DrumBeat: May 30, 2008

Amid a sell-off, oil market may have to stop believing its PR

Did record oil prices just get talked to death -- or at least into a short-term coma?

Crude oil futures slumped 3.4% today, the biggest decline in two months, after weeks of headlines suggesting that energy prices were in an unstoppable upward spiral.

"We do know that oil has been the most talked about thing recently, and that things often top or bottom when their moves have attracted a lot of attention," said Brent Luce, a portfolio manager at investment firm CapitalWorks in Cleveland.


Pulse racing ahead with Chinese energy projects
PULSE Energy has fewer than 10 full-time staff but that hasn't stopped it securing a contract for one of the biggest renewable energy projects in the world. . . . .

About 90 per cent of Pulse's activity is in China where, among about $3 billion of contracts, it is working on a 1000 megawatt wind farm in inner Mongolia.

Santos turns up the gas

SANTOS has confirmed that coal seam gas processing in Queensland will soon be a multibillion-dollar industry by selling oil and gas giant Petronas a 40 per cent stake in its CSG operations and planned Gladstone plant.

The $US2.5 billion ($A2.6 billion) deal, with Malaysian government-owned Petronas – the world's third-largest LNG producer – includes an upfront payment of $US2 billion.

New Zealand services under scrutiny in Qantas operations review

Transtasman and New Zealand domestic services are part of a Qantas review of operations which has already seen sweeping cuts to help offset the extra $2 billion in fuel costs it faces this year.

Indonesia fuel price hike necessary to curb poverty: minister

JAKARTA (AFP) -- The Indonesian government's decision to hike the price of fuel by around 30 percent last week was necessary to tackle poverty and inflation, a minister said Thursday.

Information minister Mohammad Nuh defended the price rise amid nearly daily protests across the country and accusations that a cash transfer scheme aimed at softening the impact of the rise was not going to those in need.


US-made oil disaster has mileage

The short answer is that the US Federal Reserve was in large part responsible for the oil price explosion and its volatility, while two successive US administrations have created the oil supply shortfall, again adversely affecting oil prices.

CNOOC's focus not international

CNOOC Ltd, China's biggest offshore oil producer, said overseas acquisitions won't be the main driver of future growth.

The company will rely on existing businesses as its growth engine while overseas asset purchases and takeovers are just one aspect of the overall strategy, Chairman Fu Chengyu said after the annual general meeting in Hong Kong yesterday.

New Lukoil, Gazprom Field Holds 100M Tons of Oil

The Caspian oil and gas field discovered jointly by Russia's OAO Gazprom (GAZP.RS) and OAO Lukoil (LKOH.RS) could hold more than 100 million metric tons, or around 730 million barrels, of oil, a person familiar with the matter told Dow Jones Newswires Thursday.

Earlier the same day, the two companies said they had "discovered a large oil and gas condensate field" in the Caspian Sea's central structure. The companies said they have started a feasibility study of the field, which is located 150 kilometers from Makhach-Kala on the border between Russia and Kazakhstan.

No rise in electricity exports

Cape Town - Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin has denied that South Africa increased its exports of electricity in the first three months of this year, saying that in fact exports fell by 8%.

At the same time, he said, imports also fell.

Eskom CEO: Crisis to last years

Johannesburg - The power shortage that has slowed South Africa's growth and frightened investors will go on for years, the head of Eskom warned on Thursday.

Eskom, which produces about 95% of South Africa's electricity, has rationed power through load-shedding since January, when the national grid virtually collapsed and millions were plunged into darkness.

Blackouts: Prepare for the worst

Johannesburg - South African power utility Eskom on Thursday warned that it could take about two weeks to bring South Africa's power system back up if it were to collapse. . . . .

"I don't want to be alarmist," said Maroga, "but the consequence of a nationwide blackout is not fully understood."

AZERBAIJAN SEES POSITIVE SIGNS FOR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP WITH TURKMENISTAN

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has recently stepped up his ongoing campaign to promote Azerbaijan as the key to Europe’s energy security at a recent energy summit in Kyiv. But this is a role in which Baku needs a supporting actor. Azerbaijani experts believe that the Aliyev administration now has agreements with Turkmenistan to play that part. . . . .

