DrumBeat: March 20, 2008

Obama Eyes Active Role in Oil Markets

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama would take an active role in U.S. oil markets as president, tackling concerns about the dominance of large oil companies and eyeing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a potential weapon to combat high prices, his top energy adviser said.
ADVERTISEMENT

The presidential hopeful's adviser, Jason Grumet, told Reuters that an Obama administration would crack down on any competition lapses in the sector that have resulted from big corporate mergers.

Globe and Mail: Oil and gas reserves don't much matter any more.

You arrive at that conclusion after listening to Royal Dutch Shell's strategy presentation in which the company this week finally allowed investors to have a look at the gauge on its fuel tank.Reserves on their own don't matter. What matters is the cost of getting the reserves. Shell's investment per barrel of oil and gas has increased fourfold in just three years, a period during which the oil multinational's output has not increased. The company displayed another chart showing the average spending of the big oil companies. Per barrel of hydrocarbons, spending rates were pretty static during the 1990s at between $5 (U.S.) and $6 a barrel. In 2003, the rate of investment began to escalate and is now shooting higher, rising at an alarming pace. Last year, the average investment per barrel was just shy of $15.

On top of that, you must load the daily cost of operating wells and pipelines and the colossal overhead of running a big oil company. Moreover, we know that the $14-to-$15-a-barrel average investment is just an average and it is rising. Every new barrel is a more expensive barrel because in order to get the oil, Western oil companies must push the technology envelope even further, into deeper water and more heavy oil, such as Alberta's oil sands. The only giant discovery of the past decade has been Tupi, the eight-billion-barrel oil field discovered offshore of Brazil in water depths of two kilometres.

Technology is expensive, but it is the materials, manpower and energy cost that hurts. Shell estimates that the operating cost per barrel of the Athabasca project is between $20 and $25, of which a third is energy - the cost of natural gas used to heat water to extract bitumen from sand. Shell won't reveal the capital cost of an Alberta oil sands barrel, but it is certainly a lot higher than its average of $7 and likely near the top rate of $15 to $20.

The point of all this is that it helps to explain the current $105-a-barrel oil price and its extraordinary resilience to weakening demand signals. Oil price speculators know that the U.S. is heading into recession and they can see the signs of weakening gasoline consumption, but they are maintaining long positions in West Texas Intermediate and Brent, the benchmark futures contracts. If they remain bullish, it is not because they believe oil is running out but because they believe the cost of producing the marginal barrel will remain high and will continue to rise, regardless of a U.S. recession.

That doesn't mean the oil price won't dip or suffer a short-term plunge. There will be temporary gluts of gasoline as America works through its credit crunch, but it is the cost of producing extra barrels and the price of alternatives such as biofuels that will determine what we pay for oil in 2012.

Reuters: Russia mined 7 percent more uranium last year and it plans to spend $400 million raising 2008 output by another 5 percent, state-controlled uranium miner Atomredmedzoloto said in a statement on Wednesday.

The firm plans to triple output by 2015 and it says Russia produced 3,413 tonnes of uranium last year. This year it will mine 3,580 tonnes and start prospecting with leading uranium miner Cameco Corp.

The two firms plan the first investment in two separate joint ventures to explore for uranium in their home countries of Russia and Canada, Atomredmedzoloto said.

Russia holds more than a 10th of world reserves of uranium and is positioning itself as a major player in meeting growing demand from the fast-growing nuclear industry, which is paying record-high prices as uranium demand outstrips dwindling supply.

The top three miners, Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan, together account for more than half the world's uranium production, the World Nuclear Association says.

Washington Post: Long considered an abundant, reliable and relatively cheap source of energy, coal is suddenly in short supply and high demand worldwide.

Long considered an abundant, reliable and relatively cheap source of energy, coal is suddenly in short supply and high demand worldwide.

An untimely confluence of bad weather, flawed energy policies, low stockpiles and voracious growth in Asia's appetite has driven international spot prices of coal up by 50 percent or more in the past five months, surpassing the escalation in oil prices.

The signs of a coal crisis have been showing up from mine mouths to factory gates and living rooms: As many as 45 ships were stacked up in Australian ports waiting for coal deliveries slowed by torrential rains. China and Vietnam, which have thrived by sending goods abroad, abruptly banned coal exports, while India's import demands are up. Factory hours have been shortened in parts of China, and blackouts have rippled across South Africa and Indonesia's most populous island, Java.

