http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINL0244122320080602
Caspian CPC May oil exports fall 9.5 pct vs April

MOSCOW, June 2 (Reuters) - Kazakh and Russian oil exports via the Caspian Pipeline Consortium to the Black Sea fell to 677,795 barrels per day in May, down by 9.5 percent from 748,947 bpd in April, the consortium said on its website.

It gave no reason for the decrease.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121254369208443705.html
Ed McMahon May Lose Beverly Hills Home

Ed McMahon, the longtime sidekick to television star Johnny Carson, faces the possible loss of his Beverly Hills home to a foreclosure action initiated by a unit of Countrywide Financial Corp.

Howard Bragman, a spokesman for Mr. McMahon, said late Tuesday that his client is having "very fruitful discussions" with the lender and hopes to find a resolution. It isn't clear whether that would allow the 85-year-old Mr. McMahon and his wife, Pamela, to remain in the six-bedroom home.

I saw McMahon on a show called the Dog Whisperer a few months ago-he has a hot young wife-those aren't cheap when you are 85 years old-so I guess he's going out with a bang.

To me a young wife doesn't fully explain his predicament. According to Wikipedia he was worth 200 million in the 1990s which sounds about right for a guy who has been in show business since the 1950's He was on a show with Carson for 5 years, on the Tonight Show for 30 years, did a show with Dick Clark for 16 years, hosted Star Search for 12 years, was on a TV show with Tom Arnold for a year, was a spokesperson for Publishers Clearing House, did lots of Budweiser commercials and probably had other endorsements. Wikipedia also says he had several expensive divorce settlements, but California law only gives the spouse half of what was earned during the marriage, not even half of all assets. He hurt himself and hasn't been able to work for a a year and a half, but to go from 200 million net worth to being 644,000 dollars behind in your mortgage payments is astonishing to me. If you have a real vice, like gambling or expensive art of other collectibles, isn't their some way to put some money into a trust that pays you income but doesn't allow you to get at it?

If you have a real vice, like gambling or expensive art of other collectibles, isn't their some way to put some money into a trust that pays you income but doesn't allow you to get at it?

You don't even need a vice, real or otherwise. You just set up a trust, as I have, and once your mortgage is paid, deed your property to the trust and have it pay all related taxes/expenses. If one is wise and affluent enough, have the trust pay all your bills, insurance premiums, etc., and provide you with a stipend that allows for comfortable living without depleting the trust.

No offence to you as I am sure you are a great guy but F#@%ing A!

That people think that they can simply exist and live the American lifestyle, riding on stored wealth is a crock of O-NPK (no offence totonelia).

The one and only reason there is excess wealth to be stored and for you and many others to suck the teat of is because the US has raped and pillaged the rest of the World securing way more than our fair share of what the world has to offer , even in the face of mass death and suffering .

There is not extra.

Just as ethanol and bio-fuel in general is not sustainable because there is no waste in biomass.

Something must do without and die.

But hey, Nighty night, sleep tight

The one and only reason there is excess wealth to be stored and for you and many others to suck the teat of is because the US has raped and pillaged the rest of the World securing way more than our fair share of what the world has to offer , even in the face of mass death and suffering .

You don't think I know that as a historian of the US Empire? Have you not read my goals for the wholesale rollback of the US Empire to try and attempt to mitigate the disaster we've wrought?

What I described above is a vehicle put in place by my familial anscestors that is based upon several generations of hard won work and savings that I have the privilige of managing, along with caring for my remaining elders who built the vehicle.

I've never seen you accuse the many here who are obviously using this forum for advancing their own self interest.

For your information, I'm trying in an admittedly slow and halting fashion to establish a Lifeboat/Post-Carbon relocalized community not far to the west of Corvallis, and trying to make my community of Yachats and that of greater Lincoln county Peak Oil aware, and using funds from my Family Trust to do so. My elders are very much aware of the situation--both Peak Oil and Climate Change--and are quite alarmed, and want to do what they can through the utilization of their resources to build for the future in the best spirit of our communistic community and county. I donate the fruits of my labor on a weekly basis to retirees and Food Share. I try to teach others on other internet forums about Peak Oil, which as we all know is a thankless task in most cases.

Yes, I'm lucky. I have a modicum of security. I worked hard for it as did my ancestors. I did it through long hours managing resaturants and institutional food services, and then teaching at the community college level. My ancestors were also teachers and farmers, paternally immigrants from Spain in 1911; maternally, from Ohio and the reservations of Arizona Territory.

Yes, I'm a contradiction: a radical with affluent means. If that pisses you off, then that's your problem.

Before now, I'd hoped to meet you and talk shop; it seemed natural as we're geograpically close and actually share many ideals/goals. But now you're coming across as someone wanting to attack my farm out of envy as opposed to helping it grow and feed others not as fortunate as myself and my ancestors.

You are showing through your behavior how it's possible for good people to go bad in a Mad Max scenario. You show why Envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Not envy in the least and if you have not noticed I am very consistent on this issue. I have ranted about others using TOD as a source of inside info to cash in on.

People on this site talk about how impossible it is to get any one to move on the big issues facing the world and I watch those same people talk about how they need to protect their "store of wealth".

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!

We will do nothing that adversely effects our wealth. The US will do nothing about GW, because it might adversely effect our wealth. The only "solutions" we will entertain re GW, PO, etc. will be ones that enhance our wealth.

Well this IS the problem is it not?

The accumulation of, and the storing of wealth is what caused the problems facing us and I do believe you understand this yet even you can only think in terms of protecting/enhancing your wealth.

My anger is not aimed at you specifically nor at wealthy in general (what is wealthy?) but at this incredibly destructive and self-destructive system we are caught up in.

I apologies for singling you out but please keep your wealth in your pocket and stop waving it around in a forum that discusses the death of millions which is decided primarily by the size of their pocketbook.

yet even you can only think in terms of protecting/enhancing your wealth.

