production by 2.2 Mb/d. I seriously doubt that Saudi Arabia can do this.
I think that Claude Mandil of the IEA has concerns as well.
From this link below,
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article130054.ece
Claude Mandil told Reuters "The current price is much too high and Opec should raise production, but consuming countries also have to cut consumption." Consuming countries have to cut consumption!
Will consuming countries listen to Claude? Probably not. Is that why the IEA has placed this ad on the second page of their latest Oil Market Report:
IEA has an Emergency Planning and Preparations Division which is ultimately co-ordinating an emergency response among IEA member countries in the event of a serious supply disruption. Supply disruption could mean Saudi Arabia's supply is about to fall, more Gulf of Mexico hurricanes, increased middle east military conflict, Cantarell decline faster or Russia declines faster.
It's a good thing that the IEA has this division because it can develop an emergency response to stabilise the oil markets. I wonder what the IEA would recommend if supply suddenly fell by say 4 Mb/d? Claude already gave the answer - "consuming countries also have to cut consumption". This might require a crude oil rationing scheme.
Hello Westexas,
Sounds like the perfect job description for you to internationalize ELP and your Export Land Model! Heinberg and/or Colin Campbell could do the Energy Depletion Protocols too.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Definition of OPEC Sustainable Production Capacity from IEA & EIA
On page 15 of IEA March 2007 Oil Market Report is this table which shows OPEC’s spare capacity.
Footnote 3 from the table above states that
”Capacity levels can be reached within 30 days and sustained for 90 days.”
On page 28, Table 3a, of the EIA Short Term Energy Outlook March 2007,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/mar07.pdf
There is a similar note for OPEC Surplus Capacity:
” “Capacity” refers to maximum sustainable production capacity, defined as the maximum amount of production that:
1) could be brought online within a period of 30 days; and
2) sustained for at least 90 days.”
This simplistic condition on OPEC maximum production capacity levels is disturbing and raises several questions.
How is the “30 days” calculated?
How is the “90 days” calculated?
What happens to production levels after the end of the “90 days”? Is the spare capacity gone?
Do the “30 days” and “90 days” apply to all OPEC countries? If yes, why is it the same for each OPEC country? Is it also the same for onshore and offshore production?
What is the origin of the “30 days” and “90 days”? I could not find a supporting definition on www.opec.org. Did the EIA and IEA just make up the “30 days” and “90 days”?
If the “90 days” is the maximum period for the maximum sustainable production capacity, then it’s not a long time period!
Can someone please help to clarify the true meaning of OPEC Sustainable Production Capacity?
(It is also interesting to compare Feb 2007 OPEC-12 spare capacities: IEA states 4.02 Mb/d; EIA, 2.54 - 3.04 Mb/d. That's a big difference!)
The IEA regularly revises supply figures downwards after a couple of months. Then they say in the blurb at the front of the OMR that production "increased" by x kbd, but when you do the math the increase is negative. Must be all that wine they drink at lunch time in Paris.
The latest month really is just an estimate, estimated on the high side in the hope that when it is corrected downwards a couple of months later that no one will notice.
They also include heavy oil from Orinoco and Alberta as well as biofuels in that 85.5mbpd. I strip out Orinoco (600kbd), Alberta (1mbpd) and the biofuels (340kbpd). That's nearly 2mbpd! 1940kbpd to be exact.
So total production for Feb 07 is not 85.5mbpd, it's 83.6mbpd which is for all intents and purposes the same as it has been since Q3 2004. Hidden within that of course are the situations in Saudi that Stuart and Euan have described so well, Mexico etc etc.
I have a question for anybody who still in the thread. I have heard over the months that sometimes oil producing countries buy crude from other countries to fulfill contracts if they cannot do so themselves. For instance I have heard that Venezuela has done this and Saudi did it in respect of some bunker fuels. Does this stuff get counted twice?
Could there be a whole trade going on below the surface whereby oil is counted twice in the production numbers? If Saudi was intent on maintaining their swing status they could do so by being buyers and sellers.
Hi Saildog,
Thanks for your IEA explanation.
I'm looking for succint critiques of both IEA and EIA, if anyone can point me in the right direction? (Or, perhaps you might write more and post?)
re: your question. If no one answers, I'd suggest posing on a new thread. It's always good to get clarification.
