DrumBeat: December 13, 2006
Posted by threadbot on December 13, 2006 - 9:55am
Coal Liquefaction Project Raises BILLION Dollar Question
I've found consistently level-headed informative coverage of energy issues at The Oil Drum. There most recent discussion of coal liquefaction stresses these issues. With energy companies spending millions on PR, you'll also find a lot of "noise" out there--yet, even coal liquefaction proponents sheepishly agree strong government enforcement of C02 emissions limits is a good idea.
Grid Limitations Increase Prices for Electricity
CHAMBERSBURG, Pa. — It is a tiny, flickering signal of an expensive problem looming for tens of millions of Americans: The cost of electricity for households in this southern Pennsylvania town soared this year by 31 percent, or an average of $24 a month.Like the nation’s highways and bridges, the network of transmission lines has not been maintained and expanded enough to meet growing demand, the United States Department of Energy says.
A model for tackling the energy challenge
Project Apollo surfaces repeatedly as a model for tackling the energy challenge. Given the urgency of the situation, achieving a secure energy future will, indeed, call for a similar commitment in funding, policies, and passion. The execution, though, will have to be different. More than a discrete undertaking with a single goal, the energy project will have to deliver a broad portfolio of solutions, playing out on timetables measured over a few years to several decades.
Indonesia may cancel huge gas pipe project ends with this interesting bit:
Indonesia, the world's largest gas exporter, has mostly sold liquefied natural gas to foreign buyers but recently adopted a policy to allow bigger share of domestic consumption to deal with the energy crisis."We choose to develop domestic industries by cutting (gas) export," [Vice President Jusuf Kalla] said.
Russia gets tough on energy sales to Europe
BERLIN: In a new signal that Russia has toughened its position on energy sales to Europe, an adviser to President Vladimir Putin said Moscow had no intention of observing guidelines in the EU's energy charter that would allow non-Russian companies access to the country's vast pipeline network.
Azerbaijan to Stop Importing Russian Gas
Azerbaijan will stop importing Russian gas beginning January, a top Azeri energy official said Tuesday, after Moscow asked for more than double its previous price.
US hopes Opec won't cut output
Tokyo: US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said yesterday that he hopes Opec ministers will not decide to cut crude oil output levels further when they meet tomorrow.Bodman also said he wants to encourage China to rely more on the global energy market and less on acquisitions as a way to bolster its energy security.
Cuts Prompt Home Focus for Scottish Oil and Gas Sector
The high price of oil and a shortage of manpower and equipment have prompted Scottish oil and gas companies to concentrate more of their activity in the North Sea, according to a survey by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry (SCDI).
NEW DELHI - A report by India's Ministry of Petroleum has said that the country will possess surplus natural gas in the next two years and its rapidly growing economy is likely to be fueled by it after major discoveries by state-run and private energy companies. Currently, India meets 70% of its energy requirements through imports.
Nigeria: Fuel Scarcity Paralyses Activities
Nigeria has again been gripped by fuel shortages. Long queues and black marketeering has resurfaced again in Kano, Katsina and Dutse following recent shortages of petrol-eum products to the states.In Jos, most of the filling stations have not opened since last Friday.
Shortages were denied in Abuja by the manager of the NNPC station, who said queues were caused by 'panic buying'.
Biofuels seen as a luxury China cannot afford
China cannot afford to embark on industrial production of grain-derived biofuels because supplies of corn and other crops are needed to feed the country's 1.3 billion people."It would be a disaster for us if we depend on a huge amount of corn and other grains for energy," said Zhai Huqu, president of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, in comments quoted by the official China Daily.
South Africa: South Africa: Biofuels Industry 'Could Drive Up Staple Food Price'
The government's decision to establish a biofuels industry -- producing fuel from agricultural crops - has been taken without proper consultation and could drive up the cost of maize, a staple food.
2006 Warmest Year in Netherlands in 300 Years
DE BILT, Netherlands - This year is on track to be the warmest in the Netherlands since temperatures were first measured in 1706, the Dutch meteorological institute KNMI said on Tuesday, linking the record with global warming.
Massive growth in the Middle East's renewable energy sector anticipated
Drastic increases in oil prices and increased awareness of the limited availability of traditional fossil fuels is giving the new and renewable energy sector enormous momentum, with many of the world leaders in the field of photovoltaics (solar power), wind power and other environmentally friendly energy schemes accelerating product innovations that are being embraced across the region as alternative power sources.
Turkey: Wind Energy Project Fails
New legislation originally intended to increase benefits from wind energy and decrease dependency on foreign sources of energy has failed. |
 |
Pope alarmed over environmental destruction and energy exploitation
Vatican City - Benedict XVI is worried by the increase of pollution and the impoverishment of the planet due to 'a race towards available resources that cannot be compared to previous situations'.
Long ago the ancient Egyptians practised a religion of the sun, now we can no longer afford to ignore this inexhaustible resource.
Wall Street eyes heart of darkness: global warming
CHICAGO - The topic of the conference was climate change and the rhetoric was sobering, haunted by scientific projections of a roasted world for our children and a looming environmental disaster of Biblical proportions.But this was no talk shop of environmental activists. It was a meeting of Wall Street investors, insurance executives, state treasurers and pension fund managers, who between them manage about $3.7 trillion in assets.
IEA: OPEC oil cut already tightening world market
LONDON - OPEC oil cuts already in place are tightening the world market ahead of winter and may prevent a recovery in consumer stocks, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday, urging OPEC to hold off on a new reduction.
OPEC ministers say may hold off on more oil cuts
ABUJA (Reuters) - OPEC appeared willing on Wednesday to pull back from more oil output cuts, responding to consumer nation calls to hold off until winter has passed to guard against price spikes that would hurt the world economy.
Lease royalties add up. Agency must audit records and make companies pay what's owed to taxpayers.
The American treasury is already short more than a billion dollars because of the Interior Department’s failure over the last decade to collect all the royalties owed from oil and gas producers in the Gulf of Mexico. The new Congress needs to fix the problem, or persuade a sluggish Bush administration to do so.
Britain sets sights on "zero carbon" homes
LONDON - Britain set out plans on Wednesday to help tackle global warming by making all new housing "zero carbon" within a decade.
South Korea builds world's largest garbage-fuelled power plant
SEOUL - South Korea has opened the world's largest garbage-fuelled power plant and expects to reduce its imports of heavy oil by 500,000 barrels a year as a result.
U.K: Revised wind farm plans unveiled. But the locals still vow to fight.
Is thorium the answer to our energy crisis?
It could power the planet for thousands of years, the reactors would never blow up and the waste is relatively clean. So is thorium the nuclear fuel of the future?
Geologists have discovered underwater deposits of hydrates — icy deposits of frozen methane gas — at far shallower depths under the ocean floor than expected. The finding suggests that, in a globally warmed world, the hydrates could melt suddenly and release their gas into the atmosphere, thus warming the planet even more.