Excuse me, but I said I'm working to utilize my family's store of accumulated wealth to enhance the lives of others, while maintaining economic security for my family. I didn't create the economic system we must operate within. I'm trying to use it to enable myself and others to break away from it as we must when it finally collapses. Altruism is the term.

And sociologically, in all primate societies, the welfare of the immediate group comes first. This forms our primary cultural behavior pattern. Some have tried to expand this fundamental caring beyond the immediate familial group to include ever larger groupings--the ultimate goal of socialism. Basicly, there are people willing to share and those who aren't. Religion tries to accomodate and mitigate this fundamental antagonism, which in most cases ends in failure.

Until the system changes into one where accumulating wealth isn't required to accomplish public goods, then it will remain the source of both good and bad deeds.

Natural selection in action. Those who have resources will try to use them to assure their survival and the survival of their families. Resources can be "wealth" or actual physical resources. The response is the same.

Don't like it? Bitch at Gaia and Darwin, not here.

GZ - you miss the point.

You bitch about the fact that nothing is being done or the wrong things are being done and I'm simply pointing out why.

I would also argue that your "triage" is occuring right now and the selections on who lives and who dies is decided by $.

Such is the way it is and always has been so if you are ok with that then sit back and watch.

I'm not ok with it not because I'm poor, I will fare better than most, I just think it stinks and if people understood this better, and they just might at some point, they are going to think it stinks too.

The one and only reason there is excess wealth to be stored and for you and many others to suck the teat of is because the US has raped and pillaged the rest of the World securing way more than our fair share of what the world has to offer , even in the face of mass death and suffering .

Can you give some examples of what you are talking about regarding "raped and pillaged". I can see where the destruction of this continent has been severe, including the mass murders of a people who were living a sustainable lifestyle and the destruction of massive amounts of forests. But what are you talking about regarding the rest of the World? Would you make the same comment of a wealthy person in Switzerland?

If you need examples of the U.S. imposing hegemony and usurping the resources of poor countries, then you just haven't been paying attention! ;) I think his point is that there are sundry externalities that support the decadent lifestyle of Americans. And Energy Descent is going to tear down and then turn a harsh light onto the intricate dying connections that support the throw-away cheap oil lifestyle.

What have we usurped outside the US? (Usurp 1 a: to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right b: to take or make use of without right )

If you say Iraq, that hasn't been a source of wealth at this point. What have we usurped - siezed without right - from other countries that made us wealthy?

The "raping and pillaging" was/is institutionalized through IMF, World Bank and WTO policies, as this item about Africa makes clear. And prior to that we had "traditional" Imperialism/Colonialism.

A thesis was put forward by Eric Williams in Capitalism & Slavery that African Chattel Slavery provided the capital required for the West to industrialize; thus, the Swiss being the Bankers of Europe, certainly benefited. Indeed, it's been put forth that all whites, even the poorest and those imprisoned and transported, benefited from slavery. That such theses are controversial in the White world is unsurprising.

I can't believe I didn't think of US slavery. That was pretty pathetic on my part.

But as far as you article goes, I am totally fed up with some guy in a suit talking like they know the story and not saying a thing about population. Africa doesn't have enough food for its people and loans from the IMF are talked about and not a word about their rapid population growth for decades, if not a century? Alarming, astonishing, startling, and in the end I have only one thing to say to the guy in the article - sit down and put a sock in it. How many back flips will these old pundits do before they ever find the balls to talk about population growth?

THis response is real late in the day, so to speak, and unlikely to be read. Anyway, I've read Walden Bello's items for the last 2 decades and on many occasions he's talked about the issue of population. In fact, he was one of the few "pundits" to incorporate the Limits to Growth implications into his analysis. There is also a very substantial record of the cited Western institutions neocolonial/neoimperialist policy goals and depradations.

I suggest you read When Corporations Rule The World and a few other holistic information sources to increase your knowledge of how the System and its managers work.

He needs to talk about it all the time. Particularly when he is talking about Africa not having enough food now when it used to. They also have a lot more people than they used to.

If you want to place the poverty of Africa on Western corporations and countries, you are leaving one group out. African leaders. There are no invasions taking place in Africa from the west. Anything that takes place in Africa takes place with the approval of their leaders.

Anything that takes place in Africa takes place with the approval of their leaders.

How democratic have those, mostly educated at Western institutions, Compradore Leaders been? How many enslaved "their" populaces to loans they skimmed 20-30% or more from and moved to Swiss accounts before being thrown out via a coup or revolution? I totally disagree with your assertion that "There are no invasions taking place in Africa from the west," as invasions don't need to be made by armies to be devastating.

I think this is why the ancient world viewed usury (charging interest) as such a terrible sin. It's "money for nothing" - wealth gained without actually working or producing anything. Useful as credit/investment is, the steady-state economies of the time simply could not afford to carry very many people who did not work.

Particularly when they were already carrying knights and so on, who cost a fortune - the cost of a suit of armour was about equivalent to the price of a tank in relative purchasing terms.
It was also a convenient excuse for defaulting on debt, as they could simply massacre their creditors - did someone say: Congressional Committee' and 'speculators'?
The more common people were also rather upset by being thrown off their land when they had had to take on debt due to a poor harvest, and the elite did little to shield them - 'repossession' anyone?

Joan Rivers nailed it.

'Now tell me,. What attracted you to a small , bald, 80 year old BILLIONAIRE?'.

Speaking of declining oil exports. . .

http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2008/6/Pages/06042008_9c3b2fe49a4a41...
Shura member calls for oil production curbs in Saudi

Saudi Arabia's Shura council (parliament) will hold a series of meetings over the next two weeks to discuss a controversial proposal by a key member to curb oil production to save reserves for better prices, Saudi media reported. The council will listen to a report by deputy chairman of the Shura water and public utilities committee, Salim bin Rashid Al Marri, who will argue for cutting crude supplies to maintain the Kingdom's underground reserves.

