54 comments on Some tanker arithmetic relating to LNG supply
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
54 comments on Some tanker arithmetic relating to LNG supply
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“This order [i.e. capitalism] is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with the economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt.”
—Max Weber, 1905
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.





GAIA Host Collective
So, we are running out of global-warming poison in our neck of the woods. Hmmm. Let's see if we can jimmy up some imports to keep the planet's destruction on schedule.
Now, I know that many here will say they are only speculating on what the powers that be will likely do to keep the entropy machine going, but that only smacks of the current media's obsession with "fair and balanced" treatment of the news. Put simply, the media feels they cannot challenge the logic of anyone and will merely allow any ole insane person put forth their views without commentary from the program's "journalist" hosts. Thus, lunatics like Robertson, Rove, Frist and the entire neocon circus can come onto the Sunday pundit pulpits and blather their idiocy without fear of a run-in with contradictory facts. We don't have to do that here. We can call it like it is.
Any continuation of the existing paradigm will result in increased suffering a little further down the road, increased war just around the corner, increased mortality for the human species in twenty years instead of lesser suffering in ten. Those who advocate technical solutions involving the release of more carbon into the atmosphere are simply allowing more people to overpopulate the planet and thus are increasing the number of people who will die unnecessarily. It is tantamount to murder. Murder in the name of consumer greed. Murder just so the current generation can continue their consumer orgy, so they can buy more plastic crap that ends up in the upstairs closet in two weeks, so they can overeat incredibly bad food from their local Mickey Dees.
Obviously we deserve our fate. We cannot seem to look beyond our two hundred function graphing calculators to the ultimate reality; it HAS to end no matter what we do to keep the party going. Physics is not the energy glutton's friend.
I can now see that this has to play out in the worst way possible. We are just like the monkeys at the zoo. A keeper tosses a treat into the enclosure and one of the smaller females grabs it and runs. A small male runs her down and takes it by force. Finally, the bull male slaps the small male around and eats it himself. Ahhh, America, bull monkey in the enclosure of life. Here we are a bunch of selfish monkeys all fighting for the scraps of the industrial revolution. Will we act in a reasoned manner? Of course not. The monkeys have tribes and the tribes are about to face off over the oil. One day the keeper will not have enough treats and then the monkeys will kill each other. Many will die of starvation. If this is the only way to kill off the energy monkeys, so be it.
To address your question, though, I think we have to consider who's running the show. It's not you or me, or any of us who have a new vision for the future based upon renewable resources and much less available energy. It's the current global energy behemoths and their attendant global media subsidiaries (to brainwash the global public). In reality, most of the discussion here--which we know is ridiculous because it won't solve the underlying problems--is likely to be some form of how it really plays out. Those who are "large and in charge" are greedy bastards and they will make out like bandits as the world collapses around the heads of the rest of us. The don't need to replace all the gas (or oil, or electricity) that we currently use, just enough for them 'til the end of their lives. Remember, this world economy and the old white men who run it only think in the short, short term.
You are asking the right questions, but you are being drowned out by a media empire that's impossible to compete with.
But the implication of this Kunstler's statement is that a supply shortfall relative to projected demand of any kind resets the conditions for calculating projected demand. I'd wager that few consumers will maintain their gas consumption levels while prices soar in hopes that someday they'll get price relief via LNG. The EIA assumes a particular price range when calculating this figure that is, perhaps, optimistically low. Demand destruction will happen in any number of ways. We know because we've experienced at least once before. I wonder if there's potential for a new boom and bust cycle in gas prices (at a higher range) that will undermine investment and development in LNG?...
Regarding Cherenkov's (understandable) frustration, I'd draw attention to the title of the blog. This is a supply side forum. While demand side issues are relevant their regular inclusion may make these threads a tad daunting to navigate. I view TOD as a part of the whole equation - whatever that might be.
Thanks for the post! This is very well timed for me as I'm preparing a presentation on post "peak gas" strategic opportunities in housing. Keep 'em coming.