Exxon sees oil use, carbon emissions soaring. The biggest change to their new forecast is they see coal use soaring.
 |
Shell is being forced by the Russian government to hand over its controlling stake in the world's biggest liquefied gas project, provoking fresh fears about the Kremlin's willingness to use the country's growing strength in natural resources as a political weapon. |
Yesterday's reader discussion of the tensions between the world views expressed by technological optimists of the Norman Borlaug stripe, who believe an unending "green revolution" will keep allowing humanity to escape the consequences of its own proliferation, and those who believe that sustainability requires a comprehensive change in how humans live on this planet, inevitably led to the invocation of the ultimate prophet of doom, Thomas Malthus. Some believe we are already well past the breaking point of how many humans the planet can support. Others believe that further technological innovations will only prolong the inevitable reckoning. It's an argument that's been raging for at least 200 years, and the addition of another three billion or so humans to the total already living on the planet in the next fifty or sixty years is going to keep the debate hopping quite nicely.But what I draw from the U.N.'s report is that this is a question that may well have an answer. As population and per capita consumption stabilize by the middle of this century, my daughter will have a pretty good idea of whether Malthus was right, or finally, absolutely, indubitably wrong.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
From an old database of Megaprojects I have added up 2.88 mbpd total with 2.06 mbpd of non OPEC increases for 2006. So far this year it seems that non OPEC production has increased by 0.7 mbpd although that number will change by next March when preliminary numbers from OPEC MOMR come in for 2006. My guess is that the number will decrease as UK, Norway and Mexico have higher 4Q figures than are likely to be realised.
http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/fortune/invguide_stocks/3.html
Glad to see I am not the only one who thinks COP is undervalued. And yes, I do own shares of COP.
FYI, I loaded up at $58. Technical traders will note that it has traded between $58 and $72 this year, but COP is currently trading at a significant discount to the other majors. Historically, the reason for that is that capital spending has been higher than Wall Street likes, but the capital budget is being scaled back next year.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Health officials back circumcision in AIDS fight
Ouch!
But doing it when they are children is probably better, for the same reason the cervical cancer vaccine is best given to girls: the best time to protect them is before they are sexually active.
If a man decides he wants to be chopped, let him decide.
this is barbarism!
Only a tiny fraction of US AIDS infection comes from hetrosexual sex. And I would not be surprised to if circumsion dramatically reduces the chances of hetrosexual AIDS infection.
Ron Patterson
Besides, are we really going to have the resources post-peak for everyone to have an elective surgery of questionable value in a sterile environment? How much energy is needed to keep a Hospital sterile?
Yes, if you live in a wealthy nation and are assuming things will continue as they are now, for the entire life of your child.
But consider peak oil. Even if it doesn't result in a Mad Max collapse, it may mean we cannot afford to give away clean needles or condoms. It may even mean ordinary folk can't afford to buy them.
Those of the Jewish faith have practiced circumcision without hospitals for millennia.
Circumcision is actually pretty low-tech - far more so than condoms. As anyone who has seen Roots knows, it's something they've been doing in Africa for centuries. Indeed, that's what led to the research to begin with. It was noticed that AIDS was much more of a problem among some groups than others in Africa. The difference, it turns out, was that some practiced circumcision, and some did not.
Right now, this research is seen as applying mainly to Africa and other Third World areas. But if you believe that the U.S. is on its way to becoming a Third World country...it's something to keep in mind.
Has anyone read this study? Anyone got a critique of its design? Maybe it's complete rubbish.
There are many 'scientific studies', badly designed, poorly controlled, etc., cited as proving this, that and the other. And all of them wrong. Medical literature in particular is replete with such stuff, perhaps more so than anywhere else.
A bit of scepticism, please, folks.
I realse that Americans have been conditioned not to question circumcision, but I would ask that you refrain from promoting circumcision until there are benefits attributed to it(that have been accepted by mainstream medicine) that outweigh the fact that it is mutilating.
Also,
Yes, and jewish newborns have been dying of infections and bleeding for millennia, not to mention the lack of anesthesia!
This website is about energy, not medicine. Please promote your unneccessary surgery elsewhere.
One guesses there is a powerful X factor at work, i.e. that adult men who agree to circumcision, which is not a trivial thing, will be `richer' (more secure, stable, reachable to the services in question, etc.), more responsible, more health aware, more community minded, more submissive, and generally less `wild' (married vs. single for example.) All such characteristics (one or many combined or others along the same line) would make these men less sexually active in the `multiple partners' sense.
I haven't read the original study, but it is certain that the factors I mentioned were not controlled for, simply because it is too much work.
This is just BS, junk science. It all comes from an old correlation between the spread of Aids / circumcision in Africa. That correlation is not causation never found a more illustrative example.
It looks very much like some will go to any lengths to stop people using condoms. Btw, castration leads to a 0 infection rate for the castrati.
Did they actually take circumsized / uncircumsized males and then get them to have sex with HIV-positive women and see what happens? Of course not. (An ethics problem, at the least). The circumsized fellows are obviously having less or less risky sex for some reason that correlates with, but may not caused by, circumcision, ergo they turn up with lower infection rates. It is not as if the mere fact of being circumsized alone has any effect on HIV spread (again, how could it? Mechanism, please).
One other factor: maybe many of them regret submitting to the chop and feel mutilated afterward. Just conjecture, that. I'd feel that way. Also, being circ'd is supposed to decrease a male's sexual sensitivity - maybe they just don't enjoy it as much as before. (Of course, if you got the chop at birth you'll never know what you are missing anyway, so that takes care of an argument that appeals to promiscuous circ'd US males).
It's correlation. That's all.
Here's a brief blurb from Discover:
As we found out yesterday, said trials were ended early, because circumcision was so obviously beneficial it was deemed unethical to withhold it from the control group.
Not true. It's not like they suddenly decided to try circumcizing men for the heck of it. They noticed that some groups in Africa had much lower infection rates than others. They thought at first that it was due to different religious values, or socioeconomic factors, etc. But it wasn't. They found that there was no difference in socioecnomic status, number of sexual partners, etc. That's what led them to circumcision.
As it turns out, the cells of the foreskin are particularly vulnerable to HIV infection. They've got a lot of HIV-friendly receptors.
And they've been studying this for a long time now. This is just the latest study in a long line of them.
How about this: Let's surgically remove an equivalent amount of penile skin that doesn't have said 'HIV-binding mucosal membranes,' and see where it goes. That would be scientific. Don't forget to cut off the entire penis of others (don't withhold the ultimate HIV-safety device, the lop shears), as a control group for needles/buttsecks.
To actually do this scientifically, you have to get Mengele on the people you're saving.
Now could we get back to energy?
Do children not feel pain on your planet? You might want to look into somthing called empathy.
Because kids won't be having sex for many years (presumably), so it's hard to do a double blind study in this manner.
I'm not making that name up. It's from the article...