"Marri will seek to persuade council members that the oil production must be linked to the country's actual development needs not the needs of foreign consumers," Alriyadh newspaper said in a report from the capital Riyadh. "He will tell the Council that keeping sufficient oil quantities underground is a good investment for the future as oil prices will then be higher…he will argue that this will be better than producing more oil and generating financial surpluses on the grounds these surpluses are causing inflation."

Saudi Arabia is the world's top oil exporter and its crude policy is normally determined by the King as the oil minister's job is mainly to implement that policy.

In related news, the Texas Railroad Commission again lowered Texas production allowables, in accordance with its 36 year policy of voluntarily lowering oil production, because of a persistent inability to find buyers for all of its production, even its "light/sweet production."

http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2007/07/net-oil-exports-and-iron-triangl...
Net Oil Exports and the “Iron Triangle” (July, 2007)

If one resides in the oil industry leg of the Iron Triangle, and if one has concluded that Peak Oil is upon us, or extremely close, does one say, "We cannot increase our production," and thereby encourage massive conservation and alternative energy efforts, or does one say "We choose not to increase production and/or we are temporarily unable to increase production for the following reasons (fill in the blank)?"

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Relying on the vagaries of the market or the vagaries of the Saudis has proven to be a recipe for doom. We cannot even get an extension of the renewable energy credits through congress. But congress is riding to the rescue with plans to strangle speculation, the obvious true cause of all our woes. Once that has been cleaned up by closing the "Enron loophole", we can all go back to $1.50 gasoline. Which reminds me. I need to check on that bid I placed for USO.

I've been wondering lately if Peak Oil will ever be recognized as a cause for high price of oil, no matter how how the price goes or how short the supply is. As you are suggesting, it will always get spun as "countries are hording", or "security premium" or "speculators" or "lack of refineries", etc. I'm really starting to think the media will always spin it in some other way than "there is less oil available".

Human nature tends to react in similar ways to disaster whatever the age.
When the Black Death came to Europe in the 14th century although many physicians correctly looked to physical causes, and even had a try at identifying them, unfortunately looking in the wrong places, overwhelmingly people blamed sin as the triggering cause.
Remedies included the flagellant movement which sought to win back God's favour through the suffering that they inflicted on themselves.
Finding a scapegoat was another option, and the Jews provided that, and they were accused of causing the plague, although many remarked that they were also suffering.
Rather better hygiene and care in the ghettos meant that they did rather better than some of the other urban populations, so that gave the rumours additional credibility.
These diversions suited the elites quite well, as in the Jewish case that conveniently cancelled debts they had built up, and the flagellants were crushed when they became too much of a nuisance and challenged the church's authority.

Perhaps something of a cautionary tale for the elites happened in come central America societies, as one of their functions was to ensure good weather, and human sacrifice was used to procure the favour of the Gods in this.
When eventually this dis not work, the elites seem to have been massacred by a disgruntled population.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/17/news/maya.php

So I would expect much effort to be expended on finding a scapegoat, perhaps Saudi or speculators, and popular movements to be humoured, such as fuel tax reductions.

Let's hope that we follow the example of the Mayans in dealing with our masters!

Uh, would you happen to know where I can get some really, really sharp chunks of obsidian?

Yeah, in east-central Oregon west of Burns is a place called Glass Butte, which has all sorts of multicolored obsidian right at the surface, and is open to "mining" by the public. Obsidian, as you likely know, is made sharper by flaking, as in the process of making arrowheads.

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9798/Sep10_97/surgery.htm

"I like the obsidian knife because it traumatizes the tissue less,"

DaveMart, according to the link you provide, the Mayan royal household in question was massacred by another royal household, not by disgruntled hoi polloi.

Even so, perhaps we can learn some lessons from the Maya collapse. First, it was slow, taking over a century before the highland cities were abandoned, and much longer in the Yucatan. Second, Mayan culture didn't disappear - in fact, now that the hieroglyphs have largely been translated, we've discovered that several modern Mayan rituals are depicted in Classic-period monuments. There was still a literate class when the Spanish arrived.

Village life was much the same before and after the collapse. What disappeared was the institution of kingship, the building of cities, massive agricultural projects, and wide-scale trade.

Oh, and the population density dropped to a fraction of what it had been during the Classic period - perhaps to as little as a tenth of peak population - despite the fact that even Classic Maya civilization was primarily stone-age. After the collapse, there were no institutions with the power or authority to concentrate social capital on large-scale agriculture.

Serves me right for not reading the link properly!
I based what I said on memory of a TV program, which referred to a South American or Central American society where it was felt that the hoi polloi murdered the elite - they knew they were elite due to the way the teeth were filed, and I seem to recall had jewels implanted.
The houses of the common people were untouched, but the temples were also sacked.
When I googled to try to source my recollection that was one of the links that came up.
I suspect it was the same incident, but with a different gloss on it from different academics.

Jeff, this is big. Thanks for posting it. I found this paragraph most enlightening.

According to the newspaper, Marri scoffed at what he called fears that the price of oil will decline after the development of more energy sources. "These fears are unjustified because they come from the consumers who are only benefiting from higher production and from the country's enemies who do not like to see prosperity and progress in Saudi Arabia," he said."Even if other major sources of energy are developed, they will remain costly and oil will remain a strong rival in the energy field. "

This means that Saudi may be finally "getting it!" They have been afraid, for years, that so-called "renewables" will undercut the price of oil and leave them with a lot of useless goo on their hands. Now they are obviously re-thinking that position.

This is what we have been predicting would happen. This is the beginning of the hoarding phase.