If that trend continues, Shaban believes, an agreement between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan on delineation of their territorial lines could be forthcoming by the time of the summit of Caspian Sea littoral states (Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan) in Baku this September.

Petrobangla seems unable to supply gas to new PDB power projects

DHAKA: Petrobangla wants to sit with the Power Development Board (PDB) to review the gas-based power projects as it may fail to supply gas to the new PDB projects as per commitment. 
"After examining all possible ways to increase gas output from the existing fields', we realise that we need to hold a meeting with the PDB to apprise it of the gas production scenario as we committed to supply gas to their new projects. But unfortunately we may not keep our promise", a top official of Petrobangla told The Independent yesterday.

First licence for LPG auto-gas station issue

KARACHI: A Lahore-based LPG marketing company on Thursday received a licence for setting up an auto-gas station, the first to regularise the sale of this fuel, which is usually marketed by illegal decanters.

Subsidy on kerosene being pocketed by industrialists

SLAMABAD: Millions of rupees in government subsidy on kerosene for providing the poor with the fuel are actually pocketed either by paint manufacturers or adulterators.

Diesel shortage hits truckers again

Doha • Shortage of diesel has hit the local market again after almost a year of the first diesel crisis, says an Arabic daily. Truck drivers and salesmen at petrol stations across the country say there is a severe shortage of the fuel.

The crisis has caused serpentine queues of trucks to be formed in front of several filling stations. Some heavy vehicles are causing traffic jams in Doha and its suburbs as they roam around fuel stations in search of a few gallons of diesel.

Australia looks for power from hot rocks

Brisbane • A small bleak township in Australia’s Outback is sitting on a source of energy that could power the entire nation for thousands of years. Deep beneath the tiny community of Innamincka lie the earth’s hottest rocks and the prospect of endless supplies of geothermal energy is exciting investors as far afield as the UK.

The township in South Australia, not far from the fateful riverbank where the explorers Burke and Wills died of hunger and exposure in 1861, has attracted Geodynamics, one of Australia’s larger renewable energy producers, keen to exploit the hot rocks 4km below the surface.

Naryshkin Says Oil Could Slow Growth

Kremlin chief of staff Sergei Naryshkin warned on Thursday against economic complacency but said that if sensible policies were continued then Russia could be one of the world's top five economies by 2020. Naryshkin, who was appointed President Dmitry Medvedev's chief of staff earlier this month, told the ruling United Russia party that economic stability was not guaranteed forever. . . . .

Investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts that Russia's economy will overtake Britain, France and Germany over the next few decades to become the biggest economy in Europe. Naryshkin said Russian per capita GDP would reach 70 percent of the equivalent level in the United States by 2030. At present, Russian per capita GDP is just 16 percent of the U.S. level.

Regulators Step Up Probes Of Trading in Oil Market

The CFTC's announcement about its oil investigation suggested a single, broad probe that began in December 2007. But people familiar with its enforcement priorities say the agency is pursuing multiple oil investigations, and that many of them relate to one another. CFTC enforcement chief Gregory Mocek said the agency has about 60 manipulation investigations open in various commodity markets.

Platts.Com News Feature: North American Shale Gas

Although much of the industry's attention to future domestic supply has focused on coalbed methane and the deepwater Gulf, shale is making a huge comeback - as evidenced by the surge in activity in Texas' Barnett Shale, which has propelled Devon Energy to the Lone Star State's largest gas producer. And shale formations in other parts of the country, from Wyoming to Arkansas to Appalachia, are attracting millions of dollars of new investment.

Estimates of how much gas is sandwiched between shallow layers of prehistoric mud now as hard as a chalkboard change constantly as more exploration-and-production companies plunk their bets on those quirky, unconventional plays - and have more success coaxing commercial quantities of gas out of them.

Ukrainian Leaders Found Themselves on the Opposite Sides of the Pipeline

According to the information of Kommersant, Ukraine’s President Victor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko have delivered two competing energy plans for the country. Friday, speaking at the Energy Summit in Kiev, Victor Yushchenko suggested creating a gas transporting OPEC, which will transport energy resources omitting Russia. In her turn, Yuliya Tymoshenko intends to settle the gas dispute with Russia promising Russia to prolong the treaty on its Black Sea Fleet deployment and suspend Ukraine’s NATO plans.