It has been pointed out that the research is flawed, indeed must be so for fundamental reasons. So there isn't anything wrong with being sceptical about the conclusions of the study. It's quite appropriate in the circumstances.
It's like a mass murder, which is what the recent Popes are really, complaining about all the dead bodies.
Of course the IEA numbers, in the last couple of years anyway, have been overly optimistic when compared to the EIA numbers. Now I am not a great fan of the EIA numbers as they are often wrong also. But as Matt Simmons says, they are the best numbers we have. And because they are delayed by two months, and even then often revised months later as better data becomes available, they are far more likely to be more accurate than the IEA numbers.
Because they are published well before most nations report their production numbers, (those that do give production numbers), the IEA numbers are no more than a shotgun guess at what the real numbers will be. Of course the same thing can be said about the EIA's Short Term Energy Outlook. However the EIA, in this report does not give world production estimates, though they do give OPEC production guesses.
Ron Patterson
The Middle East Economic Survey's OPEC Crude Estimate for October was released today. It has been two years now since MEES's OPEC peak of 30.28mbpd. October, 2006 shows 29.57mbpd, KSA at 9.07, Iraq at 1.93.
So the only obvious answer to why this has not happened is that they are "voluntarily" cutting production because there are not enough buyers out there!
I can see where you guys are coming from, and it does look on the surface that they have reached a limit. But what has changed significantly is the OPEC reference price, so there is another explanation.
Previously OPEC had decided that the "best price" for them and the global economy was $28/bbl or so. With price climbing rapidly past $35, they pumped flat out to avoid a price spike. Well, it turns out that even at twice the price, $60, the world economy is pretty healthy and demand has not collapsed. So now they are thinking, "$28/bbl was way too cheap! Let's keep the price at $60". They are now adjusting production to this new price point. That may mean demand growth is curbed slightly, but they are all making much better profits.
I say it will take a year or two to see if they can hold the price down at $60, before we can really conclude they are all out. I believe the crunch point is definitely soon, if not here already, so I am not reaching a radically different conclusion.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/curren t/txt/wpsr.txt
Gasoline, distillate, and crude are all down. Refinery utilization down this week as well.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The American Petroleum Institute reported a drop of 8.3 million barrels in crude supplies for the week ended Dec. 8. The Energy Department had reported a fall of 4.3 million. Motor gasoline supplies were down 1.1 million barrels, the API said, vs. the government's reported fall of 100,000. Distillate supplies were down 2.7 million barrels, the API said, compared with the 500,000-barrel fall reported by the government
A shanty house on the edge of town?
I think we will see this through the end of 2006. Then 2007...the dogs will run.
crude: -4.3 mb
gasoline: -0.1 mb
distillates: -0.5 mb
total petroleum inventories: -7.5 mb
Do ya think?
The four week running average of total petroleum imports remains below 2004 levels, at 11.8 mbpd. Note that our long term increase in total petroleum imports is close to 5% per year. In other words, the long term trend is that we need close to 10% more imports than 12/04, but we are importing 3.7% less than 12/04.
Following are links to three news items (all previously posted). What I find interesting about the accelerating cuts in Saudi exports to Asia is that the seller, not the buyer, is unilaterally cutting the amount of oil delivered. Asian buyers contracted for specific volumes of oil, and Saudi Aramco is saying you can't have the amount of oil that you contracted to buy.
http://energybulletin.net/18506.html
Published on 11 Jul 2006 by APH.gov.au. Archived on 26 Jul 2006.
Bakhtiari addresses the Australian Senate Committee
by Hansard
On Ghawar
http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-12-13T114852Z_0 1_BAN336421_RTRIDST_0_OZABS-OPEC-MEETING-20061213.XML&archived=False
OPEC ministers say may hold off on more oil cuts
Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:48 PM GMT
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=122080&version=1&templ ate_id=48&parent_id=28
Aramco to further cut exports to Asia in Jan
Published: Tuesday, 12 December, 2006, 09:37 AM Doha Time
Look at refinery utilization. You have to include that in your analysis. Refinery utilization at this time of year in 2004 was 93.7%. Today it is under 90% (at least 3.7% lower than in 2004), and the reason has nothing to do with the fact that we can't get oil.
I can't speak for the U.S. as a whole; only my particular area. I believe the 93.7% utilization rate in 2004 was abnormally high. (In fact, a quick look at 2001-2004 shows that 2004 was well above the norm.) That kind of rate is not sustainable for a long period of time.
In my particular location, utilization is down a bit, but it is primarily demand driven. Tanks in the system are filling up with gasoline or blending components. When this happens, refineries back down on production. We are also thinking about the transition from winter gasoline, and you don't want to have full system inventories when you make that transition. So, you play it cautiously, and try to keep system inventories from being full when that transition is made.
As one reader astutely pointed out in an e-mail sent to TOD Staff, while finished gasoline inventories are down, blending components are up. (This subject has also been discussed here in several threads and essays.) With ethanol replacing MTBE, a lot of gasoline that was previously classified as "finished gasoline" is now classified as "blending components" until it is blended with ethanol at a terminal. I have not checked this personally, but the person who wrote said that the finished gasoline plus blending components is quite normal (i.e., doesn't tell the scary story one might get from just looking at finished gasoline).
In round numbers, it looks like our product consumption since the start of the first quarter is exceeding supply by about 800,000 bpd. Note that our imports in the fourth quarter have trended below the fourth quarter 2004 numbers.
Did someone mention something about a bidding war for declining exports?
On one hand, the data shows that crude oil input to the refineries is up 0.1% from a year ago. On another, it shows that total Domestic Use Supply is down 0.1%. At the end, it shows Total Net Imports to be down 1.3%, or about 160k bpd.
But I did notice something interesting...Product Exports are up 13.9% year over year, at about 160k bpd.
Am I reading too much or not fully understanding these numbers, or is something wrong with the 'squeeze' we are supposedly experiencing?
I estimate that Saudi Arabia is showing a 13% year over year decline in exports (12/05 to 12/06), and Pemex is reporting a 12% decline in exports (10/04 to 10/05).
As I have said countless times, keep your eye on Ghawar and Cantarell--they are two warning beacons burning brightly in the night sky.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
I would include in that category those who ignore relevant data.
Like the certain crash of the second largest producing field in the world and the all but certain decline/crash in the largest producing field in the world--followed by the certain declines of the next two largest producing fields?
Now, on the other hand you have absolutely ignored the relationship between refinery utilization and imports. There is no mystery here. I knew before I even looked that when you pointed out that 2004 imports were higher than today's that I would find that refinery utilization was higher in 2004. Refineries operating at a high utilization will require more crude, and vice-versa. You simply can't ignore this aspect in your analysis. To do so is to cherry-pick data.
True. Given the macro production and export situation, I think that utilization numbers are essentially meaningless.
Exactly as predicted by the HL models, world (C+C) production and Saudi production are declining.