Ron Patterson

"They have been afraid, for years, that so-called "renewables" will undercut the price of oil and leave them with a lot of useless goo on their hands"

That's actually a very strange proposition to hold as there is nothing even closely resembling all applications for oil, i.e. there is no real alternative to oil. Last time I checked.

Of course there are no real alternatives to oil. But the EIA has been preaching for years that if oil ever went above a certain price that alternatives would drive the price back down. And how many times have you heard: "The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones and the oil age will not end because we ran out of oil"? That line is usually followed by something like: "The oil age will end when we develop cheaper alternatives to oil."

But I disagree with you on that being a strange position to hold. People who have no clue as to energy content and EROI of oil verses that of other products such as ethanol or biodiesel can easily believe there are alternatives to oil. It is a strange position for an informed person to hold. However if you haven't a clue as to what going on in the energy field then holding such a position is quite reasonable.

Ron Patterson

If what you mean is that alternatives cannot come on line fast enough to maintain past exponential growth or even to replace dwindling crude oil supplies and keep fuel prices from escalating, then I certainly agree with you.

However if what you mean is that once oil production slides the world will slip back to plowing with animals like some sort of prehistoric lifestyle, then I adamantly disagree with you. The higher energy prices will cause investment in new renewable technologies, and while these technologies will not be as efficient as crude oil in terms of energy realized per energy inputted, they certainly are sufficiently efficient to run our economies, which will be much more efficient than what we have now. I study renewable fuel technologies and I am very encouraged by what I am seeing. It will, however, take decades for these renewable technologies to come on line.

Oil came from biological material originally and while it will take more processing to make it into usable fuels (we will no longer solely rely on the bonanza of what Mother Earth has provided to us), the great knowledge and innovation that we posess will allow us to continue functioning with a highly technological society.

Retsel

Hi retsel,

Just a few points of difference:

re: "alternatives cannot come on line fast enough to maintain past exponential growth"

You agree with this.

Question: "exponential growth" - or any kind of growth whatsoever? Are you going to restrict the discussion to only "exponential growth"?

re: "once oil production slides the world will slip back to plowing with animals like some sort of prehistoric lifestyle"

This part of your statement comes in a couple of parts.

There's the issue of "oil production slides" - and *how long* until there are deleterious effects (AKA "slip back to...some sort of prehistoric lifestyle")

Will it occur "once oil production slides"? Or will it take a bit longer? How long?

And then there's whether this "slip back" will occur. Not when, but if it will.

Many clarifications necessary in order to talk about the statements you present.

So, let me just ask:

re: "these technologies will not be as efficient as crude oil in terms of energy realized per energy inputted, they certainly are sufficiently efficient to run our economies, which will be much more efficient than what we have now."

Do you have references for these statements?

Well, just because these newer technologies cannot deliver energy returns at a 10 to 1 rate does not mean that they are not viable. A return on energy invested of 2 to 1 is sufficient, but it will just be more expensive.

If you are looking for "referencable reports" in this area, I would suggest the work done by Robert Hirsch of SAIC. Because we have started so late to mitigate the affects of peak oil, he has outlined in his report that the US economy in particular will be hit hard by peak oil. However, he also lays a scenario for how new technologies could come on stream to replace the energy supplied by petroleum, and how fuel efficiency can cause a huge amount of energy savings. I would not refer to his earliest report as he later admits that the first report was overly optimistic. His later report is more reasonable.

Keep in mind that petroleum is not going away, natural gas will be around for at least a decade after oil peaks - although more expensive for the US market because of the need to import LNG. Also there is lots of coal, although we will have to reconcile the use of coal with its greenhouse gas affects.

I think that Hirsch stated in one of his reports that 2/3s of motor vehicle trips in the US are discretionary. Imagine that if energy prices go high enough, that people will radically change their driving habits resulting in large energy savings. We area already seeing the start of a major shift in driving habits as SUV and pickup truck sales are way down in the U.S., despite efforts by the motor vehicle manufacturers to practically give them away.

Retsel

'We' know that. Saudi probably believed our TV/internet/etc. like many others in the world do. So they read about wind, solar, wave power, etc. and all the other 'Tech fixes' and panic as the price of oil goes up. Then its, "oil is well supplied" "everything is fine" "costs are in line with, blah blah blah".

For a while they wait for the 'shift to other technologies' as the price goes up, surprise, they don't see the shift. So they do a little research, hmm read TOD, and realize the shift isn't coming.

Now they understand where the driver seat really is. I bet ELM kicks into high gear now as more countries come to the same conclusion.

I'm not so sure that Russia and Venezuela haven't come to that same conclusion also.

ceiii2000...Saudi Arabia is not a country that depends on 'our TV/internet/etc' for their information and research into alternative energy sources. To the contrary, the Saudi's have conducted many large and small scale experiments to determine the potential of alternative energy sources, including solar powered salt to fresh water conversion. Some of the experiments in SA have been done independently, some in concert with other countries. Contrary to what many Americans believe the 'rest of the world' is not a huge teeming mass of ignorance...although some parts of it are...just as are some parts of the US.

Here is a site that explains alternative energy experiments and actual applications in SA. It appears to me that SA has a great desire to find out what works in the real world, not what some idiot politicians and lobbyists demand be implemented regardless of practicality. It appears that the 21 projects in SA in the link below only list projects completed or underway by 1997. I have read of other projects underway in the KSA since '97 and they could be found by a Google search. As you can see at the link solar testing has been going on in SA since at least 1981. I have an interest in salt to fresh water solar conversion so listed one from SA link below...

'Solar Powered Water Desalination Projects. A solar thermal seawater desalination pilot plant was completed by SOLERAS in 1984 in Yanbu. It uses an indirect contact heat transfer freeze process to produce 200 m3 of potable water per day. The operation, maintenance, and performance results enabled collector component manufacturers to use the project as test bed for new concepts. A glass manufacturer investigated solution to mirror edge protection against environment. Other organizations learned more about the freeze desalination process and developed new commercial equipment. This plant, however, was closed down for economic reasons (Huraib 1989).

