This would certainly strengthen the peak oil now or very soon argument.

Hilarious deadpan.

I think.

or Edvard Munch's "The Scream" in a rearview mirror.

No problem. We will run our transportation networks on oil reserves.
The doomers keep focusing on production. Be happy and focus on the huge worldwide reserves of oil.
Huge pools of oil inside the earth regenerating themselves every day.

One correction to the above listing. China's largest field peaked in 2003, and has been declining a few percent a year since.

China's total oil production for the first three months of 2007 is pretty similar to last years, but it is too soon to say that China's production has peaked.

So perhaps I should say that that six out of the seven largest production areas have production problems. We don't really know yet about China.

Yeah. This is why I think it's foolish to ignore "above ground" factors. They have always been a part of oil production. (If they weren't, peak oil would have hit a lot sooner.)

And I fully expect above-ground factors to become more important, not less. Scarcity and high prices embolden the leaders of oil-producing countries (like Putin and Chavez), attract attack by insurgents, and encourage energy workers to strike. It is also encouraging oil drilling in riskier areas, whether further out in the ocean or deeper into politically hostile territory.

Dragonfly41,
Mexico nationalised its oil and gas resources in the 1930's. The petroleum sector provides about 30% of the government income. This is a direct blow at the government, and they did it without bloodshed.
By contrast in Nigeria the oil is produced in foreign concessions-and the revenues are stolen by the political elite with the help of the multinationals. They are likely to have a revolution and nationalisation.

"The bombing of the Pemex gas pipelines is a bit of a warning shot that will be a factor in the "above ground" issues sending oil and NG prices higher. "

Anyone want to wager we will see "Terrorists in Mexico Trained by Venezuela military" headlines in the near future??

I am very flattered by the compliments. Guess it was is my subtle sense of humor.

As a footnote, after 2 years of being peak oil aware, I am now in the process of closing a 40 acre property in a remote wilderness section of the country. Frantically looking to get out of suburbia and set up an off the grid, self sufficient farm. I feel really good to be moving from a level of intellectual awareness and discussion to the steps of taking action.

Respectfully,
EJ

That article really rang my bell. The reply I posted to her blog is a development of the argument I've been making here recently:

I stumbled here through a link posted on The Oil Drum. Sometimes the universe works in very mysterious ways.

I've just come out of a two-year episode of despair brought on by realizing the "sacred truths" you talk about. What brought me out was a spiritual (NOT religious, as you perceptively point out) transformation that I describe briefly in "The Spiritual Effects of Comprehending the Global Crisis". Upon more reflection it turns out that the spiritual perception that I describe as pantheist is more correctly and usefully understood as a conversion to Deep Ecology as defined by Arne Naess in 1972. I completely agree that such a spiritual realization is essential if one is to emerge from the inevitable despair and resume a functional life.

Likewise on point 2 - my family is so completely aware of the issues that I have been kindly (and sometimes pointedly) told to shut up, they get it already, please come back when I have a positive thought or two to share.

"Finding your work" is of course the next step. Even if your day job is already useful, ethical and life-affirming, what should one's "night job" be in relation to these issues? Writing, speaking and local organizing of one sort or another seem to be obvious choices.

As regards simplification, may I recommend the book "Radical Simplicity" by Jim Merkel? It's a great guide by someone who has walked this path and helped to blaze the trail.

Finally, what about hope? After all, the last thing to come out of Pandora's box was "Hope". Since we are staring deeply into that box right now, what new revelation might we take as a hopeful sign? The state of affairs right now seem utterly hopeless. Ecological devastation, oil depletion, population growth and socioeconomic instability are converging to give humanity the thrashing of its life, in the process reducing the human community to perhaps one billion members before the end of the century.

In fact there is a hopeful sign, but only if you change your perspective.

Start from these three realizations:
1. The genetic imperatives that drive our reproduction, consumption and competition guarantees that we will not change our civilization's value set voluntarily or preemptively.
2. Humanity is like yeast. We reproduce and consume until our ecological niche is stripped of resources and poisoned by waste, then we die off.
3. Humanity is like cockroaches. We are resourceful, adaptive and hardy, and you can't kill us all.

These three facts mean that some portion of humanity will survive to regroup and rebuild in a massively damaged, resource-poor world. On our way through the bottleneck we will lose much of our physical and social capital. The one good thing about this, from a species, biosphere and planetary perspective is that the existing socioeconomic structures will be forcibly and involuntarily stripped away, leaving room for new structures to take their place.