We know, with certainty that three of the four current super giants are in decline or crashing. Ghawar is at the same stage of depletion at which an analogue field started crashing, and the best case is that it is producing one-third water, after being redeveloped with horizontal wells. It is technically true that we don't know with certainty that Ghawar is in decline or crashing, but this is analogous to saying an officer saying that he doesn't know with certainty that Titanic will sink.
The world and Saudi Arabia combined with the super giant situation versus an obsession with refinery utilization? I'll take the forest over the trees.
Robert has ahold of the tail and it is not sure if he has an elephant's tail or a rope.
WT is looking at the dust cloud coming from an elephant rampage and wondering if there is a tall tree close by that he could scurry up.
No, it is about the quality of data that you are willing to accept before you accept a certain hypothesis. That the world will peak, and probably soon, is not an issue. We agree on that. But when you cherry-pick data to support a particular point of view, good luck trying to convince the people outside of this site.
I respect your professional knowledge, integrity, and good manners. However, your very high bar for quality of data reminds me of a Prince of Denmark who agonized at great length trying to obtain absolute certain proof that his uncle had in fact killed his father. In one famous review the tale was described as "the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind".
Meanwhile Jeffrey is the ghost on the battlement, seen and heard, but tragically distrusted.
This is not putting a very high bar on the quality of data. After all, these seasonal import changes have happened year after year after year in lock step with refinery utilization. If you are going to suggest that they mean something different this year, then 1). You can't ignore the fact that this behavior has been observed historically; and 2). You can't come up with differing explanations for when imports start coming back up unless you are willing to apply those same explanations for when the imports were falling. That is actually a pretty low standard to ask for.
So, even though this has a clear historical correlation with imports, you consider it meaningless? As I showed in the other thread, the correlation between the two over the past year is 0.72. I can tell without even looking that the historical correlation over the years will be high. The reason is obvious.
Show me something related to production and imports that is so tightly correlated. Imports have been down this year, and they have been back up. What does that correlate with? They went down and up as refineries went down and came back up. Your hypothesis works when imports are falling, but you resort to ad hoc reasoning when imports start to climb back up. I don't have to. All I have to do is point to refinery utilization.
Why you think this has no bearing on your interpretation of import data boggles my mind, but it is definitely choosing to ignore that which does not conform to your preconceived notions.
For the laypersons among us, can you briefly describe why declining available imports would not result in lower refinery usage? That is, is cause and effect a one or two way street in this matter? Thanks, Clifman.
If refinery utilization was down because imports were down, then you wouldn't expect to see flat or rising inventories during this time. You also wouldn't expect to see inventories come back up (interestingly enough) just as refineries come out of their turnarounds.
What you are looking for is for 1. utilization to be high (90%ish), 2 .imports to be decreasing and 3. crude stocks to be decreasing (feeding the refineries from the stocks, not imports)?
This would prove that the drop in imports is supply driven and not demand driven?
This happening for x number of weeks would be airtight evidence of the export land model?
As long as one of the three conditions is not met it is still arguable that the drop in imports is demand driven?
There are a number of different things to look for. First, if the data look like they have year after year (imports falling in the spring, coming back up in summer, falling in the fall) but you suggest something else is going on, then you really have to make a good case. If imports stayed down in the summer, even as prices were rising, that would be an indication that something different was afoot. There are several different scenarios I could envision that would indicate something out of the norm was going on.
Maybe you could do a post on that? If people had a better idea of what to look for perhaps we would be jumping at shadows a little less.
Historical Net Imports
You have this cyclical behavior going on year after year. I originally did 20 years worth of data, but the resolution wasn't very good. Yes, those upslopes are almost always in late spring and peak in the summer (just as they did this year). The downslopes happen in the fall typically. But if you are going to make a case over imports, you really have to address the historical data. This behavior is well-understood. Jeffrey admits that he is ignoring it, because he doesn't think it's important. I will let you be the judge.
I think you have made this abundantly clear. Thank you.
I was thinking of approaching the problem from another direction. If current imports are normal than what is abnormal?
I really want to know that when X happens, then I say Uh Oh, we are seeing the export land model in action.
Down 57 million from what level?
Where can I get a look at the data you mention in this post?
Thanks,
Check out supply estimates. Text for instant data, then the Navigator button, which takes you to a wealth of data.
They don't list product inventories as a category, insofar as I know. You have to do some subtraction.
Total products declined from 759 to 702 (if my math is correct), from 10/6 to 12/8. Needless to say, we can't keep depleting product inventories at this rate. Did I mention a bidding war?
The stock prices of energy companies will likely be the leading indicator for commencement of said bidding wars...
Thanks again WT for your sobering analysis from the Front Lines.
I know it might not seem like it to the casual viewer, but we probably agree on over 80% of the key issues.
The traders seem to disagree with this. Oil prices jumped about $.75 on the news.
Dumbass traders! ;-)
Ron Patterson
In general, pulling down oil inventories is a bullish signal for the oil markets. That is in no way in disagreement with anything I wrote above.
I don't know where you get OPEC quotes but NYMEX quotes jumped 75 cents at the exact time of the news and have retreated only slightly, to up by 63 cents, since then.
Of course pulling down inventories is bullish for the market. That is the entire point of this discussion. You however were saying that the pulling down of inventories has nothing to do with the amount of oil available. And that is contradictory with traders bidding up the price. They bid up the price of oil because they think oil is becoming scarcer.
Ron Patterson
Ron, right now NYMEX is only up 33 cents for January delivery. Are you really, really sure you want to make conclusions on what the market does on any specific date?
And if you do, how do you read the fact that OPEC Market Basket is down 92 cents at $57.71 and Brent is down 4.5 cents to $62.63? Seriously, it is a mistake to attempt to read the tea leaves based on one day's market moves.
You however were saying that the pulling down of inventories has nothing to do with the amount of oil available.
Yes. You can pull the inventories down a little, or purchase more crude. But any time inventories get pulled down, traders typically take that as a bullish sign. But that doesn't mean that less oil is available. It might create that perception in some minds, and I am sure you will agree that perception has a major influence on the markets.
Robert I think the numbers we are seeing now are a result of a deepening recession. The failing housing industry is causing a serious cooling to the economy resulting in lower energy usage. Real estate agents not driving customers around in their big SUVS and cadillacs probably shaved a bit off gas consumption.
Considering a lot of the recent economic growth was caused by people using their houses as ATM's I'm not surprised to see a large impact. We have probably been in recession now for two months the markets just don't want to listen to the bad news.
Refinery utilization being down means they are drawing less from inventories, not more. Inventories should be up if they are drawing less oil.
Oil shipments are contracted weeks in advance. They do not depend on the daily ups and downs of refinery utilization. When refineries draw more oil than expected, inventories drop, when they draw less than expected, inventories rise. Or at least that is the way things should operate in the real world.
Inventories are down in spite of the fact that refineriey draws of less than usual.