A PV powered brackish water desalination plant was installed in 1994 at Sadous Village in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), USA. The plant has two separate PV fields. One (980 Wp) is to energize a submersible pump for pumping water from a well, and the other (10.08 kWp) is to provide power to a reverse osmosis unit (R.O.U) and to other accessories and equipment. The preliminary investigation has shown an excellent overall performance of PV plant for water pumping and desalination, however, the potable water recovery rate is only about 30%. Further work is underway in order to increase this recovery rate. Simultaneously, a separate study also seeks to incorporate a solar thermal desalination system (probably a pilot plant of solar stills) with the existing PV powered R.O.U in order to use the high rejection rate of brine (70% of input water to R.O.U) for water distillation.'

http://www.un.int/saudiarabia/solar1

Contrary to what many Americans believe the 'rest of the world' is not a huge teeming mass of ignorance...although some parts of it are...just as are some parts of the US.

You didn't accuse me personally of this but I will say that I do not believe the entire world is a 'teeming mass of ignorance.' Just as most Americans never travel and see the world for themselves, many from the 'rest of the world' don't come here. I put the word we in quotes meaning TOD readers. I know that they aren't all American.

What many in the world see as ‘America’ is what Washington and Hollywood show them. I have spent many a night in Italy, Turkey, Morocco, and other places with a beer and food trying to convince people that these are the absolute wrong places to get an idea about Americans and America.

I do think our government believes that outside of DC everybody is a teeming mass of ignorance.

Finally the #1, by far, use of oil in the US is transportation. Finding ways to get potable water and power etc. is good. I hope they research further and find themselves able to keep the lights on and the thirst away. None of these address transportation though.

They still could believe some of our press about the technocopian fixes in the future. (I used to, then I started reading TOD.)

The council will listen to a report by deputy chairman of the Shura water and public utilities committee, Salim bin Rashid Al Marri, who will argue for cutting crude supplies to maintain the Kingdom's underground reserves.

Ron,

I assume that you concur that this would probably not be happening if the King had not already approved.

Well, we have already heard that the King wishes to keep all new discoveries in the ground for future generations. So the King is quite receptive to such ideas and it is quite possible that he has already approved a cutback.

The question now is: Will this cutback, if and when it happens, be due to depletion or to save the oil for the future when prices are much higher. I would guess....it is a little of both. That is they are already in a desperate struggle to keep production high so now they will say: "Let's not try so hard to keep production high. Why struggle to keep production up and world prices down when we can just cut back a little and make even more money.

Ron Patterson

I think this is a GREAT sign - because the more fossil fuels we burn now, the longer BAU continues, the more population grows and thus the more humans will suffer. Ironically the sooner civilization is forced to cope with the finiteness of our sphere via high prices, etc., the less the amount of suffering will be in the future. Because we add 70 MILLION people to the planet each year, and who here can honestly forecast a wonderful life for them with the way the biosphere is crumbling under the constraints of human overpopulation already?

I can. The growth of population has been continually revised down as has the maximum population. You know why that is?

Because they are getting wealthier, their lives are getting longer, their women are starting to get some rights and they are starting to get some education. Less affordable fuel means lower living standards which means more kids, not less. The only way in which poverty combats birth rates is by an even larger increase in death rates.

The only way in which poverty combats birth rates is by an even larger increase in death rates

We may get that as well.

Time for a little game of football .

I posted this yesterday, but it was on Oil Drum Europe, and it seems appropriate here:

But maybe the exporters have finally realized that they have nothing to fear from “alternative energies.” If they are at or near Peak, the Saudis surely know that it will be absolutely impossible for wind and solar to be expanded on the enormous scale needed even to provide any substantial supply of electricity that still would be less than to-day’s output. I’m sure the Saudis are also aware of the general worthlessness of Ethanol and biofuels in general, and that most other technologies are either in the lab or extant only as a “demo”; thus, even under the most realistically optimistic scenarios several decades away from large scale commercial production. And other than biofuels, virtually all the alternative energies produce only electricity, which, while we will need all we can get, is not a liquid fuel especially convenient for transportation. So I think they realize that their oil will ALWAYS be in demand, and at ever higher prices; naturally they’d want to make the bonanza last as long as possible. And when supply gets REALLY tight, they can blame the producers of the alternative energies for failing to live up to whatever hype they have put out in their marketing campaigns.

Antoinetta III

The Saudi's seem determined to lead the world to believe that they have plenty of oil.
This would be a good move to provide cover for an actual inability to maintain production, and string people along for a while more as they could say that any drop was a planned one to conserve supplies.
It does not seem likely to me that substantial reserves have been kept back from the market, so unless we see falls in Saudi deliveries of a lot more than west texas has projected then this seems to be an attempt at keeping the illusion of huge untapped reserves going.

It does not seem likely to me that substantial reserves have been kept back from the market, so unless we see falls in Saudi deliveries of a lot more than west texas has projected then this seems to be an attempt at keeping the illusion of huge untapped reserves going.

Kinda like Saddam's illusion of weapons of mass destruction...?

Hope we don't decide to invade the KSA and later find that what we were looking for doesn't exist...

I would guess that they are heavily mined with just that eventuality in mind.

I would guess that they are heavily mined with just that eventuality in mind.

Probably with those pesky Iraqi WMD's...

On a serious note, I've heard that there are plans to have the wells remotely detonated in case TSHTF in the KSA.

'I would guess'? Please, enough with the guessing. The list of reasons that SA might retard oil production is as long as one with a normal imagination would care to construct.

Are the fields mined? I don't know...you don't know. Why guess?