Tax windfall enough to cover fuel duty freeze, says IFS

Windfall gains made by the Government from taxes on North Sea oil would more than pay for a postponement of the 2p rise in fuel duty scheduled for this October.

Oil prices to be probed by US regulator CFTC

America's leading commodities regulator has launched an unprecedented investigation into possible market manipulation in the US crude oil market amid record prices which continue to cripple various parts of the global economy.

Burning food: why oil is the real villain in the food crisis

The rising cost of foods is widely being blamed on the use of grains for biofuels, and the case for the prosecution is simply made. About 100m tonnes of maize from this year's US crop will be diverted into ethanol refineries, an increase of a third on 2007's figure. This means one in 20 of all cereal grains produced in the world this year will end up in the petrol tank of US cars, the country that is most aggressively increasing the use of food for fuel.

UK power giant says energy industry on the brink of radical change

Britain's second biggest gas and electricity supplier, Scottish and Southern Energy, warned today the industry stood on the brink of radical change.

Centralised fossil fuel fired generation would have to give way to a combination of energy efficiency and diversity of generation.

"The days of meeting an unchecked demand for energy through monolithic carbon intensive power stations are coming to an end. Increasingly the emphasis will be on energy efficiency, renewables, cleaned up fossil fuel plant and micro generation," the company said in a statement accompanying its full-year results.

Fuel prices spark holiday crunch as air surcharges soar

Families are facing holiday misery this summer after big airlines sharply increased fuel surcharges on their flights, bringing the era of cheap air travel to an end.

Virgin Atlantic is imposing new charges today and, from Tuesday, British Airways long-haul passengers will have to pay £218 on top of the ticket price simply to cover the cost of fuel.

Darkness at noon as National Grid and E.ON dispute price

A rescue plan to avert blackouts that hit 500,000 homes this week was undermined by demands of E.ON, the German energy group, that National Grid pay double the usual price for an emergency electricity boost, The Times has learnt.

New surges in energy bills imminent, says power boss

The chief executive of one of Britain’s largest power companies issued a warning yesterday that further energy price rises were imminent.

AIan Marchant, the chief executive of Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE), which supplies power to 8.45 million UK customers, said that an unprecedented rise in oil prices in recent months meant that the outlook for consumers was not good.

Mounting costs slow the push for clean coal

WASHINGTON: For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground.

President George W. Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of "clean coal." All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.

Social pain of rising fuel costs spreads in Europe

PARIS: When it comes to transportation, Marie Schneberger has always tried to be thrifty. As an airline employee earning a middle-income paycheck, the price of gasoline in France, like elsewhere in Europe, has made it prohibitively expensive for her to ever own anything bigger than a Fiat Panda.

But now that gasoline prices have surged past €1.40 a liter, or the equivalent of $8.21 a gallon, on much of the Continent, she has cut back even more. Recently, Schneberger started taking the Métro to work. Now, she shares her subcompact car with two other women to split fuel costs.

Patrick signs bill to manage ocean resources

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday signed the nation's first comprehensive ocean planning law to guide where pipelines should be laid, areas should be protected, and energy projects built. . . .

The plan will not affect the Nantucket wind farm, nor the new liquefied natural gas port off Gloucester, both of which are in federal waters.

As Oil Prices Soar, Restaurant Grease Thefts Rise

The bandit pulled his truck to the back of a Burger King in Northern California one afternoon last month armed with a hose and a tank. After rummaging around assorted restaurant rubbish, he dunked a tube into a smelly storage bin and, the police said, vacuumed out about 300 gallons of grease.

How Abu Dhabi Differs From Exxon

Abu Dhabi, the largest of seven sheikhdoms in the United Arab Emirates, is swimming in oil revenue - and it's investing some of that money in solar power. That's more than can be said for Exxon Mobil Corp., which rebuffed a Rockefeller initiative at yesterday's annual meeting to nudge the company toward renewable energy. A shareholder resolution sponsored by the company's founding family was easily defeated.