Ron Patterson
Ron, there are two components to look at when evaluating what has happened with inventories. One of them is refinery utilization. The other is the import data. You are only looking at one component.
This is typically low season for gasoline demand, so a lower level of imports is generally contracted for this time of year. However, gasoline demand has been unseasonably high. Still, I have been predicting that as more time passes since Katrina, inventories will be pulled back down into the "normal" range. Just as it shouldn't have been a great shock that refiners built inventories after Hurricane Katrina, it should also not be a surprise when they eventually draw them back down.
We really can't have it both ways: Suggest that high inventory levels mean absolutely nothing, but then try to make an issue when those inventory levels get drawn back down into the historical range.
And it is an issue when inventories start to get drawn down, especially while prices are in contango. That inventory levels mean something was my argument, remember? You were the one saying that it was because of refinery utilization and not necessarily the availability of oil. If it has nothing to do with the availability of oil then it should have no effect on prices.
Ron Patterson
I wonder how this might affect the regional geopoliTICs... The Sunni-Shia rivalry at the Peak Oil High Noon might result desperation and chaos early in T1...
I think the entire ME is lining up to duke it out in Iraq.
2007 will not be pretty at all!!
Dragonfly41-
Could you provide a link to this? I've heard of it, probably here on TOD, but never have seen the story.
Official: Saudis to back Sunnis if U.S. leaves Iraq
The USA funded Osama and the Taliban, and that's nowhere near a secret. And throw in Saddam for good measure, another USA product. All this is well documented, nobody tries to hide anything anymore.
There is little doubt they funded Sunnis as well, as a matter of fact, that's no secret anymore either, They were negotiating setting up an anti-Shia army together since January, for crying out very loud. US generals attended meetings with their brothers-in-arms-to-be, while the lower levels on both sides were killing each other in the streets.
To appease the Sunni, they must have delivered weapons as well, the ones used vs US troops. That bit is not documented as of yet, but in the spirit of showing good faith in negociations, it's inevitable this comes up. The demand will be made, and if you want something from the demanding party bad enough, you give in, there is no choice. The USA wanted Sunni cooperation real bad, and they still do.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2496369.html
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35828
You got it all correct, except for the spelling: it's USA, not KSA.
Official: Saudis to back Sunnis if U.S. leaves Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/13/saudi.sunnis/index.html
Is this why Prince Turki (someone will have fun with this name!!) left so suddenly? Someone has spilled the beans on that "covert" meeting of Cheney's back in November.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/12/usa.saudi.iraq.reut/index.html
I sure hope Tom Clancy is taking notes on all this.
....so is King Abdullah the ONLY person on this planet that can put Dick Cheney in his place? Does this mean Dick works for KSA?
Wow...would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation.
It appears Cheney may be headed back to the Senate as the KEY TIEBREAKER in any 50-50 VOTE. South Dakota Dem. Senator Tim Johnson has operation.
I hope they checked for polonium and other exotica. sarcasm?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Now start putting 2+2 together.
We will hire the very people that you and the Pakistani ISI Trained who want to destroy you to protect us.
Do a google for 'ISI Pakistan Al Qaeda'
Peace
John
This is just MSM speak to keep the US population on side.
The majority of civil warriors are Iraqi nationals attacking /defending themselves against other Iraqi nationals of a different religious stripe. When they are not being Civil Warriors then they take time off to become Insurgents against US and British forces, or perceived representatives of the US backed Iraqi government.
Note: Civil Warrior, Insurgent, not terrorists.
They are only doing what any armed civilian would do if his country was occupied. What is difficult to understand about this? What would you do as a red blooded American Patriot if the 'Godless Russians' or the 'Heathen Chinee' had invaded the USA? The difference in Iraq is that it was always a Pandoras Box and the Baathists sat on the lid.
The real problem is they dont like us occupying Iraq and they want us to leave. Bush and Blair do not recognise this highly complex issue (well...complex for Bush and Blair...): Mostly because B and B are borderline messianics who cannot understand why they are not feted by a gratful Iraqi population and adored at home.
B and B are ignorant of history; incontinent with other peoples lives; dismissive of constitutions and liberties; messianic; and surrounded by lick-spittles, running dogs and plagued by group think. They are also highly intolerant of criticism by peers and surround themselves with like minded people.
They should get a room together.
Group-think is becoming a serious plague at all levels in Western Politics, Government, Commerce, Industry and media.
This is where group think gets you.
Oh please, they do not want to destroy us, they just want our asses out of Saudi (and now, Iraq).
- sgage
Here is the money quote:
Juan Cole is describing the possibility of both inter-state and intra-state warfare engulfing the Middle East between the Shia and the Sunnis and their respective allies. Did anyone blink regarding the (implicit) alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel?
Saudi Aramco (SA) may be cutting volumes to refiners because the refiner cannot process some of the crude offered by SA because it is too heavy and sour.
SA has been stating for a good part of 2006 that it has excess capacity but no customers are calling. Heavy, sour crude is difficult to process.
The link below supports the above statements and is a good read!
http://www.saudiaramco.com/sa/webServer/ISMishari/ISMishari.html
`The Wise Man Travels by Caravan':
Meeting Energy Challenges Through Enhanced Cooperation
Remarks at the Japan Cooperation Center, Petroleum
2006 International Symposium
Tokyo, Japan
November 29, 2006
Dr. Ibrahim S. Mishari
Vice President for Marketing & Supply Planning
Saudi Aramco
"In fact, the interface between supply and demand is where our industry is facing some of its most pressing challenges, including not only stretched global refining and transportation capacities, but also the mismatch between existing refining configurations and the heavier, sour crude grades that account for much of the world's spare crude production capacity."
"Of course, a significant share of this new refining capacity--including upgrades of existing capacity--will have to accommodate heavy, sour crudes, even as the barrel of refined products continues to whiten."
"Uncertainty regarding both future petroleum demand and price volatility is reflected in widely varying forecasts, like that of the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy. It estimates that depending on price, global oil demand in 2025 could be as low as 115 million barrels, or as high as 135 million barrels per day--a difference roughly equivalent to twice Saudi Arabia's total current production! Large producers like Saudi Aramco will end up bearing the brunt of both the market upside as well as its downside. For example, the EIA projects the call in 2025 on Saudi Arabian oil to be anywhere between 11 million and 20 million barrels per day, depending on the price scenario. In other words, there is nine million bpd of new demand that we will either need to meet, or which will never materialize"
This last paragraph implies that the world needs to find at least a dozen new Ghawars by 2025 to offset current field decline and meet the minimum forecast demand of 115 million barrels/day in 2025!
outcry here in Texas about electric bills and
insurance costs! Highest in the country in both
categories. Then again, Texans have always seemed
to be more of the grin and bear it type than
the rest of the country.