Here is an excellent article concerning the logistical problems of biomass ethanol in today's news:
The future is not now for biomass ethanol industry
Interesting article about Iraq's new Oil law from Juan Cole, University of Michigan Prof at:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/03/green-zone-takes-rocket-fire-new-offer.h...
The original article that Juan Cole quotes come from:
http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp?Article=4566&CategoryID=6
Rick
Bloomberg/Brazilian Oil Hype Alert
SourceIf true, this would be the 508th giant oil field ever discovered. That's assuming a definition of "giant" as 500 million barrels or more.
Let's put this in perspective, if it is true.
This field would represent 1/508th of 65% of the world's petroleum reserves or about 0.12% of the world's total reserves.
This field, if produced near capacity, would probably yield 1/60th of daily global oil production, or about 0.118% of the total daily oil production of the globe.
It would take almost 100 of these fields to offset the loss of KSA or Russia.
So... even if this field is real, let's keep it in perspective. Giant field finds are extremely rare nowadays. There is no chance whatsoever that we would find 100 such fields every year for year after year after year into the ever running future.
In comparison, the average field nowadays is about 34 million barrels total. It would take over 150 average fields to make up one of these giants. It would take over 15000 average fields to replace a KSA or a Russia.
Is this good news? Yeah, if it is even true. But does it change the fact that we need to mitigate right now? Not one bit.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
I always like to put it in terms of global daily consumption...I think it has more impact.
I get 6.8 days of global consumption(using 84mmbpd).
So to break even in 2007, we need to find 53.7 more of these fields.
~54 more field of this size to break even in 2007.
OR One field of this size (570mmboe) EVERY 6.7 days. or if you like EVERY WEEK.
Even the media can understand this...can't they? Not so much. Oh well.
Potential production 10,000 barrels a day doesn't sound like much, if the reserves are what they claim to be. Last week's Ph. D. thesis talked about fields of this size having production capability of at least 100,000 BPD.
That's one well.
I read a comment somewhere that the Campos subsalt might be something that is greater than 10 GB in total reserves.
The Santos subsalt was the site of a new light oil discovery this past autumn that was estimated to be between 1.5 and 10 GB URR.
China doubled its oil consumption in 10 years. They were currently using an estimated 7-7.5 GB's per year. It will be difficult for them to find enough oil to double again.
Will look for some switching to NG in NG rich areas. The infrastructure for major conversion is not currently in place.
Correction: That is 7-7.5 mbod usage.
Can anyone tell me if active oil pipelines are visible on satellite thermal IR images?
Above ground pipelines are easily visible without IR imaging. I doubt seriously however that buried pipelines are visible with IR imaging. They are buried under several feet of earth. The difference in the temperature of the earth above the pipeline would be miniscule if it there were any difference at all. Oil is stored in tanks before loaded onto tankers, then they are aboard the tankers, sometimes weeks. And even oil produced locally is usually stored in tanks for some time before piped to its final destination. What I am saying is that the oil is near ambient temperature before it even enters the pipeline.
Ron Patterson
Thanks, Ron. I was interested in the case of oil being piped more or less directly from wells, and I had read that oil coming out of the ground was fairly hot, which might have made it possible to distinguish an active from an inactive pipeline from the imagery. As they say in the earl bidness, "Oh well."
GG, many of the oil well pipelines in Saudi Arabia are above ground. I suppose one could detect whether or not they were in or out of use with IR technology. The offshore pipelines are just laying on the seafloor. They are easily visible from a helicopter in the shallow seas near the shore.
I once lived aboard a huge barge in Abu Ali, near Safaniya, and would fly out to the near shore platforms almost every day. I was amazed at how plainly you could see the pipelines reaching out to the platforms. I doubt however that you could use IF through the sea to see if they were active or inactive.
But you are correct about the temperature of the oil coming out of the wells. I used to put my hand on them and feel the heat. They were “coffee pot” hot. And you could easily hear the oil rushing through the pipeline.
Since I left in 1985 bachelor quarters in Jubail have been built and Aramcons no longer must live on a barge. But their families still must live in Ras Tanura. They fly back, or drive back as I did, to Ras Tanura on weekends. But I enjoyed living on the barge. I loved to watch the fish in the crystal clear waters. There were huge colorful cuttlefish everywhere. And it was a blast to see cormorants chase the little fish underwater.
Ron Patterson
Many, many moons ago I worked on a SCADA project for a tank farm & related cross country pipelines in the ME.