The question for me has become, "How do we ensure that the seeds are in place for a value set that will survive through and bloom after the bottleneck, a value set that will ensure that the next cycle of civilization has a chance at sustainability even in such a badly damaged, resource-poor world?"

I've become convinced over the last couple of months that the seeds have already been planted. They are even resilient enough to make it through, and carry the correct values.

Paul Hawken has just written a book called "Blessed Unrest" in which he describes a set of one to two million local, independent, citizen-run environmental and social justice groups. These groups exist world-wide, and each is acting on local problems of its own choosing. There is no overarching ideology beyond "making the world a better place", there is no unifying organization, no white male vertebrate leader setting the agenda. As a result the movement is extremely resilient - no government action anywhere can shut it down, even though individual groups may be suppressed. These groups make up the largest (though unrecognized) social movement the world has ever seen.

Hawken sees this movement as part of humanity's immune system. While I like the metaphor and think it is exactly correct, I believe the importance of these groups is much greater than just their efforts to mitigate an unavoidable collapse. These groups have been called into existence by the world's dis-ease, and do two things: they work to fix local problems now (which will mitigate some local effects of the collapse), but more importantly they act as carriers for the values of cooperation, consensus, nurturing, recognition of interdependence, acceptance of limits, universal justice and the respect for other life. Those are precisely the values that a civilization will need to achieve stability and sustainability. To top it all off, many of these groups are led by women or espouse specifically matriarchal values, one attribute I see as essential for any sustainable civilization.

At the risk of sounding sentimental, I call these groups the antibodies in Gaia's bloodstream.

I am convinced we will not save this civilization, but I'm equally convinced that thanks to the seeds that have already been planted in these groups we have a shot at a much better one in a couple of hundred years. The crucial change in perspective required to see the hope in this is to stop looking from here forward into the decline, and instead look backward from a position out two hundred years and imagine what it will take to rebuild a truly sustainable civilization from the ashes of this one. The values required are already embodied in a resilient organization, enough of whose elements will survive to transmit a sustainable value set into the ecologically damaged, resource-depleted world we will bequeath to the future.

In my opinion a great way to quickly cut down on gas consumption would be to implement driver's license suspensions for a wide range of driving infractions.

I have "0" sympathy for people caught making driving infractions. Poor drivers put our lives at risk every time they get behind the wheel.

One problem with the article though: Texas has a massive surplus! They didn't implement these laws because of a lack of funds.

Thanks for the info Donal. I have a list of states that have oppressive laws (highway robbers) that I will not drive through. Even though the fines are only for Va. residents, Virginia will be added to my list. The list is getting so long that there will soon be few states left to drive through. 'I cared so much that I dont care anymore.'

Actually, in the US the taxman is robbing your non-driving neighbors to pay for your car use. Anyone driving a car is benefiting from massive tax subsidy.

If the taxman stops robbing, auto use will cost more and property tax, sales tax, and income tax will go down.

That was big news a few months ago. Most people here seemed to think it was a scam of some sort.

If you review the info you will see he has the temperature on the seawater cranked up to 3000 F degrees. You can't get anything to that temp without some significant energy. Granted he is powering the reaction with a very efficient Stirling engine that would help but don't forget the laws of Thermodynamics you can't change forms of energy and get more energy. He is transforming his electricity into heat which will be wasted for the most part and hydrogen which he is burning. It may be efficiently done but it will result in less effective energy than what he started with. Now if he could use solar or wind to generate the electricity it could still have a positive effect in creating a form of energy that could be stored i.e. the hydorgen and used later. Like maybe to heat your house in the winter but it's not a silver bullet.

Of course not, even if it "works". You make electricity somehow, you use some fraction of it to generate radio waves, apply to water. The water absorbs some fraction of the energy from the radio waves, splitting the water into H and O. You can then burn the H and get some fraction of that energy back.