Coal seam gas seen as Asia's next hot energy play

PERTH (Reuters) - Surging gas prices are increasingly drawing new investors to Asia's nascent coalbed methane (CBM) seams, an underutilized energy source that analysts say could meet a sizeable part of the region's gas needs in coming years.

Ken Deffeyes: Oil Production, Oil Price

In 2005, world oil production stopped growing and oil prices shot up uncontrollably. My graph of production versus price is now two weeks old and the price is already off the top of the paper. This morning, West Texas Intermediate is $130 per barrel. In Econ 101, they taught us that increasing prices would enlarge the supply. The economists may have envisioned a large inventory of oil wells, temporarily shut down because of low oil prices.

Riders Swamp Public Transit

Under normal circumstances, the surge in ridership would be a boon to the agencies, which have long argued that public transit is one of the best ways to combat social ills such as traffic congestion and global warming.

But at the very moment they should be investing to expand their services, the same driver that is ballooning ridership is crippling transit budgets: steep fuel bills. As record numbers of people board buses and trains, higher costs are forcing public transit agencies to scale back on services, further straining capacity. Local transit agencies fret that the capacity problems may squander the opportunity to convert more Americans to public transportation.

Lehman Bros warns of oil dot.com

“Summer market tightness could, under these circumstances, continue to propel oil prices upward to untested levels. But when peak prices hit, we believe they are also likely to fall precipitously.

“That is the way cyclical turning points tend to occur-in the midst of a market trend, turning points can be sudden, unexpected, and severe. If history is a guide, the turning point will come, getting the timing right is the difficult part.”

Create your own solar energy at home

But energy independence is not some far-off dream: High quality solar technology exists here and now. The initial investment cost is still high, but as more and more folks purchase solar collection equipment it will become less expensive.

I'm currently building my own solar system (not the planet type) thus far I have managed to build 6 70W panels at a cost of $170 each. Not to difficult and I'm saving a fortune. For commercial panels with the same output your looking at $800-$1000.

Would you email me at rogue@rogueriver.net? thanks.

Building panels? What are you doing? Soldering individual cells together? If this is the case, please post details on how you are managing to accomplish this, as $170 for 70w is cheap! I just purchased two 160w panels at $500 each, and thought I was getting a fair deal! :P

~Durandal (http://www.wtdwtshtf.com)

Best i've seen in UK is roughly £2.70 /W. I would only start buying at £1(2$) per Watt.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/180-Watt-Mono-Crystalline-Solar-Panel-24-v_W0QQite...

Simply buy groups of individual cells on ebay and build the panel yourself, it's not rocket science. A simple panel, and charge controller/inverter design can be found here http://www.mdpub.com/SolarPanel/index.html but you may want to build yours to last. I believe most of the cells come from factory seconds or damaged panels. If you have the time it's well worth it. Enjoy.

Feel free to email me steven.j.moody[at]gmail.com if you need more info.

If you were to have the cells seperated enough, you could use fresnel lenses to increase the output per cell, although you would then need to add a heat-sink to the back of the cell to avoid frying it. An example of such a thing I found was at:
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/

You could also use mirrors to amplify the output as well, for less of an effect...

Indeed. I've also started scraping old rear projection tv's for their Fresnel lens. Great for cooking and potentially a valuable barter item in the next 15-30 years. Typically you can pick up a 50" lens for $10-$40.

Yeah, that's a good price/watt. ( $2.42 )

Would you mind tossing out a few more details? Where do you get the source materials, and what are you embedding them in? (Assuming Silicon PV here)

Hope you're venting your solder fumes!

Best,
Bob Fiske

but as more and more folks purchase solar collection equipment it will become less expensive

You think so? I have been holding out for cheaper solar panels ever since the early days of the UK programme "Tomorrows World" touted a new generation of solar panels. 25 years on and we are still waiting. The most recent thin film shows promise but I will only be satisfied when I can walk out to a hardware store and buy a 100W panel for about £100!! ($200).

I share your hope Antidoomer, but unfortunately not your ill concieved optimism.