I'm sure that we had to minimise downtime because the crude was HOT in the pipeline so that it could flow.
An extended period of downtime would let it cool & semi-solidify ... thus blocking the pipeline for ever.
This would have required replacing hundreds of miles of pipeline in the desert.
The associated tanks in the tank farm also had the same problem.
I'm 100% sure I'm not imagining this because it was such a critical aspect of the project, thus requiring VERY reliable computer systems & software.
These hot pipelines could have been quite visible in the IR, especially at night.
Thanks. The hunt is on.
Eagerly awaiting your findings. Aboveground pipelines should be easy to spot in the IR, as everyone has already said.
Underwater, or below ground, not so visible. Water is totally opaque to infrared. The ground, if it's been warmed by long term exposure, may actually be enough warmer than surrounding ground to have an IR signature.
The pipeline I'm looking for should be aboveground.
MetaMeme, I only worked in the oil business for five years, in Saudi Arabia, but in that time I never heard of crude oil solidifying. I am simply at a loss to explain how that could happen to light oil, or even moderately heavy oil, in the heat of the desert.
Tank farms in Saudi Arabia often stored oil form many months with no problems.
I can imagine that if the oil was heavy enough, near paraffin or grease to start with, and if the weather was cold, it might happen. The oil in Alaska travels over 800 miles via above ground pipeline. The pipeline, on rare occasions, has been shut down. But in the entire history of the pipeline they have never had to replace it because the oil in the pipeline solidified.
Ron Patterson
I can't speak to the temperature of oil in the pipelines.
I can say that when a pipeline is full of oil, it has a greater thermal mass than when empty, and therefore will behave differently during thermal crossover (the period when air temperatures cross over land temperatures and cause problems in IR observation). Basically, a pipeline with higher thermal mass due to being full will lose heat more slowly after crossover. However, to use this to determine if a pipeline is full or not will require quite advanced imagery analysis--you'll have to compare images from the same time after crossover on different dates with comparable weather conditions, and if the pipeline is normally full, you may have to go well into the past to find a point of reference with the pipeline empty in order to confirm that the pipeline is presently full. Probably only within the capabilities of a few militaries or a person with a lot of money and time on their hands working closely with one of the commercial imagery outfits...
"Layperson question of the day"
What is the performance advantage (if any) of using premium gas over the regular grade?
Current gas prices (MN)
Regular $2.40 87 octane
Midgrade $2.48 89 octane
Premium $2.56 92 octane
This currently seems like a close spread between regular and premium, what about emission levels for the different grades, what is added to boost octane?
Lay person's answer to gas octane question:
Modern engines than self-tune (ignition timing) to make use of the higher octane gasoline's resistance to knocking for better efficiency.
The increase in efficiency can sometimes offset the price increase. It depends on the engine and price difference. More aggressive or highway driving will probably make better use of the higher efficiency of Premium gas.
Higher concentrations of aromatic carbons (containing benzene rings) and branched (-iso) carbons as opposed to straight paraffines will give a higher octance number. Additives like MTBE can also be used.
Now the experts can step in make their corrections to the above ;-)
[In Sweden Regular is 95 and Premium 99. US grades are sooo below regular :-) ]
I have been taken to task by an engineer for thinking that higher octane meant better mileage. I haven't researched this, but I believe regular (87 octane) gasoline actually contains more energy than higher octane and that the higher octanes are primarily good for higher compression engines. So I would presume a higher compression (10.5/1) engine would benefit from higher octane because the knock sensor would not have to adjust the timing off of optimal.
My Honda Insight (10.5/1 compression) with some experimentation seems to get best mileage with mid grade (89-90 octane). Probably doesn't offset the price differential, but you gotta know that Honda Insight owners are fanatical on getting absolutely the best mileage possible:)
I think it's true that lower octane has slightly more heat, but that fact is mostly irrelevant.
What matters really is the design of the engine, specifically the compression ratio. In a spark-ignition (gasoline) engine the timing of the detonation relative to the mechanical properties of the cycle which compress the fuel/air mixture, are critical in determining the efficiency of turning heat into useful mechanical work. You want more energy in the crankshaft and less in the radiatior.
This is where any mileage/efficiency gains come.
Higher compression means potentially more efficient power production, but higher compression, with gasoline gives a higher chance for unintended predetonation (knock), which of course greatly reduces efficiency and causes damage.