I don't know if this could possibly be any more efficient than plain old electrolysis. In any case, it wouldn't provide energy - it merely converts it from electricity into H2 with some loss. At best a way to store off-peak electricity surplus? I admit, I haven't looked at the details. Don't really have to:

You should simply google "laws of thermodynamics" rather than "burning saltwater" ;-)

hitting saltwater with radio waves, which releases oxygen and hydrogen, which then burns

It costs the same energy to break the H2O bond as you get back when it "burns". Plus, you have to make the radio waves, which represent the energy you break the bond with.

first law of thermo: you cannot win.

second law of thermo: you must lose.

ciao,
Bruce

Re: Ongoing Saudi & Iraqi crude oil export cuts to Asia

Reduced refining utilization in the US is a factor in higher crude oil inventories, but I have wondered if there is another factor at work. Note that Iraq is following the same pattern as Saudi Arabia--exports up to the US, down to Asia.

It seems to me that there is a positive correlation between military forces in the Persian Gulf area and crude oil inventories. The US (for now) is at the top of the military/inventory hill. Asia is at the bottom, and Europe is kind of in the middle. Whatcha think?

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&stor...
Oil holds near $73
Tensions between Iran and U.S., supply woes and big rise in speculative investment help push crude, Brent higher.
July 10 2007: 6:47 PM EDT

European oil stocks data showed gasoline inventories fell 2.1 percent last month as exports to the United States bolstered lower-than-usual stocks of the motor fuel there. Industry monitor Euroilstock also reported a 1.2 percent drop in Europe's crude oil stocks in June.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=143533
World Oil Outlook:  China & US Remain Primary Contributors To Consumption Growth
7/10/2007 11:38:00 AM

Inventories.  
Although OECD commercial crude oil inventories are higher than the 5-year average, crude stocks in OECD-Pacific, a region where OPEC crude constitutes a higher import share than in OECD-North America or OECD-Europe, are near the low end of the 5-year range.   OECD commercial inventories declined by almost 1 million bbl/d in the first quarter compared with a 5-year average inventory draw of 280,000 bbl/d for that quarter. Preliminary data indicate that OECD commercial inventories experienced a below-normal seasonal stock build during the second quarter. EIA estimates that OECD commercial inventories rose by only 300,000 bbl/d in the second quarter, compared with a 5-year average build of 900,000 bbl/d.
 
Through the 2007-2008 projection period, a further reduction in OECD commercial oil inventories (on a days supply basis) is expected.  EIA projects that OECD commercial inventories will be at the bottom of the 5-year range  by the end of 2008 (Days of Supply of OECD Commercial Oil Stocks).  Assuming that EIA’s consumption and non-OPEC supply projections materialize, total OECD inventories at the end of 2007 would be in the lower part of the 5-year average range if OPEC increased production by 1 million bbl/d in the second half of the year.  If OPEC production is below EIA’s projection or the group delays a decision to raise output in the second half of this year in response to declining inventory levels, then the likelihood of additional upward price pressure could emerge.

Areas not covered by OECD statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OECD-memberstates.png

They aren't changing any story in Kuwait. 100 billion barrels of reserves, no problemo.

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article137027.ece

I'm sympathetic to Kunstler's argument that we have to think beyond keeping the cars running at all costs. Although I'm also sympathetic to the idea that it may be too late and too expensive to re-develop much of suburbia. Particularly in areas where there is a walkable core surrounded by non-compact sprawl, some sort of vehicles like this might be helpful. A significant benefit is the small size which needs less space devoted to storage, which might allow more compact urban form in the core. It frustrates me that municipalities still continue to *require* developers to size their parking spaces/drive aisles etc to accomodate gigantic vehicles.

GEMs http://www.gemcar.com work well in New Orleans due to our compact size (Environ Atty did a 10 mile radius search for McDonalds, little realizing that the majority of the area within 10 miles of the CBD is outside New Orleans). GEMs are appearing around New Orleans (I want a photo of one parked as a streetcar passes by).

Few of my trips (except the Airport) are more than 5 miles (10 miles RT) and most are 3 miles or less.

For small towns (Lincoln CA booming to 40,000+) similar distances likely prevail with much lower density.

Sadly, people will use NEVs instead of walking or bicycling, but NEVs are still better than SUVs.

The energy demands of NEVs are low enough that the grid should be able to cope (not so true of larger EVs).

IMHO, NEVs are suitable for smaller towns where side streets connect and are not just funneled into larger multi-lane streets and highways.

NEVs are also likely safer as well (although 1,200 lb at 20 mph can still do damage !)

Not so suitable for larger towns.

Best Hopes,

Alan

PS: It appears that Daimler is not including the GEMs in the Chrysler spin-off. Wonder why ?