Grand Canyon is magnitudes bigger and deeper than Olduvai Gorge. As mentioned before by me: we should welcome the naturally occuring darkness if this energy is shifted to relocalized permaculture to keep food & water on our tables. Conversion of FFs to agri-chemicals is the highest and best use of this energy to help prevent the coming violence from starvation and dehydration. It will take many years to develop the infrastructure and people skills for a successful paradigm shift, and fertilizers are the best 'bridge component' until organic methods predominate.
Until people get this through their heads--I remain a fast-crash doomer--
Zimbabwe x 10.Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
One of my favorite sites is allafrica.com.
I like reading the editorial gripes about their energy problems and, how they try to cope with those problems.
And it gives me a glimpse into our 1st World's not-too-distant future.
I think electricity 'deregulation' was one of the most successful mindf**k's ever foisted upon state legislatures by big business.
OldHippie you are way behind, you need to start leaving more lights on.
refrigerator 14%
AC 16%
Heating 10%
Water heater 9%
Lighting 9%
Other appliances 42%
Clothes dryer 6%
TV 3%
Freezer 3.5%
Looks like we get nickled and dimed to death with all our appliances.
The thorium doggle is as hard to get rid of as ethanol is. Will it never stop? No, not until all state's coffers are empty. As long as you make money from the sweat of your back, there'll be snake-oil.
One more try:
As David Fleming explains quite eloquently, it would take many decades to get even one thorium reactor started. Yes, the theoreticals fit. The practicals don't, however. Which part is it that's so hard to understand?
By the way, his thorium "dictum" below, and in broader perspective, in the whole essay (link), points to the enormous, make that insurmountable, problems that breeders face. There as well, the theory is nice, but....
People suggest that breeders will make a grand come-back once the chips come down (there is no working breeder in the world today). But breeders died through economics, and when them chips start chopping, there'll be a lot less money, not more.
We are falling victim to our own grandiose schemes, and thereby speeding up our downfall. The link above to grid problems on a very basic level should be a wake-up for those who support these schemes, be it thorium, ethanol, or anything else that depends on subsidies. Yes, that is the common feature, your money. Don't support anyhting that can't be developed without it. Keep your money, and build something in your community that provides light to those close to you.
WHY NUCLEAR POWER CANNOT BE A MAJOR ENERGY SOURCE
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm
"..... as is so often the case with nuclear power, it is not as good as it looks. The two-step sequence of plutonium breeding is, as we have seen, hard enough. The four-step sequence of thorium-breeding is worse. The uranium-233 which you get at the end of the process is contaminated with uranium-232 and with highlyradioactive thorium-228, both of which are neutron-emitters, reducing its effectiveness as a fuel; it also has the disadvantage that it can be used in nuclear weapons.
The comparatively long half-life of protactinium-233 (27 days) makes for problems in the reactor, since substantial quantities linger on for up to a year. Some reactors - including Kakrapar-1 and -2 in India - have both achieved full power using some thorium in their operation, and it may well be that, if there is to be a very long-term future for nuclear fission, it will be thorium that drives it along. However, the full thorium breeding cycle, working on a scale which is largeenough and reliable-enough to be commercial, is a long way away.25
16. For the foreseeable future, its contribution will be tiny. This is because the cycle needs some source of neutrons to begin. Plutonium could provide this but (a) there isn't very much of it around; (b) what there is (especially if we are going to do what Lovelock urges) is going to be busy as the fuel for once-through reactors and/or or fast-breeder reactors, as explained above; and (c) it is advisable, wherever there is an alternative, to keep plutonium-239 and uranium-233 - an unpredictable and potentially incredibly dangerous mixture - as separate as possible. It follows that thorium reactors must breed their own start-up fuel from uranium-233.
The problem here is that there is practically no uranum-233 anywhere in the world, and the only way to get it is to start with (say) plutonium-239 toget one reactor going. At the end of forty years, it will have bred enough uranium-233 both to get another reactor going, and to replace the fuel in the original reactor. So, as in the case of fastbreeders, we have an estimated 30 years before we can perfect the process enough to get it going on a commercial scale, followed by 40 years of breeding.
Result: in 2075, we could have just two thorium reactors up and running.26
The article specifically describes how the source of neutrons will be molten lead radiated by a proton beam. No plutonium is needed or produced - nicht, zero, nada.
FYI there is a very bad news for you - nuclear will be the energy source of the 21st century, no matter how you dislike it. It is enough just take a closer look at what the Asian countries are planning for to figure out what is the writing on the wall. The West is too obese and self-deluded to follow in the medium term, but eventualy will pay the price for this - basically by losing its global dominance and yeilding it to the East.
China's planned expansion is just the first step. They know what is coming, and they know their coal is also limited. They also know that renewables, how good they may be are also limited, even in the medium term. The only scalable choice left for the long term is nuclear.
When sheer panic takes over all environmental concerns will count for nil. Environmental concerns are a luxury hungry and panicky people cannot afford.
And, I must add, it does not matter how you, I or anyone else feels about these things right now. All opinions and attitudes on nuclear energy and drilling will be in for a serious adjustment after the world absorbs the full impact of the consequences of a declining oil supply.
Ron Patterson
When the time you are talking about comes, the immediate reaction will be coal, tar sands and oil shale, likely on that order. Due to long lead times, NIMBYsm and larger upfront investments, nuclear will arrive much too little and much too late. This is the logical result of choosing a reactive instead of proactive energy policy, a result which I fear is becoming inevitable.
Maslow comes into view.
Likewise, people will burn Wood, Paper, Coal, plastic and anything else in their stove if they are cold.
Pollution be damned.
Peace
John
Another interesting byproduct is the anticipated neutron flux is such that heavier radiactive isotopes produced in the fission process are "burned" by neutron capture that results in shortlived isotopes. This technology has also been discussed as a possible solution to generic nuclear waste.
This technology, whether it comes to fruition or not, is a classic example of a spinoff from elementary particle physics. Orginally the problem to be solved was simply accurately measuring the energy flow in particle beam collisions and to account for the different responses to electromagnetic energy and "hadronic" energy (photons vs pions). A large experiment called D0 was approved with a 600 ton calorimeter consisting of depleted Uranium plates as the absorber and liquid Argon as the sampling medium.
(check out www-d0.fnal.gov if you are interested).
My personal favorite in the might have been category was muon catalyzed fusion which was all so close to being the way to managed fusion, but I digress
http://www.uxc.com/
Now 65.5$, in july it was 45$... Next year 100$?
Needless to say, this is all hallucinated paper (or electronic) asset value inflation. One has to take periodically take profits out and invest in real physicaL assets before TSHTF.
The March price is ~140DKK, current price is ~240 DKK, up 71%. That it is so close to the U gain I don't find surprising. Energy assets seem to be moving in a lockstep.
Of course the real test of the Vestas stocks will happen after the EU governments remove/reduce the ridiculous subsidies and mandates for wind, but I'm not holding my breath.