(Consider that Diesel engines have very high compression ratios, which, along with the higher energy content of Diesel fuel, results in substantially better efficiency per volume of fuel).
Turbochargers in their own ways also require higher octane gasoline to preclude predetonation even though their engine's compression ratios are a bit lower.
Hence, only if your engine is designed for higher compression and asks for higher octane fuel --- this is an immutable property of the cylinder/piston geometry --- will higher octane gasoline give better performance.
As mentioned in modern autos using lower octane will result in comptuer changes resulting in lower efficiency to preserve engine health. If computers didn't do this, then lower octane fuel would damage a designed-for-high octane engine.
Somewhat ironically the high-compression engines are generally put into more expensive high-performance vehicles, with the extra power production designed for performance rather than efficiency. This is probably due to human issues. Buyers who want efficiency generally will not use the more expensive gasoline anyway. Since 'high octane == high performance' in average people's minds (thanks in large part to oil company propaganda) it is a hard sell to market an economical car which requires premium fuel.
Efficiency buyers who want to take advantage of compression need to get a Diesel-powered car.
Using higher octane fuel in a standard-octane engine (assuming it is working perfectly) does nothing but waste money.
The upshot is to seek an authoritative source for info on your specific car. Honda mechanics who have the official service manual say my car should use at least 89 or better octane, thus bearing out my own observations. I also tend to trust Honda's engineering expertise more than any US auto companies I've had experience with.
Its possible that in Sweden you are still using RON (Research Octane Number). In the US we use a combination of RON and MON (Motor Octane Number). The MON numbers are lower. We used to use the RON numbers before the switch to unleaded gas in the early '70s. At that time the oil companies came up with the idea to confuse the public by lowering the number at the pump to trick people into buying the more expensive blend.
US octane is measured, oddly enough, as (RON + MON)/2, since there are issues with both straight RON or MON measurements. In Sweden, the octane is measured in RON only. The numbers are not directly comparable.
Pertinent corrections on RON, MON and PON. You’re right; it’s RON i Sweden. That’s what you get when you stick out your Swedish pale neck ;-)
I found this:
www.btinternet.com/~madmole/Reference/RONMONPON.html
RON 95 => PON 91±2
RON 98 => PON 94±2
“It’s not that I’m stupid; I just have bad luck when I am thinking”
In California (LA), regular: $3:15; premium: $3:35. On average. It's higher in many areas.
Not much. Here is an article in the Washington Post from summer 2005:
Prices Fuel a Rebellion: Drivers Tired of Paying More for Premium Gasoline Switch to Regular
Thanks all,
Gas went up 23 cents since I posted this morning!
Don't know that much about performance advantages, but according to this 1995 Dept of Energy report premium gas generates more carbon emissions than regular (and low lead generates more than leaded).
So you may get slightly better performance but apparently at the expense of pumping more carbon into the air.
U.S. launches show of force in Persian Gulf
I was wondering when you'd get that one posted. Of course, it is stated that this is not an act of aggression or anything.
of course its not an act of aggression! americans are the good guys! we dont mean no harm! (intentional double negative)
but if some other country tried pullin that crap a few miles off our coastline they'd get blown outta air and sea!
Don't forget that Iran has a bucketload of Brits held hostage. I'll bet they get pretty nervous watching these "Games". They remember those helos in 1980. I'll bet Bush is hoping they get all twitchy and overreact.....then we can say " hey, they started it".
Its almost as if Bush and KSA need a war reight now to cover up the catastrophe occuring in Ghawar right now. If they can just keep us looking the other way for another year they might be able to bring more production online....
Yep, its provocative, and I believe, based on the mood at home (US and UK), they NEED to provoke them.
And they will probably succeed.
"It is worth mentioning that the Bush administration has decided to undermine the current Iranian government, and that the reports of mass desertions/defections (sorry, same word in Hebrew) of senior officers could be part of the psychological war waged against the ayatollah regime.
In addition, a German news agency reported, quoting Novosty (Russian news agency), that the US is poised to attack targets located in Iran in two weeks' time. This information is based on Russian military experts' analysis, who claim that Washington has already decided to launch the attack on Friday, April 6th, and that within ten hours different types of missiles (including cruising ones) will pound 20 nuclear facilities in Iran.