Marco.

One part of the problem is that when Carter created the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, it started out with a staff of 1200. In 1980 the staff was reduced by Reagan to 400 and not increased subsequently. Also, general funding for solar research wasn't a big priority. So progress has been much slower than it could have been because of these things, at least in the U.S. However, there are some very exciting achievements being made in solar right now, such as multijunction panels, etc. The only caveat is that I think these new cells will cost more not less.

I'm sorry Gwydion, this sounds too close to the "not enough investment in oil" excuse as to why oil production is not increasing.

In actual fact one of the biggest blocks on reducing the price of photovoltaics has been the cost of good qulity silicon and the energy it takes to process from start to finish. This is where thin film stands the greatest chance I think.

marco.

Sure there's going to be a limit to what can be done but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing it. There are big differences to the oil though, on oil we're at the end of over 100 years of R&D on oil extraction. It's highly probable that there isn't too much more to learn or to try to get more oil out than what we're already doing.

We don't have nearly that knowledge for what is possible with solar power -- for example, I have ten year old textbooks that say the maximum possible efficiency of a silicon solar cell is going to be on the order of 20%. If you look at that link I put up they're aiming at 33% efficiency for the full cell and 20-25% for the thin films. Why the breakthrough? No one in the past had thought to include multijunctions that use the same photon to generate multiple electrons. This is kinda like the big, medium and little cylinders on the old ship engines to get the most mechanical work out of the steam.

It's not just silicon either, Michel Grätzel has his colloidal TiO2 cell that he covers with a ruthenium bispyridine dye that can absorb light from nearly the entire spectrum. The efficiency is not so good, but it's a lot cheaper than silicon. There's some other organic dyes that are being looked at as well.

I guess the point is that solar power is not going to be a panacea and we may never get to the point where you can go pick up a solar cell for 100 pounds. I think it's going to have to be one tool in the toolbox though to replace fossil fuels because we have no other choice, it's either do that or poison ourselves with coal or go back to the stone age as Deffeyes says.

*AND* it's just placing blame (just pile it on the republicans in general, why not ?).

Placing blame produces 0 barrels of oil. It only has the potential to produce barrels of blood.

Btw. for the immediate future I like the republican energy policy : more nuclear power for short term in combination pushing market to plug-in hybrids first, plug-in only in a few years.

For the long term using energy research, because, frankly, we have no good options now. Perhaps solar is a solution for florida (I think not), but it most defineately is not a solution for alaska. So we'll need something else too. Besides, solar isn't where it should be.

Obama's policy, centering around biofuels and govt. handouts is a disaster waiting to happen. He will continue to do what he did in the senate, which is to say, nothing at all. His program :

* Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

Fine, doesn't help at all (in fact it makes stuff worse. By 2050 there won't be any oil to produce those emissions anyway, so if you're going to put 2050 as a limit date why even bother ? It also "just happens" that 2050 is LONG after his term as commisar, i mean president, ends)

* Invest in a Clean Energy Future

Great ! In a disney fairy tale sort of way.

* Support Next Generation Biofuels

VERY bad.

* Set America on Path to Oil Independence

Great ! In a disney fairy tale sort of way.

* Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

Great ! That would be energy efficiency per person I imagine, which will save us exactly ... 50%/1.5 = 30%. And that's assuming that under Obama immigration doesn't increase immensely.

* Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

Can you say "not making any relevant commitments". People have to live. People will live, and the energy savings won't happen in Obama's plan.

Nature is, at best, 2% efficient in converting solar radiation into energy. PV is right now 15%. Biofuels ARE NOT GOING TO CUT IT, not now, not ever. Right now plants have a temp. reprieve because they're cheaper to make than PV.

PV has the additional advantage that, once installed, it requires no more oil. Biofuels require constant oil imput, a new input every year in the form of fertilizer. Furthermore PV doesn't have to compete with normal agriculture and therefore PV can provide fuel WITHOUT taking away food. If we don't have food, power doesn't matter.

I agree that he can handout mucho govt. cash to his friends with agri subsidies, but they will only worsen things by making PV more expensive (and I'm sure that once energy is dependant on agri they won't push for "regulating the dangers of PV", right ?)