Not sure why you think being a neutron emitter makes it a bad fuel. It makes it bad for fuel fabrication, but this only applys to solid fuel reactors. And this still doesnt matter for modern thorium utilization schemes in solid fuel reactors because we dont fabricate after irradiation in the CANDU thorium utilization schemes, we just change the fuel rods position in the reactor core.
Its one or the other. If its contaminated with U232 you have gamma decay chains that make fuel fabrication a pain, but it also makes nuclear weapon utilization incredibly difficult. If it isn't you can fabricate fuel easy, as with weapons. Which is it? It depends on how you're breeding it.
Bullshit makes the flowers grow. One by one, row by row.
In some alternate universe where we didnt have thousands of tons of plutonium from spent fuel (that can be burned for excess neutrons in liquid chloride reactors) we still have about a trillion tons of uranium that we can recover.
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
I guess they'll have to grind up that Russian spy-guy and mix him with some other isotopes to get some neutrons :)
Neutron emission may be a problem for reprocessing, but it affects the usefulness for fuel not one bit. It also makes the material difficult (read: probably impossible) to use in fission bombs of any significant yield, because the high spontaneous neutron emission rate requires an implosion bomb even faster than required for plutonium.
It would also make the material much harder to shield from detectors.
Weapons-grade plutonium is carefully made to keep the fraction of Pu-240 and Pu-241 down for just that reason. The Pu from light-water reactors, irradiated for a couple of years, is way outside weapons specs. U-233 has about 1/4 the half life of Pu-239 (and higher n emission rate), and those other isotopes are even higher (then you have the thermal management difficulties of fast decay rates). These things are non-issues for weapons proliferation.
Gold's rise points to inflation
Actual rate is much higher than CPI, U.S. economist says
The real annual inflation rate is closer to 8% than the 2% or 3% governments claim, a prominent U.S. economist said yesterday.
David Ranson, president of Boston-based H. C. Wainwright & Co. Economics Inc., defines inflation as a decline in the purchasing power of a national currency. He prefers that definition to flawed ones like the rising cost of living or increasing labour costs.
Official government-massaged measures such as the consumer price index (CPI) do not detect the onset of inflation as quickly as financial markets, he says. The latter indicate "current inflation is much higher than policymakers realize and is still accelerating."
A year ago, Ranson released a study that concluded the price of gold is a better predictor of inflation than oil. He reiterated that view at a briefing in Toronto yesterday hosted by Bullion Management Services Inc.
Ranson charted inflation and gold in the U.S. and six European countries between 1948 and 1999. He found rising gold prices predicted rising consumer price indexes in all those nations.
These views seems to jibe with those of the average man in the street, who feels prices are rising higher than the benign rate governments portray.
Consumers and investors experience inflation at what Ranson calls "market-clearing prices."
As we all know from daily experience, such prices can jump quickly. Some components of the CPI, such as clothing, are accurately picked up but the index is distorted by the way the United States and other countries account for housing.
Shelter makes up 37.4% of the CPI but the U.S. uses what Ranson terms a "mythical figure" based on old historical data.
Wainright's Proxy Index of Market-Clearing Consumer Prices eliminates the parts of the CPI that use historical prices. The revised index showed shelter rose 13% in 2005 and energy at 16.7%. Food and beverages rose only 2.3%, transportation 0.4% and food and beverages 2.3%, all in line with the CPI.
Energy is essential, a sound currency is a close second (and most of the central bankers hold gold while they twitch between eachother's paper fiat).
I just todd I saw an Exxon-Mobil putty cat commercial on TV.
It points to this web site:
http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/imports/challenges_us/index.html
Slap.
Slap.
Yup, I'm not dreaming.
(Ouch)
The last page of this PDF (Exxon) says supplies will be "adequate" even out to the year 2030:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/energy_outlook_2006_notes.pdf
The Energy Department reported crude inventories fell for a third straight week, which sent oil and gasoline prices sharply higher. Less supply means both oil and gas could cost more, and that was seen by the stock market as an obstacle to consumer spending.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street
The earth receives perhaps 1000 W/m2 at the surface on a clear day. At 30% thermal efficiency, a plant with mirrors shading a square kilometer could make about 300 MW. How much of that 300 MW could a truck bomber take out?
I'd love to see terrorists suicide-bomb a solar power tower system. They'd generate some headlines and cause some property damage, and there'd be one less of them alive. (Almost as good as if they stole spent nuclear fuel, the hotter the better - how many could die of radiation poisoning before they were forced to give up?)
If airline mergers fly, fares could follow: While some carriers tout savings, critics say deals would limit flyers' choices and boost fares in some markets.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/13/news/companies/airlines_mergers/index.htm?postversion=2006121310
We will probablyl continue to see many Last ditch attempts to sustain the unsustainable.
As Kunstler rightly notes, we will spend most of our time and resources trying to salvage our "previous investment" - even if it was the greatest misallocation of resources in Sap's puny history (so far).
"A model for tackling the energy challenge
Project Apollo surfaces repeatedly as a model for tackling the energy challenge. Given the urgency of the situation, achieving a secure energy future will, indeed, call for a similar commitment in funding, policies, and passion. The execution, though, will have to be different. More than a discrete undertaking with a single goal, the energy project will have to deliver a broad portfolio of solutions, playing out on timetables measured over a few years to several decades."
While I applaud such efforts as the Apollo Alliance, I just think we need to bear in mind that all the things we think we'll be able to do - covering the deserts with PV cells and the like - are going to be much harder to do post peak, meaning, IMHO, anytime starting about now.
They need to read "Sustainability" and then hang here for a while.
Unfortunately your basic facts are wrong! Contrary to popular belief, putting a few astronauts into space does not take a lot of energy. For example, the shuttle consumes about 3,300 GJ per launch, that's the equivalent of only 550 barrels of oil. Getting to the Moon doesn't take much more energy, once in Earth orbit. What space flight does entail is huge amount of technical complexity, which is why it is expensive. Even then the military budget is 25 times the space budget. The US wastes far more oil on warfare than space.
I think the Apollo project is a bad example for a different reason - it had no practical result. Some interesting science came out of it, but mainly it was just to do with the politics of the Cold War.
At least the Manhattan Project had a usable product, although a rather negative one. Perhaps the Marshall Plan would be a better analog for what is required.
Thanks for that refinement. I think we're really saying the same thing. If you look at the embedded energy (or emergy or life-cycle cost) of all that manpower and technology to accomplish the task of putting a craft in orbit, it's a pretty low return of, as you put it, practical result. And it was all underwritten by the growth economy of abundant energy. I agree the Marshall Plan is a better model for what we face in the contraction economy of scarce energy.
Well, the Second Annual Indiana Energy Conference is scheduled for the four Saturdays in January, 2007. http://www.indianaenergyconference.org This event is being sponsored by another organization I'm involved in, Sustainable Indiana, Inc. http://www.sustainableindiana.org/
There is only one problem. We've been able to secure the rights to show the film Peak Oil: Imposed by Nature. However, we have been unable to locate a copy of the DVD to show!