Meanwhile mining companies are enjoying a windfall. Freight cars in Appalachia are brimming with coal for export, and old coal mines in Japan have been reopened or expanded. European and Japanese coal buyers, worried about future supplies, have begun locking in long-term contracts at high prices, and world steel and concrete prices have risen already, fueling inflation.

In the United States, the boom in coal exports and prices has helped lower the trade deficit, which declined last year for the first time since 2001. The value of coal exports, which account for 2.5 percent of all U.S. exports, grew by 19 percent last year, to $4.1 billion, the National Mining Association said. An even bigger increase is expected this year.

That means that, in a small way, higher revenues for U.S. coal exports indirectly helped the U.S. economy cover the cost of iPods from China, flat-screen TVs from Japan and machinery from Germany. The still-gaping trade deficit of the world's largest industrial power at the dawn of the 21st century was slightly eased by a fuel from the era and pages of Charles Dickens.

Bloomberg: Oil Falls Below $100 on Concern U.S. Slowdown May Limit Demand

An untimely confluence of bad weather, flawed energy policies, low stockpiles and voracious growth in Asia's appetite has driven international spot prices of coal up by 50 percent or more in the past five months, surpassing the escalation in oil prices.

The signs of a coal crisis have been showing up from mine mouths to factory gates and living rooms: As many as 45 ships were stacked up in Australian ports waiting for coal deliveries slowed by torrential rains. China and Vietnam, which have thrived by sending goods abroad, abruptly banned coal exports, while India's import demands are up. Factory hours have been shortened in parts of China, and blackouts have rippled across South Africa and Indonesia's most populous island, Java.

Meanwhile mining companies are enjoying a windfall. Freight cars in Appalachia are brimming with coal for export, and old coal mines in Japan have been reopened or expanded. European and Japanese coal buyers, worried about future supplies, have begun locking in long-term contracts at high prices, and world steel and concrete prices have risen already, fueling inflation.

In the United States, the boom in coal exports and prices has helped lower the trade deficit, which declined last year for the first time since 2001. The value of coal exports, which account for 2.5 percent of all U.S. exports, grew by 19 percent last year, to $4.1 billion, the National Mining Association said. An even bigger increase is expected this year.

That means that, in a small way, higher revenues for U.S. coal exports indirectly helped the U.S. economy cover the cost of iPods from China, flat-screen TVs from Japan and machinery from Germany. The still-gaping trade deficit of the world's largest industrial power at the dawn of the 21st century was slightly eased by a fuel from the era and pages of Charles Dickens.

Crude oil fell below $100 a barrel in New York on growing concern a U.S. economic slowdown will hurt commodity demand.

Oil has fallen 11 percent from a record this week, tracking declines in gold, wheat and metals, as the dollar strengthened, reducing the need for hedges against inflation. U.S. gasoline demand in the past four weeks averaged 3.2 percent less than last year, the Energy Department said yesterday.

``Investors have taken money from the capital markets and bought oil futures, but there's nothing changed in the fundamentals to make oil worth $100,'' said Gerrit Zambo, an oil trader at BayernLB in Munich. ``Now these investors may think it's time to get out.''

Crude oil for May delivery fell as much as $2.95, or 2.9 percent, to $99.59 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $100.41 at 11:43 a.m. London time. Oil is up 77 percent from a year ago.

Energy Daily: Gen. David Petraeus is calling on "large Western corporations" to invest in Iraq's energy sector as Iraq looks outside to boost oil, gas and power production.

Petraeus, who as commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq overseas all coalition troops there, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked him to convey the message to companies.

"The prime minister is very keen on getting large Western corporations re-engaged in the oil and electricity sectors," Petraeus said Monday at a news conference in Iraq with Vice President Dick Cheney and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

Bloomberg: The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, supplier of about 40 percent of the world's crude oil, needs to meet less than half of the forecast gain in demand by 2012, Wood Mackenzie Consultants Ltd. said.

OPEC will probably have to increase production ``not much more than 2 or 3 million barrels a day'' by 2012, John Waterlow, a principal analyst at the Edinburgh-based firm, said in an interview in Sydney today.

Demand will likely rise by about 10 million barrels a day over the next five years, barring a ``major recession,'' Waterlow said. Most of that will be met by suppliers outside OPEC and by gas liquids and non-conventional supplies, such as oil sands, he said.