People have to live. People will live, and the energy savings won't happen in Obama's plan.

More impressive to me than any government law or regulation would be a leader who was honest about the problems that we are facing and one who would ask people to live with less. Many people are operating on the assumption that oil will be $60 or $40 or even $20 at some point in the future. They've seen oil prices fluctuate up and down and the media constantly blames OPEC, speculators, or "big oil" for high energy prices. It's the combination of every individual learning to conserve that might help mitigate our decline. Waiting for the market to send the correct signal is a disaster because we're constantly being told, "Don't worry, this will pass. There's technology out there that will save us. Keep on keeping on. Your lifestyle is not negotiable!"

Had we had this type of leadership over the last 7 years (or better yet 30 years), maybe we'd be better prepared for this. The peanut farmer warned us all about this and we laughed at him building SUV's, exurbs, and the "3,000 mile ceasar salad".

How about the responsibility of the public? Every single time a USA politician says anything half truthful the guy gets in trouble and you wonder why they lie habitually? It is literally a job requirement.

How about the responsibility of the public?

The public has ultimate responsibility. I hear people complain that the MSM is obsessed with Britney Spears, American Idol, Barry Bonds, but ultimately the TV news media has learned what people like like scandal, celebrity and talking heads yelling at each other. I hear people complain about Congress, but (those that bother to vote) re-elect the incumbent over 90% of the time. I hear people complain about higher gas prices, but many burn extra gas so they can race to the next stoplight or wait in the drive through at Starbucks.

Every single time a USA politician says anything half truthful the guy gets in trouble and you wonder why they lie habitually? It is literally a job requirement.

An incoming President, need not worry about this. He has four years to make things better. The first step to fixing a problem lies with recognizing that there is in fact a problem. We have yet to reach that point, but I would rather have people hear it from a leader, then learn about it about when they can't fill up because the pumps are dry.

An incoming President, need not worry about this.

I disagree. A president's power is in large measure based on his popularity. In particular, he has to worry about the mid-term elections, and re-election for a second term.

Some have suggested that presidents should be elected for a single six-year term, to try and minimize this problem, but I don't know how much that would help. He'd still have to worry about Congress; presidents can't really do much without the backing of Congress.

A president's power is in large measure based on his popularity.

A president's power is measured in whether they can get the things done that they want to get done. GWB has had neither popularity nor the backing of Congress since the mid-term elections and yet he managed to keep his Iraq policy intact. The "surge" was very unpopular and Dems controlled the house and the Senate and yet GWB got exactly what he wanted. Last time I checked, he was still funding the GWOT with appropriations, despite his lack of popularity and a Democratically controlled congress (with the ensuing hearings, investigations etc).

The fallacy here is that a message of conservation will be universally unpopular. I see dozens of examples of "greenwashing" everyday. I hear the word "sustainability" used to describe everything from organic farming to car manufacturing :-0 In the last month we've seen PO stories hit the MSM. From Wendell Goler asking the POTUS if if global oil production has peaked to the WSJ article on exports yesterday. Americans are slowly starting to figure it out. The last thing we need is a leader who wants to lower prices through a "tax holiday" or some other idiocy.

From CNBC Poll(unscientific web poll)

Who (or what) do you most blame for the high price of oil and gas? * 405 responses
25% OPEC - they're squeezing us for every dollar they can get.

10% Federal Reserve - they should have never reduced interest rates to these levels.

35% Consumers - we take gas for granted and drive huge SUVs.

14% President Bush - He should have never socked away so much oil in the strategic reserve.

16% Other - (tell us in an e-mail)

Ultimately, we probably agree that no matter what policies are put in place, things don't look good. I think we are way past population overshoot as evidenced by AGW and food, fuel, fertilizer, and power shortages. I think mother nature will tire of all of the hairless monkeys running around spoiling the planet. When she does, she'll smack us down with disease or a rapid shift in climate. But that's just the misanthropic part of my split personality. The hopeful (weren't we discussing naivete yesterday?) part of me hopes we do better before this happens. The catabolic collapse you and others describe is the worst scenario IMO. Long before we get to 30 or 40 years from now, we'll have reduced biodiversity and eliminated so many species and released so many toxins that the ecosystem will be a mess.