If anyone has a copy that they would be willing to rent or loan, please contact me directly at braduebinger@sbcglobal.net
Thank you!
Thanks everybody,
Doomer Brad
should also include a bullet in the head of the city designers and politicians for not having the foresight to see how this has all happened! what do they actually do all day? for crying out loud!
i guess the viability to cope included Prozac/alcohol! but really included 100% ignorance on their behalf!
The lack of immigration control will really kill us, combined with the media sheltering the USA from all the "nasties" out there! And convincing the viewing public to continue to consume!
Like I said before, we are headed straight to a wall at full speed.
can somebody convince me otherwise?
I don't know if there's a way to make larger text. In any case, we'll switching to new software soon.
strong
I'm learning,
look at what I found
If you are using FireFox as your browser, you can find out how other people are doing their HTML by selecting (highlighting) the portion of interest, right click, and pick View Selection Source
thanks I downloaded firefox and feel a bit refreshed
Thanks,
Alan
Click on install now.
Pimentel: No! It's not going to do it. It certainly would improve [the energy balance], because we were able to reduce the energy inputs for corn by about 30 percent.
And low and behold from this very interview, we get yet another prime example of Pimental's emotional bias towards ethanol.
A 30% increase in the EROEI of corn ethanol and it's still not a positive return???
Give me a break.
I've posed this exact question to Dr. McElroy, from Harvard's Dept. of Earth and Planetary Studies and will be talking with the Royal Society tomorrow and the DOE next month about an organic corn ethanol mandate which -Robert if you're around- I am tentatively considering to be the only feedstock that corn ethanol should be produced from.
BTW: the posted article on China's ethanol feedstock supply means absolutely nothing. The NDRC calls the shots in China not Ag Science. And as far as the NDRC is concerned, biofuels are China's absolute, number one top priority.
I am always around. :-)
Click to go to Dec. 13, 2006 official Dilbert site
Support wavers for OPEC production cuts
Leonard Dicaprio, the movie star, has a GW thread going on Yahoo Answers with 5,000 responses. I was hoping my invite of 'Syrianna' star, George Clooney, to the Boston ASPO Conf. would have a similar effect for Peakoil, but alas--no show.
If we could get some stars [salesmen & connectors] to rally around Peakoil it would really help jumpstart the PR campaign and Peakoil Outreach, while we, as Mavens, could still continue the analysis of data.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I just wanted to send out a Big Thxs to WT & RR for their on-going debate [plus a big tip of the hat to the other TODers too]. I think R-squared is doing a tremendous job of helping WT refine his model by pointing out weaknesses/flaws. Recall that they already agree on many points.
If we ever attend a conference where both these gentlemen are in the same room: I hope the podium host will have these guys stand up to be recognized so the audience can give a rousing standing ovation for their very hard work and diligence.
I, myself, would be greatly pleased to buy them a round, then when our glasses reach half-empty-- to hoist them aloft and shout out Peakoil.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
We have some very knowledgeable, high quality contributors here at TOD. So yes, RR and WT, thank you for your valuable contributions and for elevating the level of discussion.
(See RR, whilst I may have upon occasion busted your chops on certain issues, down deep I know you're a sincere and a good person who is trying to inject a much needed level of rigor into the general discussion.)
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/art/2006/12/12/299551/Crude_oil_imports_reach_record.htm
Crude oil imports reach record
Fu Chenghao
2006-12-12
We may find out just how fungible petroleum exports really are. If I recall correctly, Venezuela has started redirecting exports from the US to China.
Meanwhile, the North Sea is in a rapid decline, with the UK now a net importer, and Mexico is declining, with a double digit decline in exports so far.
As I said, "interesting times."
"May You Live in Interesting Times"
Similarly, all snooker fans know what a Chinese snooker is:
"Not a real snooker, but describes the position where although a clear shot can be made to the ball "on," the stroke is made far more difficult by the ball immediately behind the cue-ball." Link
I'm sure others can come up with more examples...
It is much more probably that the Venezuelan statements about shipping oil to China are PR statements to lure in those who are gullible or eager to seize on every bit of trivia that supports their preconceptions.
However, if you have any data that shows a significant amount of oil actrually going to China, I'll reconsider.
Glad to hear they're having second thoughts about ethanol. They were targeting E10 with distiller's credit in excess of $0.5/gal. 2010 gasoline demand is estimated at approx 1.6mmbpd - less than a fifth of current US #.
This is the sort of shopping people do on the very last day of a sale.
Mexico update
This link is interesting:
-------------------------
To the extent that the government succeeds in curbing small-scale corruption it would benefit households directly. Surveys show that the
average family spends six to eight percent of its income on bribes, money that should be spent more productively.----------------------------
The death of the Colorado River delta and the Gulf of California to keep the Vegas' slots spinning--is it worth the gamble? Legislation snuck by in Congress to effectively eliminate sustainable water flow to Mexico.
Mexican First Lady's Cousin found shot to death possible retaliation for Calderon sending 6500 troops into drug strongholds?
Mexican leftist leader [Pres. of PRD Party] joins thousands marching against Oaxaca governor. The US equivalent would be Howard Dean urging the overthrow of a US state governor.
But most of all, I encourage TODers to read thislink and see the Photos:-------------------------------------------
Who benefits from the natural water supply being polluted?
Coca Cola, Cadbury and Danone, and a few other water companies owned by the San Cristobal aristocracy. But
Coca Cola pretty much have the strangle hold on the water supply.With little to no accessible safe natural water left, the people either buy their purified water or they take their chances with the polluted water.
The poor, who can not afford luxuries like bottled water, have no choice but to
risk their lives every time they take a drink.There is still some pure naturally-occurring water here, but Coca Cola slapped a large factory over the two wells and this is where all San Cristobal's "Real Thing" is bottled.
One bottle of purified water will cost you three or four times as much as a bottle of Coca Cola, the indigenous people being sold The Real Thing at half price.Until they dominate the market that is. Then - as with all current forms of capitalism - watch the price sky rocket.---------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
What I found surprising was just how quickly local municipalities in the U.S. and Europe were losing control of their own water supplies.
Interesting how an international political consortium (with U.N. backing) declared that water is a human need but not a human right.
Blue Gold is a real eye-opener.
Thxs for responding. I found a link to read later. Big thxs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16193443/
happy trails to you
Please remember if it's yellow let it mellow, but if it's brown send it down.
Thxs for responding. Yep, makes one wonder, doesn't it? Sometimes, I imagine a palace revolt, if it ever happens, will be started by scientists growing sick and tired of being ignored and/or muzzled. Einstein and others escaped to America--there is no place to run now. We will see.
Wicked Good Article by Tom Whipple. Ouch!!!
http://energybulletin.net/23681.html
Please, someone make sure this is reposted early tomorrow on the Leanan's Drumbeat.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?