``Over that period we don't actually see there to be much of a problem in supply meeting demand even if demand grows relatively strongly,'' Waterlow said.

Coal Can't Fill World's Burning Appetite

Long considered an abundant, reliable and relatively cheap source of energy, coal is suddenly in short supply and high demand worldwide.

An untimely confluence of bad weather, flawed energy policies, low stockpiles and voracious growth in Asia's appetite has driven international spot prices of coal up by 50 percent or more in the past five months, surpassing the escalation in oil prices.

The NYT has been running a series of good articles on coal, including yesterday's article on the emergence of the U.S. as a major coal exporter and today's article about the distribution of coal, nuclear and natural gas electricity production in the U.S. and the political difficulty of building new coal-fired plants in the U.S.

States' Battles Over Energy Grow Fiercer With U.S. in a Policy Gridlock

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/20energy.html

The NYT coal article index:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/inde...

If US judges and regulators keep vetoing the building of coal fired power stations then US mines will have nothing to do with their coal but export it. The US could become the Saudi Arabia of coal because of a reverse Land Export Model. Ironic.

The environmentally driven political resistance to new coal-fired electricity capacity in the U.S. cannot win out. Coal is the only way to ramp up capacity quickly, and Americans will choose coal over rolling blackouts any day of the week, particularly if there's a crisis in the natural gas supply.

The USA installed 5.25 GW of new wind turbines in 2007, we can hit 8 GW this year if we try (i.e. renew 1 cent/kWh tax credit for renewable electricity). Add geothermal., solar PV, new hydro, etc.

We can also save quite a few GW of electrical demand each and every year via conservation and greater efficiency.

Alan

According to to this, US net electricity generation was about 4 million GWH in 2006, which comes to around 500GW on a 24/7/365 basis. Meanwhile, that 5.25GW of new wind is presumably nameplate capacity, so we can divide it by four for reasons of normal wind conditions, maintenance, runaway rotors spinning into shrapnel, etc. In other words, realistically, it's maybe a whole 1.3GW, or 0.26%, addition to actual generation, and a smaller addition, if any, on hot, humid, still, health-threatening days. Except for hydro, which is noticeable in the table but has little room to grow, the other items can be dismissed as immeasurably small for now.

So next year we get a whole 0.35% if we "try", and less if Congress, this being an election year, focuses mainly on celebrity steroid use. Meanwhile, population is still headed skyward at just under 1%, three times as fast, and I wouldn't be surprised if that fails to guesstimate illegal immigration sufficiently. And said population, on the whole, is slowly but surely becoming ever older and frailer, increasing demand an extra bit, for extra heating, cooling, elevators and other gizmos, nursing facilities, etc.

So the original point probably stands - artificial, politically created electricity shortages seem likely to cause at least regional ructions in the near future. Angry citizens may suddenly attach less importance than they do now to whining about imperceptible effects of coal that only show up when they are teased out by statistical methods that, in the end, are only incomprehensible magic.

For now, politicians are responding to the whining by thumping on evil, wicked "big" business that unjustly tells people they have to get out of bed in the morning. And it's that thumping itself that most whiners are gleefully seeking. However, once the consequences inevitably thump directly on said whiners - as in, for example, "constantly repeated blackouts = no wages = no income" - the glee will continue on for about as long as a snowflake in Florida.

Instead of looking at nameplate capacity we should be looking at actual generation:

- from 2001 to 2007 (the years of the wind "boom") wind power has increased from 7TWh to 32TWh or 25TWh
- total electricity generated grew from 3,736 to 4,160 TWh or by 424TWh so wind power is accountable only for 5.8% of the increase. The additions by the other major sources are as follows:
- natural gas - +254 TWh (60%)
- coal - +116 TWh (27.4%)
- nuclear - +35 TWh (8.3%)
- hydro - +31 TWh (7.3%)

So... in case you just moved to the US and are wondering where the extra electricity you are using came from, you should visit the natural gas or coal power plant serving your area (accounting for 87.4% of it). Not really the local wind farm.

Given the high rates of increase in wind during that period, your analysis is almost meaningless. You are making an arithmetic average of an exponential function.

Assume, say, 8 GW this year, 11 GW in 2009, 15 GW in 2010, 20 GW in 2011 with 35% capacity factor and the numbers from wind look much more significant.

The 1 GW in new nuke from Watts Bar 2 (started in late 1970s) should almost be complete by 2011.