Also to be attacked are the central command of the Iranian army, Revolutionary Guards, and Iranian Navy bases, in order to prevent Iran from blocking the Straights of Hurmuz."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806209/posts
http://de.rian.ru/world/20070319/62253448.html
.. I wonder if those sailors are really British, or are possibly fall guys in this classic move,
"As darkness settled over Europe on the evening of August 31, 1939, and a million and a half German troops began moving forward toward their final positions on the Polish border for the jump-off at dawn, all that remained for Hitler to do was to perpretrate some propaganda trickery to prepare the German people for the shock of aggressive war.
"The people were in need of the treatment which Hitler, abetted by Goebbels and Himmler, had become so expert in applying. I had been about in the streets of Berlin, talking with the ordinary people, and that morning noted in my diary: "Everybody against the war. People talking openly. How can a country go into a major war with a population so dead against it?" Despite all my experience in the Third Reich I asked such a naive question! Hitler knew the answer very well. Had he not the week before on his Bavarian mountaintop promised the generals that he would "give a propagandist reason for starting the war" and admonished them not to "mind whether it was plausible or not"? "The victor," he had told them, "will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting a waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory.
-W'm Shirer, Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich (p593)
..and on 9/1/39, with German SS dressed up as Polish Soldiers, and concentration camp prisoners as the 'Casualties', Hitler feigned the "Attack on a German Radio Station at Gleiwitz", amongst others, which precipitated the action he had 'Taken every diplomatic tack to avoid'.. (Operation 'Canned Goods')
rrf
That'll be one Good Friday then, for Christ's sake!
And then...on Easter...we will drop Easter eggs over all of Iran to the delight of Iranians everywhere...and they will welcome us with open arms.
Ah, those nice little yellow Easter eggs that have so delighted the children in other war-torn nations? At least for the few seconds until they make that curious little "click" and then...
I just heard Chicken Little is going to drop the eggs!
Tit for Tat...Iran has had two such "maneuvers" in the last year. Including launching supersonic missles at targets in the 'tiny' gulf area. Now that is provocative.
Two big boys in the pond and they both want to fight.
But they both want the other one to start it.
Iran is not a big boy, and it doesn't want to fight.
Iran knows what's coming, though, it doesn't get its information from CNN and the New York Times.
The perception of Iran as some kind of wild crazy half-savage nation is US/EU media made. It is highly cultured and very well read. It knows therefore, that it's been a target for at least the past century, and understands the reasons why it will be so again. It's just a matter of time.
And Iran won't have a chance, it has no defenses to speak of, compared with the high-tech trillions soon to be thrown at it. Iran knows what's going on in Iraq, how that country has re-entered the Stone Age.
But it has pride too, it ain't volunteering to lick any boots or asses.
Still, judging from reactions here and in wider media circles, the demonizing of Persia works according to plan.
I know how to read between the lines in the MSM and take it all with a large grain of salt.
"big boy" wasn't literal, but they are acting like it. 'My guns are as big as yours...crap' (ie. maneuvers)
I am not trying to demonize Iran...as I said...the US and UK are trying to provoke a fight.
But given the levels of testosterone and bravado in the region, it looks like Iran just might take the bait.
And, if they don't, good for the them.
But in the long run, I don't hold much hope for their current administration either from internal strife(externally manipulated) or blatant external force. But then again, I think the same about the current US administration. :)
Hello TODers,
This whole minithread is very worrisome--it suggests the trend is towards leading us into the '3 Days of the Condor' scenario:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUz_JHeM59M
Please read the fresh link:
http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=8583...
---------------------------------
"There‘s a lot of room for making mischief, if that‘s what you want to do," Schofield said.
------------------------------------
I do not know the details of this whole mess, and I am not a military expert, but I think it is safe to assume that the Brits probably had full radio contact with area commanders long before they were about to be captured by the Iranians. A single very low flyby or Harrier jethover should have been enough to dissuade the Iranians from getting any closer, IMO.
The Brits/US could have easily sent helos/jets/more gunboats to prevent this capture, or worse case: just continue the stalemate/standoff in the waterway until it was peacefully resolved. If I was one of these fifteen soldiers, I would not be happy about being given over so easily to the other side.
If this was a planned pretext to start a war, or to further jack up the brinkmanship level, either by the Iranians or Coalition Forces, these guys could be POWs for a very long time.
