Re: The "Bidding War" for declining crude oil exports

While OECD oil inventories have fallen from their highs last year, they are still at adequate levels, although the EIA is warning that we will drop to the bottom of the five year range this year, especially in terms of Days of Supply: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Slide25.gif

However, focusing on OECD inventories, as an indication of what is going on in the entire world, is like asserting that no one went hungry in the US in the Thirties, based on surveys of the top half of incomes earners.

Consider a map of OECD versus non-OECD countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OECD-memberstates.png

We don’t have to look hard for reports of forced energy conservation in poorer regions. Leanan has posted countless stories. I think that one of the best is the following WSJ article in 2006. IMO, inventory levels in OECD countries are okay, because of forced energy conservation in areas like Africa, but the pattern that I expect to see is forced energy conservation moving up the food chain.

Published on 18 Nov 2006 by Wall St Journal. Archived on 23 Nov 2006.
As Fuel Prices Soar, A Country Unravels
by Chip Cummins
Conakry, Guinea

The impact of today's energy crunch on the poor is plain in rich nations such as America: Expensive gasoline and soaring heating bills make a hard life harder. In impoverished countries such as Guinea, where per capita income is just $370 a year and surging gasoline prices have helped spark bloody riots, the energy shock has become a matter of life and death.

A story of problems with forced energy conservation at the margins, in a OECD country:

http://online.wsj.com
Running on Empty
On a Road to Nowhere

An Alaskan village asks a scary question:
What happens when oil is too expensive to use?
By RUSSELL GOLD
June 9, 2007; Page A1

Excerpt:

"We have a very fragile economy in most of these villages already and then you add the jolt of high fuel-oil prices. It's my guess that many of these communities will not find themselves viable if fuel prices stay here," says Mike Black, director of community advocacy at Alaska's Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. The villages, he says, "are begging, borrowing and stealing to get enough fuel."

The extreme costs of fuel in rural Alaska have led to numerous energy experiments. But various efforts to reduce rural Alaska's dependence on petroleum-based energy have struggled. Petroleum is easy to store, handle and transport, says Brent Sheets, head of the federal government's Arctic Energy Office in Fairbanks. "It is hard to beat diesel fuel," he says.

A proposal to build a small nuclear power plant for one small town was shelved when a study concluded that the federal security requirements made the project uneconomic. Solar isn't a good fit for Alaska, because fuel demand goes up in the winter when the state gets little sunlight. The Energy Department office even looked at turbines designed to harness river energy, dodging logs and car-sized icebergs, but plans never made it past the theoretical stage.

One alternative-energy success stories is in Kotzebue, the hub community to the west of Shungnak on the Chukchi Sea. On the tundra outside of Kotzebue, where the only sign of life is paw prints from an Arctic fox, are 17 windmills capable of generating one megawatt of electricity. The windmills "are a hedge against rising fuel costs," says Brad Reeve, a Minnesotan who came to the town 30 years ago to run the public-radio station and now heads up the electric cooperative.

As the cost of bringing in diesel has grown, electricity from the windmills has looked better and better. But the windmills have a high upfront cost -- they sit on special pilings with chemicals that ensure the tundra remains frozen to hold the windmills steady. And on a recent morning, as a computer in the coop's offices showed 2.8 megawatts of demand, the wind wasn't blowing. All of the electricity came from distillate-burning generators, a reminder that Kotzebue needs to keep a steady supply of oil.

In Shungnak, Mr. Woods, the tribal-government official, says he expects the oil will keep on flowing. Eskimos are accustomed to adapting to extreme conditions, he says. But there is little effort being made to teach children how to hunt the old way. "Their lifestyle now is so convenient," he says.

I live in northern Sweden at the same latitude as Alaska. I heat our house with wood. Now its cheap, and we have abundant wood recources in a region with a scarce population.

But i wonder what will happen when oil is in shortage? How can we harvest and transport the wood?? It sure won´t be cheap anymoore.

We certainly are in uncharted waters.

Living in southern Sweden, and also heating with wood (call it really, really efficient biofuels if you want).

To harvest and transport around 2000 kWh of firewood (a solid cube of 1x1x1 meter), you need to use around 2 liters of fossil fuels, or 20 kWh of energy. And this number is declining due to developments in forestry.

It will always be profitable to harvest firewood, as long as there is any oil left. Yes, it will become more expensive, but it will remain the cheapest source of energy here in Sweden. No matter how expensive oil will be, it will always be cheaper than heating with electricity-based methods, as the electricity price follows the price of oil over time.

Anyway, for household needs you will eventually harvest with a manual saw or axe, and pull the wood home with a horse or a human-powered cart, as been done in the past. No worries. Just make sure you own some forest within manual distance. I do.

Do you think 10 million Swedes can all move to firewood use? Trees don't grow all that quickly at these latitudes.

We are 9 millions. I don´t know, but during for example WWII
we had mostly firewood use(if i recall it right) without a problem. But then we where about 6 million inhabitants.