The idiots Cheney/Blair/Bush guessed that wmd existed in Iraq based on cooked intelligence. That has certainly worked out well, has it not?

Alternative Guesses regarding the motivations of the KSA:

SA is unhappy with the one sided stance of the US in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and has decided to apply slow pressure to the US, via oil constraint, possibly in covert cooperation with Nigeria and Venesuela, untill the US shows that it is willing to take a more balanced approach to the issue.

SA is unhappy with the hard line stance of US foreign policy toward Iran and wishes for a negotiated settlement between the US/Iran...especially since the SA has announced that it too wishes to build nuke power plants.

SA is unhappy about the devaluation of the US dollar by the Fed and resulting inflation that is being imported into SA and other ME countries. In fact, the SA has already stated that for every 1% drop in the value of the dollar against the euro that crude on the spot market would increase about one dollar a bbl. The SA does not control the oil/dollar price directly but they can certainly effect it through oil production constraints...absent demand destruction.

I could continue all day with more guesses...to what purpose?

Please do not take this post as a personal insult for it was meant to show how fruitless guesses are...and, I am as guilty of anyone of an occasional guess. A great deal is riding on western intelligence services getting the real, unvarnished facts before we in the west enter into another debacle like Iraq...and, my guess :) is that intelligence in the west is just as bad as prior to Iraq. Best hopes for good intel.

It is my guess that the Saudi fields are mined for the simple reason that that is what any responsible military organisation would do - they would want to ensure that Saudi is not a profitable target for military adventurism.
However, the Iraquis did not do a very thorough job of it, so maybe the Saudi military are sunny optimists - not a disposition to be encouraged in Generals.
The Iranians would also be rather foolish if they have not taken similar steps.

It is my guess that the Saudi fields are mined for the simple reason that that is what any responsible military organisation would do - they would want to ensure that Saudi is not a profitable target for military adventurism.
However, the Iraquis did not do a very thorough job of it, so maybe the Saudi military are sunny optimists

I believe technically the term is "Sunni" optimists. But yes, in the calculus of denying spoils to any enemy, I suspect the Saudi's have a way to destruct. Since they have the bucks, it may be nuclear, which would be less easy for someone else to detonate. I offer this as a wild-ass guess, nothing more. Alternately, they may simply have the capability and have not deployed it.

The odds of the Saudi refineries being in one piece in 20 years seems remote.

No, the Saudis are not sunny optimists. They are Sunni optimists... :P

(Sorry, could not resist.)

As I was typing I saw what I was writing, but decided not to put a (sic) there to see if others picked up - I am so pleased that others here are as childish as me! Life is much more fun that way! :-0

The idiots Cheney/Blair/Bush guessed that wmd existed in Iraq based on cooked intelligence. That has certainly worked out well, has it not?

I know you know this River, but do recall the "Facts were being fixed around the policy," and the policy goal was clearly stated by the Project for the New American Century prior to Bush's selection by the USSC. BTW, Clinton's policy goal was the same.

I hate these people, they lie about their numbers then try to manipulate the market further by holding back their production.

Hate is such a useful emotion, especially for a "seeker."

You talking about the slackers in Alaska again?

Thanks for that link, Westexas!

There's a behaviourial trend developing based upon recent Saudi statements about "preservation of their oil".

Recently, Saudi Arabia's King said "we should preserve some oil for our children". Now, Marri is saying that oil should be preserved to get a higher price later and to reduce inflation.

What's next? Saudi will probably say that they need to preserve oil to reduce greenhouse gases which would reduce global warming.

In addition, the the six month delayed Khursaniyah project was supposed to have started producing in Dec 2007. It might start this month and only produce 0.3 mbd initially.

The statements above make my Saudi forecast below more likely now. The chart assumes total economic ultimate recoverable reserves (URR) for Saudi Arabia of 185 Gb. For more info about Saudi Arabia, please see section 5 of http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3623

An important point in the chart below is that, from Jan 2005 to Dec 2007, the average depletion rate of remaining reserves was 4.4%/yr as shown by the dashed green line. In Jun 2008, it is likely that the depletion rate will be about 5%/yr which is a big 14% increase from 4.4%/yr. The increased depletion rate of 5%/yr could indicate that Saudi Arabia is producing at economic capacity and should not overproduce oil from their fields which causes irreversible reservoir damage.


(click to enlarge)

Saudi Arabia's production rate is likely to continue declining. Russia's production is now in slow decline. Consequently, world total liquids production is now more likely to follow the red line in the chart below.


(click to enlarge)

Very Well Done, Ace!

Between you, WT/Khebab, Darwinian, Memmel, WHTelescope, JoulesBurn, and significant other TOD statistical data-freaks--IMO, you guys are doing a hell of a bangup job on the Hubbert Curve!

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

My opinion for a while has been that Peak Oil/Peak Exports was the trigger that started, and accelerated, the mortgage meltdown. What is sobering about the McMahon story is how the housing/auto/finance, etc., contraction is already adversing affecting the "elites."

As I have previously put it (with continuing apologies to authors), "Ask not for whom forced energy conservation comes, it comes for thee."

And as Warren Buffet put it, when the tide goes out, you find out who has been skinny dipping.

I for one, actually have been actively skinny dipping, (but not with Warren...eeeww).

Hmmm. . . this does raise the possibility of an interesting threat: Implement policies that the Peak Oilers want, or we will host the next ASPO conference at a clothes optional resort.

Great line in the FT today: "When the tide went out, not only were some of the swimmers wearing no trunks, [...] they were also revealed as poorly endowed."