An smart area commander normally does not let exposed ground forces, or little gunboats in a disputed territory [Shatt al-Arab Waterway] outrun the protective air-defense umbrella. A covey of hovering helo gunships with a backup AC-130 Spectre 'death from above' attack aircraft would have quickly convinced the Iranians to turn these guys loose before the Iranians could ever get them back to undisputed Iranian territory. No harm, no foul--everyone goes home unhurt.
IMO, something doesn't pass the smell test, or some area commander should be brought up on charges of dereliction of duty for lack of common sense. My two cents.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Can we all say, "Tonkin Incident?"
Remember that freighter that left North Korea that we were tracking because we suspected in might be carrying a nuclear weapon, but didn't stop and inspect it or sink it as we weren't sure. We were supposedly going to have the country of destination search the vessel. Where do you suppose that freighter went to? Did anyone ever hear anything more about that?
Cid,
Are you referring to the missles that Yemen bought from Kim Jong Il?
An contemporary news article to jog your memory:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/10/ship.boarding/
Obviously the US will win a technology war hands down within a few hours. But they may get "sunburn".
Sunburn is a Russian originated hypersonic missile (Mach 2.9). It flies that fast at 20 feet. They say there is no effective way to stop them and even without a warhead the violence of the impact is sufficient to take out a major ship. The Iranians aren't stupid like Bush. They have known this was going to happen for a long time and they are prepared. They know they can only last a few hours, so their strategy has been to make sure that they can impose a very heavy cost on anybody who attacks them.
There are two carrier groups in the Gulf. It is unimaginable that one of the US carriers could be lost, but they might just succeed.
And for what? When is Congress going to do its job and stop the neocons? I hope and pray that it is not true. If the US attacks Iran they will have once again miscalculated and this time the consequences are going to be far worse. A nuclear war could ensue.
See the article on the link. I think it is way too extreme, but it only takes one to get through......
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm
The only possible response to this is NO.
People have to stop watching tv, flying on airplanes, driving cars. Stay home, play with your kids, work in the shop, visit with friends -- a total, voluntary strike on consumption is necessary.
If that happened, the government might respond. As things are, the Republicrats can easily lead their sheep right off the cliff.
NeverLNG Couldn't agree more!
U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl,
Now, any American that can look at the past four years an take that statement without a mixture of laughter and complete horror is....well...beyond clueless.
Some people would call that insanity...
Watch out, there's an entire news channel devoted entirely to Americans who will believe every word of that quote...
On the contrary, I think the best response is to consume as much fuel as possible. The sooner this overpopulated petro-civilization collapses the better. The longer it drags on the more people will ultimately have to suffer and die an early death. We add another 200,000 unfortunate humans to the planet every frigging day.
I've been wrestling with this issue as well. In one discussion I was part of a few months ago, two of the participants were violently opposed to micro-credit for much the same reasons: anything we do that makes it possible for more people to survive and reproduce now is going to make the coming difficulties worse. I have a hard time with this argument, because it means I have to euthanize my conscience, which I can't seem to do. I do agree that if we are going to crash, the sooner the better as far as the remaining resource base and the rest of the biosphere are concerned.
I'm pessimistic about humanity's ability to voluntarily constrain our overall consumption. I think the mechanisms that control it have a large genetic component and are thus to a great extent beyond the reach of our will. That may sound fatalistic, but from what I understand of human behaviour and what I've seen of our historical tendencies, I'm convinced that it's simply realistic.
Isn't it interesting that the people who profess to fear that the "every man for himself" mentality will be the downfall of Western Civilization, are the first to recommend that we "let the poor drown in suffering to hasten a collapse"? Self-fulfilling prophecies...
If you see the world through eyes full of suspicion and fear, it is difficult to create or sustain a civilization, regardless of macro-economic or geologic factors...
CW
Global peak: 2007 - 2010
Global decline rate, Post peak: 2%
Economic response: Severe global recession, ~5 years, then slow recovery
You could always work for population control...more education for third world women, birth control, etc.
It won't work. To stop our current population growth (which would leave us stranded in a 25% overshoot position anyway) would require about 75 million additional deaths per year. Birth control, womens' education, benign demographic transition, none of it works strongly enough or quickly enough to remedy the situation in the time before it becomes truly critical.
Yeah, I knew that. Seems like most of the books I read on these and related subjects seem obliged to offer "solutions," even though it's pretty clear (to me, anyway) that these are problems outside our abilities to "solve." Still, the kumbaya crowd wants to do something satisfying and "meaningful" so my suggestion was in that spirit. BTW, congrats on getting your message out.