Do they allow bicycles in the NEV lanes?

I believe there is some question as to the suitability of suburban plots as cropland. In a typical suburban development, the builder will come in and grade the land, in the process removing most of the nutrient rich topsoil. They'll then fill in with a mix of what they removed and all kinds of low quality earth made up of stones, clay and many time construction debris.... in general whatever they can find easily and quickly. Their goal is to make the footprint of the house (and sometimes of the whole lot) nice and flat to build upon. They also want the soil to be stable so they'll compact the soil with heavy machinery (which would be used anyways even if compaction wasn't a goal). The resulting soil can be almost as hard as a rock. They top this with sod and maybe enough good soil to keep the newly laid grass from dying before the house is sold.

Modern lawns do ok with growing grass but for true crops, it might not be very suitable. I've seen reports that trees in suburbs built in the past thirty or so years don't grow as quickly or as large as they would otherwise because of these poor soil conditions.

All of that is before we even get into the fact that most people don't have the slightest clue as to how to grow crops. There is much more to it than dropping some seeds in the ground and watering now and then. State extension services and agriculture degrees exist for a reason.

--Jason

Did you catch the net imports were up 2.3% from July 2006?

Tot. Net Imports 13,035 (7/06/2007) 12,736 (7/06/06) 2.3%

Importing more than 13 million barrels of oil + products per day.

Substrate,
Read the report again. It said that blending componeents rose 1.2 million barrels, but finished gasoline fell. So the refineries have a backlog, and the backlog is growing. since blending components are at least partially ethanol and the US has added so many ethanol producers, this may explain some of the inventory figures.

All in all, the US is still losing ground on gasoline, we're very vulnerable to a hurricane.

Yeah...but Finished gasoline fell 800K barrels.

Production fell 9.2 MMBPD, against demand at 9.6 MMBPD.

Utilization flat at 90.2%

Imports 1.4 MMBPD.

Crude imports down? Swap finished for crude maybe, obviously the plants in the US are having some trouble producing at higher rates....OR....it is more inexpensive to import the finished goods.

Nothing to see here...move along :-P

Beggar: I don't really follow the subject, but in passing I heard yesterday that the guy with the conehead says you Christian Murikans are nothing but phonies (except for the ones going to Mass).

I think the demonizing of Muslims in the U.S. is a big problem and could become much bigger. If a U.S. Hitler is to rise from the ashes of economic collapse, his scapegoat most likely will not be Jews but rather "Muslim-extremists" (all one word) and possibly also illegal immigrants.

Let us hope the economy goes to stagflation rather than collapse, because bad as the Bush administration is, we're dealing now with a bunch of goody two-shoes compared to a genuine fascist regime.

Were I Emperor of North America, I would mandate classes in comparative religion in high schools, with the goal of bringing critical thinking and respect for other faiths into our culture--i.e., an anthropological approach to religion, which is the one that makes the most sense to me.

It's kind of entertaining to see that on a site where the vast majority present themselves as reason based people, once every few weeks when religion pops up, it inevitably invites dozens of comments, and fills half the thread.

Entertaining, but not for long, and never interesting. Someone like Jay Hanson has plenty to say (after pretty good research) about the evolutionary origins and benefits of belief systems, and as long as you haven't gone through that, why bother others at TOD with all this?

Religious beliefs are a private matter, that should be enough in and of itself. If your beliefs don't satisfy you, you have to look inside yourself, not at other people. But that's what everybody does. There is no, and never will be any, difference between believing in a long-dead carpenter, a fairy made of green cheese, or an ancestor reincarnated in a frog, a dandelion or a pine tree.

No-one can prove that any g-d exists, and no-one can disprove it. It's called belief for a reason. Whether the carpenter ever existed is completely beside the point, it's the miracles that attract people. That no matter how deep the misery, there will always be a possible way out. If not in this life, a seat on a cloud afterwards.

And if you still don't have enough in what you believe, and you really have to share it, go bang on doors on Sunday mornings. But do keep it away from here.

That is not to take away from anyone's beliefs, far from it. Just from the incessant blabberings about it. For if this is how we treat the subject, who is to say that peak oil is not also covered by a belief system. Once you start bringing the option of miracles to the table, all bets are off. Next thing you know, the Vatican turns abiotic.