Add the negawatts from conservation and the number can become significant. These are our two best hops before TSHTF.

Best Hopes for a Rush to Wind,

Alan

The problem of switching to wind (something we certainly need to get cracking on BIGTIME) is compounded by the fact that it will likely correspond, at least partially, with a switch the plug in hybrids and (hopefully, if they can be manufactured effectively) electric cars, which will put alot of extra demand on the power grid.

I disagree with this. During world war II we cranked out planes and tanks ... but no passenger automobiles. We're getting knocked back to a 1940 standard of living which means street cars or walking for most, and with the economy the way it is who is going to finance a new PHEV? They won't be prevalent enough for us to want to keep up the roads - could be we'll have police, fire, and ambulance, all moving to high ground clearance platforms to get around decaying roads, and those would be PHEV.

The turbines we need to maintain a civil society will be built the way we went at war goods sixty years ago. The PHEVs? Not a chance ...

8 GW is good, but I think we used 3.3 TW on average in 2005 year. And I think peak was 4.7 TW. Since wind only generates at about 30% of its max rating, those wind turbines will only generate about 3 GW on average or 0.1% of our needed energy.

You are comparing one year's installations vs. the generation from the total installed base (1960 to date for FF, 1910 to date for hydro). Since we do not have to solve our problems in the next 12 months, this is a false choice.

35% capacity factor is closer for new installations. Bigger WTs go higher and get better winds (even 1 mph delta is significant). And newer seems to have fewer maintenance outages.

For the next 3 or 4 years (5 years to build a new coal plant today I think, XX years for a new nuke), conservation and negawatts are our biggest potential source of power. Wind #2.

Geothermal has great potential in the US West. I learned quite a bit about secondary cycle geothermal to exploit lower heat sources (use a working fluid other than water/steam) at WIREC. Unfortunately geothermal competes with oil & gas for drilling rigs.

And solar is coming along, with $1 billion solar PV manufacturing plants under construction.

It is *NOT* a given that much more coal is required.

Best Hopes for Conservation,

Alan

Actual wind output per hour for a 2 year period for Ontario can be found here:
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/genDisclosure.asp

When you consolidate the number of hours of percent of name plate you get this graph.

Thus wind in Ontario 50% of the time is below 14% of nameplate. It never achieves nameplate output and spends 5% of the time generating nothing.

Something that has not been discussed here on the OD is the inverse volatility between price and production. Perhaps I missed it.

If you look at a chart of production starting in 1970 or 1980 to the present, you will see considerable volatility until about Oct of 2004. Production then becomes flat at about 85MM brl’s/day +/- 500K.

See Khebab Fig. 1
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3439

However if you look at price it seems to be much more volatile after Oct 04.

This seems to indicate supply meeting demand until Oct 04

This seems to indicate supply meeting demand until Oct 04.

Supply always meets demand. If supply is too low and demand too high, then the price rises, dropping demand, until they meet again.

I think you meant Dipchip, that until Oct 04 supply was high enough to keep prices low, then after that prices had to rise to keep demand low enough to meet supply. Demand is a function of both price and availability.

Ron Patterson

When there is no more to supply, supply does not meet demand. That's what Peak Oil is all about.

Wrong! Peak oil is not about running out of oil. We have stressed that point, here on TOD and other palace, over and over again. Even if the world produces only one million barrels per day, the price will be high enough that this small amount will meet demand. That price will likely be over one thousand dollars per barrel and that price will drop demand to one million barrels per day.

There will obviously become a time when there is no more supply. But that time is far in the distant future, far beyond the lifetimes of anyone on this forum. In the meantime we must deal with rising prices cause by a declining oil supply, after Peak Oil.

Peak oil is about the declining availability of oil in the huge EROEI paybacks which we expect, and which our system is designed for. Eventually it also means the declining production of oil, coupled with rapidly decreasing EROEI.

Which means that for some people the oil is no longer there. Which means for those people that the oil has run out.

Running out of oil does not happen uniformly. People who can't afford the necessities that $100+ oil provides them have effectively run out.

It's a recession when your neighbor is out of work. It's a depression when it happens to you.

It's depletion when it's happening in the oil fields and the markets. It's running out when you can't get the oil-dependent support that you need.