Precent times i certainly believe that we in northern Sweden, with a scarce population, have no problems what so ever with wood recources. How it would play out in for example Stockholm area today i am unsure about, but during the war Stockholm made it with wood as i recall it(but with a smaller population, and houses prepared for wood burning). Nowadays houses in urban areas are not prepared for wood burning.

The annual growth of forest in Sweden is around 80 million solid cubic meters, or approx 9 cubic meters (at least 18000 kWh or 1800 liters of gasoline or 450 gallons) per capita. We are nine million people.

Today Sweden derives it's energy from the following sources (off the top of my hat): 20% nuclear, 20% hydro, 40% oil (almost entirely transportation) and 20% other (including biofuels, industry heat recycling, burning waste - almost no landfills anymore).

Less than 10% of the forest growth goes to biofuels, the rest is refined using hydro and nuclear power into paper pulp, paper or processed timber (two by fours etc) and exported. We export our energy surpluses (a significant portion of the nuclear and hydro goes into the paper industry or metals (primarly iron/steel)) as refined raw materials, which pay a lot better than wood pellets or firewood.

There would be no problem increasing the biofuel portion of the forestry if need be, but it would kill off quite a few jobs in the paper industry. This illustrates that the immediate effects of peak oil, at least in Sweden, will be economic. About 250 000 people are employed in the automotive service sector (tires, workshops, gasoline stations, roadside restaurants etc etc) or automotive industry (Volvo/Ford and Saab/GM). If driving would decrease by 50%, 50% of those jobs would be lost, which would be a significant part of the workforce.

If push comes to shove you could run the entire diesel fleet of harvesters, carriers, tractors and trucks on wood chip gasified producer air. Did it in the past (WW2), could definetly do it again.

Myself, I'm a net energy producer, I sell more energy as firewood than our household and farm consume, including electricity and all fossil fuels even private use (but excluding emergy in bought equipment which is a bit difficult to calculate. Emergy in our own improvments and maintainance of forest, fields and structures is included though). Firewood pay better for the primary producer than selling lumber as paper pulp material, and most Swedish small houses have at least a wood stove as backup, and 400 000 houses heat with wood furnace coupled to watertanks. No problem finding buyers for firewood.

We heat our entire 2000 sq ft house using a single american Vermont Castings wooden stove, but then the house have been properly insulated in recent years, even though it was originaly built 100 years ago.

Sweden could be self-sufficient in energy, but it would require sacrifices, and walls towards the rest of Europe. However, we're members of the European Union, which has stated that all member states should share their energy resources, so we will be in the shit with the rest of them. At least peacefully, as we've dismantled most of our military anyway so we wouldn't be able to keep it to ourself anyways.

At least the climate keeps most people away, but global warming may change that and there goes the advantage of our sparsely populated country...

I have been to Kotzebue one summer many years ago. I remember it as being totally flat without any trees within perhaps tens of miles. We flew in low on Alaskan Airways and it was all lakes and tundra as far as one could see. It is very different from Sweden at a similar latitude. I have been to Northern Norway and the trees near Harstad, for example, grow to only around one meter in height. Also, they are all bent over in the prevailing wind direction. Quite miserable.

That has nothing in common with the vast Swedish softwood forests. Ever been to the forest districts of Canada?

Sweden is covered by dense pine and spruce forest, with the exception of "fjällen", ie the mountains to the north of Sweden. Towards the south hardwood becomes more and more common.

Hej Cornucopia
Jag håller med om allt du skriver. Själv är jag äldre, och kommer inte att orka med att hugga, transportera, och hantera större mängder ved. Men jag räknar kallt med att det inte skall vara några problem även ifall du inte har egen skog. Det finns gott om skog i närheten, och gott om folk som kommer att vara fattiga, och som kommer att kunna leverera ved till oss som har pengar och kan betala för oss.

Kenneth

Som norrlänning har du antagligen rätt, Kenneth. Kan vara svårare i de mer välbefolkade delarna av södra Sverige.

Thanks, and as well for the article Running on Empty
On a Road to Nowhere

Would anyone care to comment on the storage of wind produced hydrogen/oxygen in those northern areas? It seems to me that the direct use, of stored hydrogen and oxygen from wind, as heat and possibly lighting (gas) would be efficient. What would be the problems?

The pond shrinks but not evenly or fairly.

Swede the usual comment about woods efficiency is that it heats you twice once when you cut it and once when you burn it. Hows that for cold comfort?

Thanks CrystalRadio, you are conforting me with positive thoughts.

Westexas; thanks for yet another interesting article, but I would just like to comment re:your continuing use of Guinea as a example of an African state in PO demise. African states suffer from a multitude of problems and I think the rush to apportion PO effects to particular instances has to be done with a degree of care. For example here is a piece from Oct 2004 which deals with Guinea's severe problems in the period 2003-2004:
http://www.afrol.com/articles/14446

As you will see the country was even in 2003 having severe problems with power outages etc (and as I recall oil prices were only just then starting their main ascent). The causes of these problems as described in the article were (and still are as far as I can see) multiple. There seems to be a tendancy to rush to 'doomerish' conclusion as regards PO and Africa, but Africa has never been a simple place to analyse.