People need to believe in something. As Dostoevsky's Inquisitor says:

"man cannot live without miracles, for if he is deprived of them, he immediately creates new ones"

And there is no more bloody and deadly source of violence among people than the attempt to make others see that your beliefs are better than theirs.

Know why that is? Because you can't prove your beliefs, not even to yourself. So you have to find other ways to convince the other. And a game of hamster racing won't quite cut it for us, in this time and place. Maybe it once has for others, though. For the outcome is the exact same.

We, though, like millions before us through time, will kill each other over green cheese fairies and dead carpenters. Killing in the name of your prophet. Who most likely had a message of peace. It's going on in our name as we speak. But we wash our hands every single day.

As for atheists: sorry, everybody believes. Some just believe that they don't believe in anything. But as long as there are things that you don't understand (why is this happening to me?), you will seek an explanation, even if it's not reason based. And then go seek confirmation in your fellow men.

HeIs: Crazy. The reality is that in 2007, unless you can slap a price tag on something it doesn't matter. If you think it is bad now, just wait until circa 2020 when China is running the show. They have got large cities already where you would be well advised to be wearing a gas mask.

Yeah, that's what struck me about that bee article. It's not mites, or cell phones, or pesticides, or genetically-modified crops. It's everything. Climate change, mites, disease, maybe helped along by pesticides. We're screwing up something we don't know how to fix.

I almost don't even want to read about it...the figures on the accelerating rates of species extinction (not just fish, frogs, etc., but all species) caused by human activities (too many people, once again) and its casual dismissal or indifference by the general population is just too depressing. E.O. Wilson's The Creation is a good reference here, although his prescriptions for change at the end are simply ludicrous (advocates species-cataloging expeditions and more science education).

I've got no references at hand, but the sun's radiation is close to that of a theoretical "black body" with a specific surface temperature (of roughly 5000K). This means the wavelengths emitted are sort of a bell curve around some mean. The main part of that curve is where most of the radiation energy is. Thus, it is no surprise that plants (Nature's PV panels) evolved to make use of that main part. (Actually, the two ends of the main part, discarding the middle part - that's why plants look "green".) And it's no accident that animals with vision are adapted to use the stronger parts of the sun's spectrum, that's why it ended up being called the "visible light" portion. Thermal solar panels absorb the visible part. Most have a "transparent" (to the visible light) cover (e.g., glass) to keep the insides hot by preventing both heat loss due to convection and also much of the possible re-radiation of the heat as infra-red (since the insides of a solar panel are a lot cooler than the sun's surface, the main part of its re-radiation is in longer wavelengths). This is called the "greenhouse effect". If PV panels are designed for any sort of efficiency, they too are designed to absorb the "visible" light.

I believe this is true, it does take time to bring chemicalized land to an organic/biodynamic state, I would say about 10 years. Much is yet to be learned about micro-nutrients, paramagnetism and the like. I read an interesting story a while back about a woman who was drawn to an organic orchard, she would just leave the house and find herself in the orchard, the positive energy there was that great, a climax state.

I know people who are organic farmers and have never doubted this.

Anyone who is serious about becoming self-sufficient on their own land would do well to consider a dry toilet system, composted by worms, too. No smell, produces top grade fertiliser (the vermicast), and excess worms go into the garden. The mucus excreted from some common worms can be mixed with water and used as a natural pesticide too.

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

Dave, why does it look like he's smiling?

Or this, the end sentence again:

"OPEC, which pumps more than a third of the world's oil, next meets in September to chart output policy. Some officials have suggested the exporters may have no reason to change tack then."

Read "oil" for "reason"?

Yes, this is the expected pushback to the effort to increase CAFE standards. The automakers have been claiming for a long time that that higher fuel efficiency necessarily causes higher death rates.

It's pretty easy to refute. Just look at the fleet efficiency of Europe or the developed Asian nations -- much higher than the U.S. Then look at the per mile traffic fatality rates in those countries -- far lower than the U.S.

Turns out that driver education, enforcement, and advanced roadway engineering standards are much more effective at saving lives than relying on the armor of big, hulking trucks.

The irony of people buying SUVs for safety is that, as a group, they are less safe than minivans. SUVs as a group have about the same injury claims rate as large luxury sedans, although the latter have more collision repair claims.

Going beyond broad generalities, there are some interesting exceptions to the "rule of greater mass." Believe it or not, the Hummer has more injury claims than the Audi Cabriolet, and an identical number of collision claims as the Volkswagen Beetle. The Toyota Prius has slightly fewer injury claims than the Ford Excursion. The Honda Civic Hybrid has 60% as many injury claims as the regular Honda.