Collapse occurs as a result of the cumulative systemic needs previously satisfied by oil not being met, which impose cumulative costs on the rest of the system. These costs come in the form of providing food, water, or other resource aid, or in the form of social chaos, war, disease, famine, and disposal of the deceased.

Terminal depletion is not far in the future, just a few decades and the oil will stop flowing to and within the U.S.long before terminal depletion. You can read all about it at my website.

You're not getting it.

Just like so many people who think that money creates energy.

It does not.

Without energy there is no money. See Bear Stearns for details.

As we enter the Olduvai Gorge, all it will take is a 3% drop in
supply and the electric grid will crash.

1930's. If we can't hold that 1886, then 1750.

Billions will die above the background rate.

As we enter the Olduvai Gorge, all it will take is a 3% drop in supply and the electric grid will crash. 1930's. If we can't hold that 1886, then 1750. Billions will die above the background rate.

Such very stupid hyperbole has no place on this list. Visitors might think we all are of such a mind. And someone might say, as they did yesterday about a possible Iran war, that "TOD predicted that if crude oil supply dropped 3% the electrical grid would crash." TOD made no such prediction, only one very uninformed poster made such a prediction.

The world crude oil supply dropped 15% from 1979 to 1983 and the grid did not even dim once.

Petroleum generates 1.6% of our electricity! A drop of 3% in world oil production would hardly affect the electrical grid at all.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html

Ron Patterson

Oh Fck you.

"Visitors might think we all are of such a mind."

Where? From Mars? I hate that "beyond the pale" BS. With you of course being the judge and jury. No proofs advanced.

Don't get patronizing. Judging what has merit.

And this is garbage.

"And someone might say, as they did yesterday about a possible Iran war, that "TOD predicted that if crude oil supply dropped 3% the electrical grid would crash." TOD made no such prediction, only one very uninformed poster made such a prediction."

A smear on me that you think someone might have said. And again. You the thought
police here? The message you're trying to get out is...?

"The world crude oil supply dropped 15% from 1979 to 1983 and the grid did not even dim once."

Source that and then note how the embargo was to the West.

And only the West was affected. And only certain parts of the West.

In the Memphis/LR/New Orleans area, I never paid more than 79 cents and never dreamed
of standing in line.

So far us Dirty Fckn Hippies have been right on the mark.

And yet, still the Cramers of the world can say the subprime's been contained, don't pull your $$ out of Bear (a week ago!), Iraq was a success, we did
Iraq because of 911, and still get camera time.

Every chart from Khebab, Ace, shows us doing just exactly this-the Olduvai Gorge by 2012
at the latest.

"Petroleum generates 1.6% of our electricity! A drop of 3% in world oil production would hardly affect the electrical grid at all."

And this shows the completeness of how your genre does not understand non linear.

Just as US Ag uses only 2.2% of fuel.

Only a very narrow description of both and the ignorance of Self Organized Criticality allows people to make this remark.

South Africa, Kenya, Argentina, Chile, Pakistan, Tajikistan.

All the above have seen both percentages repudiated.

Source that and then note how the embargo was to the West.

This was not an embargo, the embargo was years earlier. This was due to the Iran-Iraq war and the resulting "Tanker Wars" as well as the Iranian Revolution. All the world was affected.

World Oil Production: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pL1ZqwKbkFcfYha0oIYWXRg&hl=en
1979 62,674,000 barrels per day
1983 53,257,000 barrels per day
Difference
9,417,000 barrels per day or 15.025 percent

West (OECD) Oil Demand: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pL1ZqwKbkFcfVVh3xItXZIA&hl=en
1979 44,838,000 bp/d
1983 36,906,000 bp/d
Difference
7,479,000 bp/d or 16.85 percent.

The undeveloped world was down just under 2 million barrels per day but that also includes most exporters who actually increased their consumption during this period. The oil importing third world was down even more than the West.

Ron Patterson

Never argue with Darwinian on numbers.

"Never argue with Darwinian on numbers."

And that's the problem.

Even if he (and Stuart -

"it is worth noting that in fact, according to Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy, generally speaking, energy used in agriculture is a tiny portion of the whole – the 2.2% that Staniford cites does not take into account, say, the fact that it takes 10xs as much energy to get a package of frozen peas into your freezer as it does to grow them, or 7xs as much energy as is contained in the food to get a box of breakfast cereal on your table – which might be the beginnings of an answer to part C of Staniford’s question (McKibben, 65)), or political ones that interrupt the flow of oil in a collapse situation."