I don't think high oil prices triggered the mortgage meltdown. Japan faced a similar depression in the 1990s - house prices collapsed, the economy stagnated - at a time of falling oil prices. Economic bubbles follow their own path, largely dictated by greed and herd instinct. It's all a bit frustrating to a young person like me: I'd like to buy a house with a decent-sized vegetable garden and super-insulate it to make it all eco-friendly, but I'd be a fool to buy when house prices are falling every day. *sigh*

McMahon's participation in the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes was a major contribution to the widespread belief in getting something for nothing among the American public. I wonder if Jim Kunstler will notice this story.

Speaking of kunstler what do you think of his recent pronouncements as per this gem:

The Iraqis were not grateful for the American occupation. They proved uneducable in the ways of American-style democratic governance. They reverted to a persistent diet of religious-ethnic-and territorial warfare within their own artificially-drawn borders. They regarded their American teacher-protectors as detestable interlopers and blew them up whenever possible.

I'm having a hard time with it as I do not know if he is talking toungue in cheek, but if so it must as well be so far jammed down his throat that he is in danger of someone kicking himself in that toungue.

I personally thought it was his weakest column in quite a while-the whole premise of USA vs Arabs in some sort of perennial culture war is actually beneath his usual level of insight (actually it is just plain stupid). I don't know why he even discusses 9/11 if he is just going to revert to slogans and truisms (which at this point most of the American public doesn't even swallow anymore).

CR:
I found his 9/11 piece to be very repugnant.....worse than his warning.
Just last Sunday on TOD he had been accused of bigotry, and I wanted to be in his corner thinking No No No. Where I fetched-up was in this para:

"I believe that the decision to punish an Arab nation for 9/11 was probably made very soon after the event. Whether Iraq specifically had anything to do with 9/11 was not part of the equation. It didn't matter one way or the other anymore than it would have mattered if the 9/11 hijackers had decided to strike the Empire State Building and the US Capitol instead of the WTC and the Pentagon."

Any old Arab nation will do. They're fungible, NO?

IMO That's way up there on the AMerrogance Scale.

sa

He was describing how (he believes) the administration thought when it decided to invade Iraq. Its satire - he's not endorsing that point of view; if anything he's exposing it as being a morally deficient, bullying mentality.

hi commuter,
yeah, you COULD file it under satire.... but the reference to the fungiblity ( sp?) of 1) the Empire State Bldg. with the WTC & 2) the Capitol with the Pentagon ...... well the stupidity of that sentence alerts me to a blind spot in its authors mind. Surely he (or the hypothetical adminocrats you claim he's speaking for) didn't miss the symbolism of the attacks???? Symbolism was widely referenced in MSM at the time, as i recall.

On the contrary, I thought his article was trying to point out the symbolism for what it was, not supporting it at all.

with JHK though who knows - he's usually not that subtle :)

Crystal - Kunstler is a realist and although he often reverts to satire I don't find a falsehood in it. His post was a rebuke to American sanctimony and a nasty tendency to believe that "if we only had better leaders we would be seen" as moral and just. America is over-all a pretty greedy and corrupt society. Kustler's real point is "there are no innocents" over the age of 12. We're all complicit.

If that is offensive to you let me suggest a chilled gin martini...

Gol darn it joemichaels, is everyone trying to confuse me today, not sure what you expect me to be offended by, that there are no "innocents over the age of 12" or that Kunstler's post, you say, is "... a rebuke to American sanctimony"?

Anyway I think Kunster was off base saying that the American people
shouldn't take comfort in the idea that they were lied to and believed the lies. What they shouldn't take comfort in is in remaining ignorant about how they were led to believe the lie. That is what it would have been better for Kunstler to attempt to understand and expose, the 'why' in 'Why are we so gullible?'. I think, if we were to talk about that, we might understand why we have the greed and corruption in our societies. (Incidentally, Canada acting as an aggressor in Afghanistan doesn't make me proud, particularly as not many here stood up against it.)

Here are the lyrics from the Grateful Dead's Throwing Stones which IMO is a very good start at that 'why'.

This video of that song is not the greatest for sound reproduction but best I could find and it does improve in spots.

I assumed Wharf Rat was a head by the handle, is CrystalRadio as well? Maybe we need to start a TOD sub-chapter for peak-aware deadheads.

I am quite a fan of JHK's writing, but whenever he talks about anything in the Middle East, I cringe. For someone who seems quite clear sighted about a lot of things, he has a very cloudy and bizzaro interpretation of events in that part of the world. He is a total Islam-o-phobe. See his revisionist history of the founding of Israel in the Long E, for example.

Oh well, we all have our blind spots.

I first discovered JHK through my interest in New Urbanism. His writings on the topic were eloquent and persuasive, with a hard edge that hinted at his raw passion for his expert subject. I liked New Urbanism because it offered practical solutions rather than unending negativity. Unfortunately somewhere along the way he lost that positive vibe, and lately seems to prefer generalised ranting rather than progressive practical solutions.

What I want to know is why he didn't have the mortgage paid off in the first place? He has been on tv for years and has a recognized brand name, yet he didn't make enough or over the years to pay off the house? He still had a mortgage?

Probably for the tax break. My dad, a conservative, intelligent man with a lot of common sense, who taught me about Malthus when I was knee-high to a grasshopper...told me to buy a much bigger house than I need - as big as I could afford - because otherwise, the tax break would go away too soon.

Leanan - Gosh I got the exact same advice. It's amazing how intelligent, common-sense people could be so wrong. Perhaps that is the curse of short-sighted optimism.

No, I think they are just speaking from their experience. Which, most of the time, is good practice. The best way of avoiding bias is to rely on your own or someone else's previous experience.

The problem is that sometimes, things change. And as Jared Diamond likes to point out, if it's something that's been going on for decades or centuries...it's really hard for humans to wrap their minds around the idea that it might change.