A president's power is measured in whether they can get the things done that they want to get done. GWB has had neither popularity nor the backing of Congress since the mid-term elections and yet he managed to keep his Iraq policy intact.

Inertia is on his side. Keeping the status quo is easier than making changes.

Everyone wishes we hadn't gone into Iraq, but now that we are in, most Americans - and most American politicians - do not think we should just pull out. Unfortunately. I think Bush, or his handlers, planned it this way, too. They're trying to set it up so that future presidents will find it difficult if not impossible to extricate us from Iraq.

The "surge" was very unpopular and Dems controlled the house and the Senate and yet GWB got exactly what he wanted.

He can make unpopular decisions like that, because he's a lame duck. I've said it before: if any politician could tell Americans the truth about peak oil, it's Bush. Doesn't look like he's going to, though.

The fallacy here is that a message of conservation will be universally unpopular.

It won't be. What will be unpopular, IMO, is telling people that it's not temporary. That the American way of life is coming to an end. I think that will be very unpopular, among Democrats as well as Republicans.

Polls are crap. Talk is cheap. What people do is something else.

Take those polls that suggest that 80% of the American people want prayer back in public schools. Yet it's been decades, and still no prayer in schools. Why is that? Because the support may be broad, but it's shallow. Few people actually care enough to vote on this issue, so nothing happens.

I think it's the same with environmental issues. They have broad support. Who wants to tell their kids they hate polar bears and love pollution? But the environmental support is all talk. Few vote on the issue. Let alone stop driving their SUVs if they can afford to drive them.

I saw this firsthand when I visited a friend in Ohio last week. She has a big SUV. It made sense when she had four children to haul around. But now all her children are grown, and have moved out of the state. She says she's concerned about climate change, etc., and drives her SUV carefully in order to conserve gas. No jackrabbit starts or stomping on the brakes. But the idea of getting a smaller car is out of the question. Even though usually the only person she's hauling around now is herself. She's well-off, and could afford gas even if it was $100 a gallon, and sees no reason to switch to a smaller car.

The catabolic collapse you and others describe is the worst scenario IMO.

I agree, but in my view, it is by far the most likely scenario.

[Holds up flag of surrender.]
Well argued as usual. I have neither the time, inclination (nor probably intelligence for that matter) to refute your points. I enjoy these debates with you cause when I start feeling like I'm the most skeptical person in the world, you show me that there's an entirely new level of cynicism that I've failed to grasp ;-). Cheers.

I think both of you are missing a very significant part of BuCheney's power: fear. Americans actually live in fear of being named an enemy combatant and disappeared. They fear another war being started. They fear martial law.

Neither Obama nor Hillary will be feared, thus, they will be less effective unless they have the necessary majorities in Congress.

Cheers

I think you're absolutely wrong on this.

Americans may be afraid, but that's not what they're afraid of. If they were, they wouldn't have elected Bush and Cheney.

Nope, Americans who are fearful think the GOP (the "daddy party") will protect them better than the Democrats (the "mommy party"). They fear another terrorist attack. Or a conventional attack. Most people give no thought at all to the idea of being "disappeared." I don't think most Americans are even aware of the concept.

Unless "daddy" is an abusive drunk who plays with guns...

I did say "a" significant part. Perhaps I should have added "some" Americans. And there is no way in hell am wrong about this. Talk to anyone who is on the no-fly list, anyone who has gotten a letter from the FBI. Those Americans who don't fear this don't because they think they are one of the "good guys," i.e., a con/neo-con, or have "It can't happen to me" syndrome or just don't understand the world they currently live in. People who are aware of the deep cuts made into the fabric of the Constitution cannot but fear this. Else, why all the concern over NSPD 51 and Iran?

I should clarify that these fears may not necessarily be for themselves, but for others or our nation in general.

In the end, there is a significant portion of the populace that actually thinks about these things. (I am one of them.) What is the percentage? I don't know. I suspect at a subconscious level nearly everyone is affected.