... . I think the mechanisms that control it have a large genetic component and are thus to a great extent beyond the reach of our will. ...
GG
That is the same conclusion that Jay Hanson came to after studing this for the last 10-20 years.
He was the one who(for those who don't know) created the www.dieoff.com site and the Yahoo EnergyResources list.
He stopped because he basically came to the conclusion you stated.
I am Very Optimistic about individuals and individual communities, and Very Pessimistic about 6+ billion people.
Population is the problem. And it is rooted in our genes.
Remember;
Mother Nature Bats Last
John
Hanson, Reg Morrison and John Gray all share this point of view. It's taken me some work to get past the seductive fatalism of it, but I think I've succeeded with a shift of focus onto resilience theory.
Essentially my position now is that they are completely correct in their assessment of the ineluctable nature of our looming fate; all the bad things will happen for all the reasons they propose, but there will be an "afterwards". One useful and redemptive task is to make sure we (or more precisely, "they") can rebuild something saner and more sustainable in the aftermath.
Rebuild?
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
A frivolous tangent - the novel Footfall
features an invasion of earth by a "2nd generation" species from another planet. They were 'coached' in their rise to civilized life by artifacts left behind by a mysterious progenitor race that had self-destructed long before they had gained conciousness. Very fun novel...
Perhaps we should begin engineering artifacts to leave behind just in case - or would we just need to make sure we leave the landfills around :-)
CW
Global peak: 2007 - 2010
Global decline rate, Post peak: 2%
Economic response: Severe global recession, ~5 years, then slow recovery
If you like "alternative history" and "crypto-archaeology" then you should read Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods." He makes an argument that what you suggest--creating monuments and artifacts that would outlast civilizational collapse and inform later generations--is exactly what DID happen on Earth about 10,000 years ago.
Personally, I'll go with Robert Anton Wilson on that theory (as with most theories): "maybe." Either way, it's probably irrelevant to addressing our current problems. I'm quite pessimistic about our civilization's chances, and quite optimistic in general: we (as a civilization) most likely don't have the capacity to take the hard steps that might be able to "save" us, no matter how obvious they are and how clearly they're shoved in our face. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a quality existence--perhaps even a significantly HIGHER quality existence--in a post-carbon, post-hierarchy, post-consumer world. There...that's my little ray of sunshine for the week, now I'll go back to doom and gloom :)
Personally, I'll go with Robert Anton Wilson on that theory (as with most theories): "maybe."
Most certainly NOT!
Beside "monuments and artifacts" any advanced civilization would have left HUGE piles of garbage, we don't see any comparable to the amount we actually generate.
I'm using the term "rebuild" in a quite limited sense - perhaps to something like the middle sections of "A Canticle for Liebowitz" by Walter Miller Jr.
I agree with Hoyle that advanced planetary scale technological civilizations get only one shot, and we've had ours. That doesn't preclude some level of non-technological civilization persisting for a long time. We will at least have the grim comfort of knowing that our species will never again be able to threaten the entire planetary ecosphere - as long as we can keep from taking it with us this time around.
he is correct. but only for the next 250 million years of the about 2-3 billion left in earth;s lifespan before the sun turns it into a burning cinder.
That's how I felt 6 months ago. I've gotten even more doomerisitic since then. Now it's down to "it's time to figure out how I want to spend whatever time we've got left and pick out where I want to spend it." That of course comes after deciding if you actually want to survive the nuclear war. If you don't want to survive then move to the center of a big city on the NA continent.
Strangely, despite feeling this way about our future I'm generally in a pretty good mood, always quick to crack a joke or laugh, etc.
Dear Leanan,
Thanks for all the work you do. I really appriciate it. You sift through a lot of debris to find the golden nuggets, thanks. I love the idea of someone being more of a news-junkie than I am. I find this oddly stimulating and ingtriging and attractive, but I'll stop now before break into a sweat. Love and kisses.
Thanks to a deft infiltration by a gnat-sized spy-bot, the truth behind Leanan's superhuman ability in finding the best articles has been revealed:
-best,
Wolf
OK...as good as the last one...but let me ask you...do you just have a HUGE collection of Legos or what?
Thanks!
Yeah, I have around 40k pieces, maybe a tad more, and I'm drowning in Lego. Still, among Lego fanatics, this is pretty small. There are those who have over a million pieces...
-best,
Wolf