-are correct with the numbers they use, the numbers themselves aren't
showing the reality of the situation.

That's what I am arguing.

That our power supply uses 1.6% of the petroleum, that US Ag uses
2.2%? W/o these two components, civilization does not exist.

So something is bad wrong when only 3.8% of our energy is (said to be)
used for these two components.

I say that we have completely leveraged away (the Ultimate 32:1 Hedge Fund!)
from reality here.

Which is why we're seeing these developing nations, described above,
running into food/energy problems.

The stats are decoupled from reality.

"October 2006 — in an essay titled “Economics: Hallucinated Wealth“?

The economy of markets and statistics has aptly been compared to a circus, and like any other circus, it serves mostly to distract. While interest rates wow the crowd with their high-wire act and clowns pile into and out of various speculative vehicles, the real story of economic decline will be going on elsewhere, in the non-hallucinated economy of goods and services, jobs and personal income, all but invisible behind a veil of massaged numbers and discreetly unmentioned by the mainstream media. There’s good reason for that to be tucked out of sight, too, because it won’t be pretty at all."

Sincerely, James

Again. 1979 to 83 never bothered me at all with oil supplies.
The 1973 Embargo did.

I did conflate the Embargo with
the Iran/Iraq War. You're right there.

There was great change in my life, but no problem finding
gasoline/diesel. And I never saw prices over 79 cents and definitely
no gas lines in the Memphis/LR/New Orleans area.

Yes, you're right. It was the Iran/Iraq Wars, but the US instigated
this war. If the US was hurting we knew how to get more oil.

Stop what we were doing.

But now, we can stop what we're doing (gonna have to) and still we won't
get more oil.

Which is the point I'm making. And the fact that you so easily dismiss the Olduvai. And anyone bringing it up. Even as we slide into it.

Such very stupid hyperbole has no place on this list.

And making demands somehow shows your manly-ness?

Showing WHY such a position is wrong is how things have historically been done in these parts.

Eric, did you not even bother to read the rest of the post, and my follow up post with source and numbers? I showed exactly why his hyperbole was dramatically wrong!

Reading the entire post before replying with some smart ass remark is how things have historically been done in these parts.

Ron Patterson

Eric, did you not even bother to read the rest of the post,

Yes I did Ron. Any you were in there a-swinging the hyperbole all about.

The world crude oil supply dropped 15% from 1979 to 1983 and the grid did not even dim once.

"the grid" has many parts, and more than a few parts did have brownouts, rolling blackouts and other issues. Thus 'not once' ain't right. Now, you wanna post links defending your statement?

To compare the grid design and loading of the 1960's and 1970's grid with the 2008 and beyond grid ignores reports like this:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13153/

McGowan needs to do a better job of making the case of grid fragility today and a delta in oil production tomarrow. Because claiming a direct oil to grid tie would be hard to prove. If a sub-station goes poof! by sabotage and one group claims responsibility to draw attention to the US presence in the Middle East - is that an oil tie?

Onto other matters:

Now I note how you did *NOT AT ALL* address the part about your demand of "Such very stupid hyperbole has no place on this list." But that is fine, I'm sure you'll say 'mea culpa' when you do the 'stupid hyperbole' dance in the future. You can start with the mea culpa on "the grid did not even dim once."

The world crude oil supply dropped 15% from 1979 to 1983 and the grid did not even dim once.

A decline in North American Natural Gas will have an impact on electrical generation. I can't say how much of a decline would cause blackouts since it depends on some critical factors.

If for instance the supply of Ngas declines and it causes the price to soar, while gov't limits Utility prices to consumers (ie price caps), it will lead to blackouts. Utilities will simply not accept losses on power generation. If they can't make money selling electricity they will simply turn off the generators until they can make a profit. If Utilities can raise prices to consumers it probably will not. As prices rise, consumers will be forced to cut back consumption so that supply and demand remain in balance.

I suspect that in the next three to five years North America will start to run into Natural gas shortages. I doubt the small amount of new Wind generation would be able to offset Ngas fired Power plants. I think as we slip further into a recession and a deeper credit crunch, capital to develop new wind farms will diminish.