In the case of my father...real estate has been a great investment all his life. In his lifetime, the post-war boom and the baby boom inflated home prices more or less continuously. He bought a home that seemed ridiculously expensive, but found in only a couple of years, both his salary and his equity had risen so much that his tax deduction was nearly gone. So he was telling me to do something that would have made great sense for him to have done.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"

I've seen that opinion a lot when I was investigating whether to pay extra on my mortgage or invest money. As far as I can tell the best answer is to compare the effective interest rates on your mortgage after the tax break vs. how much your investments make. A calculator for getting the effective interest rate after taxes is here. Currently, my investments are not making more money than what I'm paying in interest on the mortgage after taxes, so it makes sense to pay down the mortgage. That's because the stock market has been flat or down the last year or so. Even if the stock market returns to it's "normal" behavior, if I pay off the mortgage early the interest on the mortgage that I won't have to pay is known, whereas the amount of interest I will earn in the stock market is not. So it might be a secure investment.

Financial analysts will never tell you to pay off your house first. They make their living charging you a "management fee" on your stock investments. That's why they always push the stock market... They don't make money unless you invest your money.

What they don't tell you is that it's not a fair comparison. Paying extra on your mortgage has ZERO risk. It's a guaranteed return on your money. The stock market (obviously) is not.

I prefer to compare the effective interest rate of the mortgage to an FDIC insured savings account, or T-bills.

But even for an extra 1 or 2%, wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing you owned your home free and clear?

Garth

I have great respect for my parents, and they has given me much excellent advice over the years. It is difficult now because while they are very aware of the many changes going on in the environment, energy, politics, etc., they do not believe these problems will result in the magnitude of change that I do. I think there is a point where people are unwilling or unable to look past the things that have been "true" for their whole lives. I try not to push them to see those things that they do not want to see - it is not a future they will have to experience.

Yes, I know what you mean. My father is a scientist, and probably the smartest man I know. But he's also a bit set in his ways, as older folk are wont to be. And he's definitely more a "trees" person (as is everyone else in my immediate family). I'm a "forest" person, and connections that seem obvious to me are invisible to them. In particular, my dad does not see the economic or political ramifications of peak oil. He used to tell me that I better get to like tofu, because by the time I grew up, everyone would have to be eating lower on the food chain.

Of course, it didn't turn out that way. The wealthy, including most Americans, don't have to eat tofu unless they want to. Dad never expected that the pain would not be equally shared. (To be fair, few others did, either.) Similarly, he accepts peak oil, but thinks it will just mean driving the Subaru more and the Explorer less. He's sure the economy will be BAU, no matter how pricey oil gets.

And as you say...it may not be a problem he'll ever have to face. He doesn't even have grandkids to worry about, since his kids took his "zero population" warnings to heart, and are child-free.

My folks love their grandkids, and likely do not want to think about what our kids will have to face. Hard to accept that the world you knew for a whole lifetime is now changing very fast.

[Sigh} In your post, Leanan, lies the crux of why we are doomed. The most intelligent person you know left as much of an impact on the human gene pool as a sterile hermaphrodite with a lethal mutation. Meanwhile the dirtbags I treated in the ER tonight, the ones that are running some perverse anti-darwinian experiment where the toothless, alchoholic, borderline retarded convict crosses with the morbidly obese, moderately retarded cross-eyed crackhead with a seizure disorder are, at this very moment, breeding like flies on shit--and all on our collective tax dime. My view of zero-population growth is like the quote from full metal jacket on war: "Your job is not to die for your country, your job is to make the other sorry SOB die for HIS country".

Sorry, but I simply don't believe any one person's genes are so important that they justify having kids. Especially when it comes to intelligence, which appears to be only about 50% heredity. There are a lot of great reasons to have children, but concern for the quality of the human gene pool ain't one of them. (Where's Veganmaster with his "IQ test"?)

In any case, my dad comes from a very large family. His genes continue, in his many uncles, aunts, siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc. He's got a hell of a lot more than the proverbial "eight cousins."

Besides, it could be argued that his type of intelligence (science and math) is what got us into this predicament.

Leanan I agree. But the new paradigm has shifted dramatically. When I give a Peak Oil presentation I am always asked to give advice at the end and I refuse. If I give advice based on that information and I'm wrong I am responsible for that failure. I give the information and I ask people to form their own programs based on what their priorities are. I also give them information and links to sites such as theoildrum.com.

BTW Jared Diamond was on PBS NewsHour last night talking about peak oil, climate change and societal collapse. PBS is way ahead on the issue of Peak Oil

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june08/crude_06-03.html

I saw that. Been meaning to YouTube it. It was pretty good.

Two points: McMahon is not currently a member of any elite- he has zero equity in his home and it appears (possibly not) that he does not have other material assets (i.e. offshore)-he might. He has a very young attractive wife for an 85 year old and obviously has been spending a hell of a lot of money the last few years. He appears to be broke.

Which is why I put it in quotation marks, and paired it with the Warren Buffet comment. As you implied, appearances can be deceiving.

In fact, his situation may not be a bad metaphor for the overall US situation.

You're right-he is like the poster boy for the whole keep up appearances crowd-I guess if you are going to do this, mid 80s is a good time for it to catch up with you. By the way, I didn't think Kingsdale did a very good rebuttal of ELM at all-it appeared that he wasn't being objective for some reason.

I posted a note on his blog, citing the Texas/North Sea case histories. In general, I think his rebuttal was another example of why killing the "Infinite Rate of Increase Against a Finite Resource Base" belief if going to be harder to kill than Michael Myers.

He's not doing a very good job of getting comments posted; your's isn't, and I'm still awaiting the email that will allow mine to be published!

Mine's up.

Yes, I read it. Well done. I imagine his system got overloaded by TODer's commentary flooding in all at once.

Maybe he's waiting for his ship to come in:

Congratualtions Mr. McMahon you are the next multi-million dollar winner with Publishers Clearinghouse

OK, that was funny! Can't believe I completely missed it!