One reason I am mostly content to be where I am is because I think it far from a long shot that an attack on Iran, a stolen election or martial law will happen before Bush leaves office. Couple The Perfect Storm with the geopolitical craziness and we're in an anything-can-happen mode.

The fearful you speak of are the fears of the cons/neo-cons. I was not speaking of that sub-group.

Cheers

And there is no way in hell am wrong about this.

So basically you're yourself a conspiracy theorist who doesn't care about facts ?

Sentences like this do indeed illuminate the rest of your post you know. Talk about generating fear in people. And obviously you accuse the other side of generating fear of you, while you are telling them that the other side will "disappear" (which you strongly insinuate means murder) them.

Hypocrisy ... such a comfort.

I disagree. The fear that has been used is the fear of terrorism and/or "islamo-fascism". People have been convinced that if we don't act, we'll be attacked again or worse our country will be taken over. Few people take the time to actually analyze that the danger of dying in a car wreck is far more likely than becoming a victim of an act of terror. Modern humans are very poor at determining the really risky things in their lives. If they were, less people would fear bears or sharks and more would be afraid of automobiles.

I've said it before: if any politician could tell Americans the truth about peak oil, it's Bush. Doesn't look like he's going to, though.

I think he already has, or been trying to, at least as much as his bosses have let him.
One of the TOD top quotes is Bush in May 2000
"What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of
energy in America."

And this one from a TV interview with CNBC's Ron Insana (sorry, no link )

"(In this decade)we're just going to have to change our habits. ......
we're going to have to think about how to drive different..... the hydrocarbon society will still be with us, but it can't be with us to the extent it is today."

-- President George W. Bush -- April 19, 2005

And we have Gails post
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3514

And last year Drumbeat had a link from a Whitehouse Q+A w/ Bush and Sarcozy (i think)
Bush answered a reporter that high oil was caused by diminishing supply. I should have bookmarked that one.

My civics (now there's a word that will date you) is a little rusty so please help.

It seems that having a majority in either the House or Senate - or both - of the other party fom the POTUS is not "good enough". You need to have enough to block filibusters override POTUS veto, etc.

Well - that assumes the POTUS is not a uniter and instead a divider in spite of the fact he/she may be the decider.

As I understand it, the reason the shrub got the ongoing Iraq war funding - for example - was that the Dems could not get enough votes to overide (threatened) POTUS veto. It would seem to me you could keep tossing up a modified bill to the POTUS and let them get vetoed ad nauseum until someone caved - silly maybe - and certainly I am missing something...

Anyway... what are the rules for POTUS veto override, blocking filiBLUSTER, etc.

Pete

Anyway... what are the rules for POTUS veto override, blocking filiBLUSTER, etc.

You need 60 votes (out of 100) in the Senate to override a filibuster or other administrative trickery. You need 67 votes to override a veto. In the house a simple majority (out of 435) will pass any legislation or motion while 2/3's majority is needed to override a veto (291 votes).

If the dems wanted to get bloody, they could have prevented the war from continuing by failing to pass the war funding appropriations bills. This is what ultimately brought an end to the Vietnam war, Congress cut off the funding. I suspect the Iraq will end in the same manner, it's simply a question of how many more bodies and treasure will be squandered in the interim.

This is what ultimately brought an end to the Vietnam war, Congress cut off the funding. I suspect the Iraq will end in the same manner, it's simply a question of how many more bodies and treasure will be squandered in the interim.

Probably. Especially if it's President McCain who's the decider.

Though even Obama didn't vote to cut off funding. And I don't blame him. This is a much more difficult problem than Vietnam was, if only because of the oil involved.

if only because of the oil involved.

Bah.

Strikes little old me that there is a gravy-train (not the dog food) in DC. Bucking that means you could not have 31 million in spare cash to loan to yourself. Or however you feather your DC roost.

Few in Washington have "man'ed up" over the years. 'Go along to get along' or 'the nail which stands up gets pounded down' is a common human mantra. If everyone else is doing X, why stand out? Really. Why stand out? Its not like you'll end up naked and shivering in the gutter.

(Pls post any pictures of Congress-Kritters naked shivering in the gutter just to prove me wrong)