(All references are to relative rates. Source: IIHS)

I wonder if that means hybrid drivers are safer drivers?

Of course, once gasoline is up to $20/gallon, I doubt that there will be so many SUVs zipping along at 75mph, so the small cars will be a lot safer then.

MSNBC is not absolutely right. The issue of vehicle safety is far more complex.

1) 75% of accidents on the road are single vehicle accidents. In other words one car has an accident all by itself - imagine said driver falling asleep at the wheel on empty highway. In such a situation SUVs propensity to roll over makes them far more dangerous than cars. Further, if you aren't killed in said rollover, the spinal injuries and paralysis from SUV rollovers is shattering.

2) Safety inside an SUV is terrible. American car makers have made these things extremely unsafe. The airbags are crap, no side airbags, the seatbelt placement is dangerous. The steering columns don't collapse like they should, the dashboards are too hard. Cars, and in particular foreign cars, are amazingly safe inside. Side curtain airbags, variable airbag deployment, crumple zones in the cars, making them all far safer than SUVs. In any accident there are three collisions: The cars, the driver into their own car, and the drivers organs colliding with their rib cage and skull. Cars make the second two collissions far less dangerous.

3) The mass of an SUV if it hits head on with a car is more dangerous (I guess that's the physics part). But from any other angle, the cars are safer. Think of the light little cars you see out on the NASCAR race track. Those are vehicles designed to be safe, made to withstand impacts, crumple zones, all of it. Watch those accidents and watch the drivers walk away. Can you imagine NASCAR races with SUVs and their high center of gravity? They are obviously unsafe. That racecar safety has migrated into cars, but not SUVs.

Enough said. It isn't rocket science.

Asian refiners contracted to buy more oil, but the Saudis are telling them they can't have it.

And despite higher crude oil prices in Asia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are cutting crude oil exports to Asia.

In any case, as I said yesterday, if you generally assume the opposite of what most public officials say regarding Peak Oil, you generally get closer to the truth.

I believe the technical term for this idiocy is "decadence".

I don't care what you say... being forced to squat and shit into a pit at a French highway rest stop is not a sign of some superior civilization. I will take American-style bathroom hygiene right up till the edge of collapse.

http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php

http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm

Have you been keeping up with our lovely Gov. Perry and his 49 vetoes?

It would appear that, JP Morgan Chase, some Spanish investors, Zachary construction and our lovely Gov. Rick Perry are pulling some Andy Fastow magic trick.
This thing has been kicked into high gear as of late. The actual construction phase is to begin soon.

Executive Summary

*

Four corridors have been identified as priority segments of the Trans Texas Corridor. These corridors parallel I-35, I-37 and I-69 (proposed) from Denison to the Rio Grande Valley, I-69 (proposed) from Texarkana to Houston to Laredo, I-45 from Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston and I-10 from El Paso to Orange.
*

The Trans Texas Corridor will allow for much faster and safer transportation of people and goods. It will relieve congested roadways. It will keep hazardous materials out of populated areas. It will help improve air quality by reducing emissions and provide a safer, more reliable utility transmission system. It will keep Texas’ economy vibrant by creating new markets and jobs.
*

Based on an estimated cost of $31.4 million per centerline mile, the 4,000-mile corridor would cost $125.5 billion, not including right of way and miscellaneous costs. Factoring in right of way at $11.7 billion to $38 billion and miscellaneous costs at $8 billion to $20 billion, the estimated total cost for the Trans Texas Corridor would range from $145.2 billion to $183.5 billion.
*

In 2001, the 77th Legislature provided several new financial tools to help Texas meet its transportation demands. Legislation enabling toll equity, regional mobility authorities and the Texas Mobility Fund will help TxDOT continue its efforts to enhance the existing transportation system. These tools also will help pay for the Trans Texas Corridor.

Overview

The Trans Texas Corridor plan gives shape to a vision coming into sharper focus every day. The corridor is a way for Texas to expand opportunities, enhance freedom of movement, and provide the good things of life to the ever-growing number of people making Texas their home.

The Trans Texas Corridor is the largest engineering project ever proposed for Texas. The corridor paves the way—literally—to the future of Texas.