You are right on target and my report explains how it will happen:

Peak Oil means that the U.S. lacks the energy necessary to provide for transportation, food production, industry, manufacturing, residential heating, and the production of energy. Oil shortages and natural gas shortages will generate multiple crises for the nation: (1) Shortages in gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel will limit travel to work for oil rig/platform workers and technicians, coal miners, highway maintenance personnel, and maintenance workers for electric power generation stations and power lines. (2) Without truck and air transport, spare parts for virtually everything in the economy won’t be delivered, including parts needed for highway maintenance and energy production equipment. Simmons notes that 50,000 unique parts are necessary to create a working oil field. Many more parts are necessary for ultra deep water drilling operations, including a variety of high tech ships, remotely operated underwater vehicles, seismic survey equipment, helicopters, and technologically complex platforms (see The New York Times and click on Multimedia Graphic). Thousands of corporations around the globe manufacture these parts, and many of these corporations will fail in the Peak Oil crisis. (3) States governments will lack funds for maintaining the Interstate Highway System, including snow plowing, bridge repair, surface repair, cleaning of culverts (necessary to avoid road washouts), and clearing of rock slides. A failure in one section of the Interstate highway will cut off transportation for that highway and everything it carries: food, emergency supplies, medicine, medical equipment, and spare parts necessary for energy production. (4) The power grid for all of North American will fail due to a lack of spare parts and maintenance for power lines and electric power generators, as well as from shortages in the supply of coal, natural gas, or oil used in generating electric power. Power failures could also result from the residential use of electric stoves and space heaters when there are shortages of oil and natural gas for home heating. This would overload the power grid, causing its failure. The nation depends on electric power for: industry; manufacturing; auto, truck, rail, and air transportation (electric motors pump diesel fuel, gasoline, and jet fuel); oil and natural gas heating systems; lighting; elevators; computers; broadcasting stations; radios; TVs; automated building systems; electric doors; telephone and cell phone services; water purification; water distribution; waste water treatment systems; government offices; hospitals; airports; and police and fire services, etc. Phillip Schewe, author of “The Grid: A Journey Through the Heart of Our Electrified World,” writes that the nation’s power infrastructure is “the most complex machine ever made.” In “Lights Out: The Electricity Crisis, the Global Economy, and What It Means To You,” author Jason Makansi emphasizes that “very few people on this planet truly appreciate how difficult it is to control the flow of electricity.” A 2007 report of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) concluded that peak power demand in the U.S. would increase 18% over the next decade and that planned new power supply sources would not meet that demand. NERC also noted concerns with natural gas disruptions and supplies, insufficient capacity for peak power demand during hot summers (due to air conditioning), incapacity in the transmission infrastructure, and a 40% loss of engineers and supervisors in 2009 due to retirements. According to Railton Frith and Paul H. Gilbert, power failures currently have the potential of paralyzing the nation for weeks or months. In an era of multiple crises and resource constraints, power failures will last longer and then become permanent. When power failures occur in winter, millions of people in the U.S. and Canada will die of exposure. There are not enough shelters for entire populations, and shelters will lack heat, adequate food and water, and sanitation. (4) Water purification and water distribution systems will fail, leaving millions of metropolitan residents without water. (5) Waste water treatment systems will fail, resulting in untreated sewage that will contaminate the drinking water for millions of residents who consume river water downstream. (6) Transportation and communications failures will cripple federal, state and local governments -- leaving and residents without emergency services, emergency shelters, police and fire protection, water supplies, and sanitation etc. (7) Mechanized farming will cease, and harvested crops won’t be transported more than a few miles. (8) Food won’t be transported from the Midwest, California, Florida, and Mexico to the U.S. population. (9) Fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides won’t be produced. (10) Due to limited farm acreage, most cities and towns will be unable to support their populations with sufficient food from local farming (see Paul Chefurka and Paul Chefurka). (10) Homes across the U.S. will lack heating. Even if homes are retrofitted with wood stoves, local biomass will be insufficient to provide for home heating, and it will not be possible to cut, split, and move wood in sufficient quantities.

In the coming years, the U.S. faces multiple energy crises. Each crisis will generate delays in handling other crises, thus making it more and more difficult to address multiplying problems. The worse things get, the worse they will get. A grid lock of crises will paralyze the nation.

They won't let me post the link here, but you can get it by googling: clifford wirth and peak oil.

And the skill for dividing a text into paragraphs will be lost. :-)

Paragraphs are for Swedes!

Exactly! Two page paragraphs are impossible to read, so I did not even try.

I just skimmed it, but it still scared the crap out of me.