Partners in the public and private sectors, by working together early in the process, can develop a 21st Century transportation corridor that will be a model for the nation.

Benefits

The Trans Texas Corridor will allow for much faster and safer transportation of people and goods. It will relieve congestion on existing roadways. It will keep hazardous materials out of populated areas. It will improve air quality by reducing emissions and providing a safer, more reliable utility transmission system. It will keep Texas’ economy vibrant by creating new markets and jobs. It will bring economic development to all parts of the state, but especially in economically depressed rural areas. Industrial parks served by multimodal transportation and economic development zones built around connectivity points will foster economic growth. The corridor will lead to the development of new cities while increasing the importance of existing cities.

Design

Safety, improved travel time, and greater reliability will characterize the Trans Texas Corridor. Planned for phased construction, the system will connect cities across the state with a series of multimodal corridors. These will feature a high-speed, controlled-access tollway with separate lanes for passenger vehicles (three lanes in each direction) and trucks (two lanes in each direction). Additional features include two-way rail (six tracks, three in each direction) with separate commuter/freight and high-speed passenger facilities and a dedicated utility zone for transmission of oil, natural gas, energy, water and data.

Based on an estimated cost of $31.4 million per centerline mile, the 4,000-mile corridor would cost $125.5 billion, not including right of way and miscellaneous costs. Factoring in right of way at $11.7 billion to $38 billion and miscellaneous costs at $8 billion to $20 billion, the estimated total cost for the Trans Texas Corridor would range from $145.2 billion to $183.5 billion.

And if they want to plow down your house and take your land, well you can argue, but when it's al said and done, you will have 90 days to get out of their way.

According to the plan the Trans-Texas Corridor will consume 584,000 acres of land. 146 acres will be required per corridor mile. That equates to one acre every 36-feet.

"The number of courts authorized to hear eminent domain cases
should be expanded"
– Coby Chase, TxDOT Legislative Affairs Director (November 18, 2004) [more]

Hello Pondlife,

Thxs for the info--LOL! Like they say: Reality is better, because nobody would believe this if we just made-it-up.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

"access to oil dries up"

I think it is important to separate US access to oil and world access to oil. If we leave Iraq and the south breaks free (or takes control of the country), most of the oil producing regions will be intact and because the Iraqi people need money, they will export. Probably not export to the US. This would be the same situation as Iran after the revolution against our puppet government.

Iran could make a useful model. Fundamentalist regime takes control, many are miserable, but law and order is established and life moves forward. While the Iraqi military is fighting for the US it will be half hearted (they know we are leaving, even if Bush can't see it). Once it is fighting for Iraq, it will once again be an effective military force.

Jon Freise

Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows

Frankly, and obviously, I consider the US pulling out of Iraq as a worst case scenario with regards to oil and regional stability. I’m 100% for it though, I don’t enjoy the imperial side of my country.

It (the US in Iraq) is called nation-building, and has often proven to be a losing proposition in history, and in this case (Iraq) likely a failure. When different groups of people just do not want to get along (and live with each other) there is little that can be done constructively.

Serious involvement of the US in the region started with FDR meeting Saud, and has increased ever since. It is a part of American foreign policy with which many are uncomfortable, but the reality of the strategic importance of the Gulf remains. My entire life it (the Gulf and its oil) has been an issue, and I expect it to be for the rest of my life.

It is disingenuous for anyone to suggest an easy "fix" for the problems of the region, or for reducing US involvement in the region.

The story to which you linked points out the worst fear (wrt oil) - that the KSA becomes destabilized.

Frankly, and obviously, I consider the US pulling out of Iraq as a worst case scenario with regards to oil and regional stability. I’m 100% for it though, I don’t enjoy the imperial side of my country.

It (the US in Iraq) is called nation-building, and has often proven to be a losing proposition in history, and in this case (Iraq) likely a failure. When different groups of people just do not want to get along (and live with each other) there is little that can be done constructively.

Serious involvement of the US in the region started with FDR meeting Saud, and has increased ever since. It is a part of American foreign policy with which many are uncomfortable, but the reality of the strategic importance of the Gulf remains. My entire life it (the Gulf and its oil) has been an issue, and I expect it to be for the rest of my life.

It is disingenuous for anyone to suggest an easy "fix" for the problems of the region, or for reducing US involvement in the region.

The story to which you linked points out the worst fear (wrt oil) - that the KSA becomes destabilized.