 | A Debate on the Substance and Timing of the Peak of Oil Production and Consumption, Part I | The Oil Drum | Natural Gas: how big is the problem? |  |
DrumBeat: December 5, 2006
Posted by threadbot on December 5, 2006 - 10:40am
Experts worry warmer Earth will slash farm yields
WASHINGTON - Urgent action is needed to make sure a warming climate doesn't slash crop yields, heighten the risk of famine and deepen poverty for the world's most vulnerable, international experts said on Monday.
China seeks direct talks with OPEC
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - China wants to start direct negotiations with OPEC to secure a stable oil supply and an equitable share of the oil market, a top official said here Monday, in comments that underline the Chinese economy's rapidly growing energy needs.Zhai Jun, China's assistant minister of foreign affairs, told conference participants in Dubai that his country was trying to develop "a negotiating mechanism with OPEC."
"Only through this can we maintain security and stability of our oil imports," Zhai said in a speech to the Arab Strategy Forum here.
Is Peak Oil Pessimism a Generation of Men Coming to Realise How Useless They Are?
One of the main impacts of the Age of Cheap Oil, the great Petroleum Party so rapidly drawing to a close, has been the monumental deskilling that has gone on during that time. A friend of mine recently told me of a friend of his 14 year old son, who had grown up eating sliced bread, and was unable to actually cut a slice of bread from a loaf! How many people now know how to cook, garden, build, repair, mend, pickle, prune or scythe? In the space of two generations, we have lost so much basic knowledge and skills that previous generations learnt by osmosis without even thinking about it.
The reality of our time was captured long ago by H.G. wells’ observation that we are in a race between education and catastrophe.
On the Road Again: How the world got addicted to oil, and where biofuels will take us
How to value a grandchild: First, choose your discount rate
I have recently been alerted to what many people term "peak oil." I don't know how to characterize my feelings regarding this subject. Obsession might be a good term. I feel that I need to prepare. What do you think? Is "peak oil" another Y2K?
Renewable Resources: An Investment Hedge Against Peak Oil
The long-term trend of resource depletion - manifested today in the "peak oil" phenomenon - poses a severe challenge to an investor. Where do you find lasting value in a scenario where rising energy costs impact every industry and business, inflate all currencies, and make location value unpredictable as transport patterns reorganize?
Albania finds power in global market
The Albanian power corporation said Tuesday it had reached agreement with three international companies to secure electricity supply for three months. In the meantime, it has instituted power cuts as supply from local hydropower has been reduced because of a lack of rain.
New Alberta Premier: No Plans to Slow Energy Development
Alberta Premier-Designate Ed Stelmach, the new de facto leader of the province, said Monday that he has no plans to slow down the development of Alberta's oil and gas resources.However, he does plan to seek changes to the province's oil and gas royalty regime, and in particular will look to encourage heavy crude producers to process their output in Alberta.
OPEC chief estimates oil oversupply at one million bpd
ABU DHABI - OPEC president and Nigerian Oil Minister Edmund Daukoru said there was an oversupply of oil of some one million barrels daily on world markets, the official Emirati WAM news agency reported.
Oil, gas, production in Russia over 11 months grows
MOSCOW(Itar-Tass) - The oil production in Russia over 11 months amounted to 439 million tonnes, which is 9.7 million tonnes more than a year ago, the economic news agency PRIME-TASS reports with reference to the Central Control Department of the fuel and energy complex.The export of Russian oil amounted to 225.85 million tonnes, which is 4.687 million tonnes more than in January-November of 2005.
Australia's energy future more costly
Qatar, Japan's energy white knight
TOKYO - Qatar is expected to emerge as a country that holds the key to Japan's future energy security as it becomes the country's biggest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) around 2010.
Oil firms say Norway needs more offshore exploration
OSLO, NORWAY — Norway needs to open up new offshore oil exploration areas and step up the search in existing zones if it is to remain a key oil exporter, a national oil industry association report said Monday.“We have no time to lose,” it said. “Exploration activity must be intensified and its results must be improved.”
Malaysia calls for sustainable expansion of palm oil plantations
J-Power Aims to Raise Overseas Profits; Shares Jump
J-Power, Japan's biggest coal-power generator, is stepping up investment abroad to capture rising demand in China, Vietnam and Thailand, where economic growth is increasing electricity use. Utilities are building coal power stations after crude oil prices more than doubled since 2003, and J-Power aims to use its expertise in plants that cut pollution from burning the fuel.
Raymond J. Learsy: An Energy Agenda for a Newly Energized Congress (Part III)- Curbing Oil's Influence
The current influence of the oil industry on our government, the executive branch, Congress, and friendly court jurisdictions has permitted the oil industry to call the shots on regulation, royalty payments, access to public lands and on. Our government has become so wedded to oil's purported needs at the expense of the national interest that it is well past time that steps be taken to right this gross imbalance.
Expert: Careful on biofuel subsidies
MUNCIE, Ind. -- A recent study states that government subsidies for the ethanol industry need to be more critically evaluated, but ethanol supporters say the billions of dollars government funding has helped the industry grow.
$800M will benefit renewable energy
More than 600 renewable energy projects are being funded by $800 million from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.The money is being allocated in the form of Clean Renewable Energy tax credit bonds that replace interest payments in tax-free form. Applicants are in the process of being notified by the IRS.
Switchgrass Research Aims to Create Ethanol to Power Vehicles for $1 Per Gallon
African solar farms to solve energy crisis?
Satellite-based studies cited in the report show that deploying relatively simple concentrated solar power (CSP) systems over just 0.3 percent of the deserts in the Middle East and North Africa would provide enough power to meet current and future demands from the EU, the Middle East and North Africa.
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 MSNBC:
--------------------------------------------------
Alps experiencing warmest time in 1,300 years
`It will undoubtedly get warmer in the future,' official says
----------------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Antarctica in the news:
-----------------------------
Sediments extracted from the Antarctic seafloor show the world's largest ice shelf has disintegrated and reappeared many times in the past.
Scientists know ice shelves are the most vulnerable part of the Antarctic. On the Antarctic Peninsula, where temperatures have risen 2.5C in the past 50 years, there have been spectacular collapses such as the demise in 2002 of the Larsen B shelf.
The collapse of an ice shelf can lead to further loss of ice from the Antarctic continent itself.
Previous drilling has showed that ice sheets were quite dynamic, collapsing and reforming in line with the Earth's Milankovitch cycles. These are small "wobbles" in the Earth's orbit that are known to happen roughly every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years.
But said Dr Naish, "during all those natural cycles, carbon dioxide never got above 300 parts per million. So in the last 200 years, we've had this geologically unprecedented increase in CO2 - it's 30% higher than it has been over the last several million years and it's occurred at a rate we've never seen geologically."
Dr Naish muses: "If they collapsed in the past without the present level of CO2 and the Earth was two to three degrees warmer, what's going to happen with the doubling of CO2 and potentially much higher temperatures?"
--------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/newsletter/Newsletter71.pdf
761. Regional Assessment - LATIN AMERICA
762. Newsweek Covers Oil
763. Peak Oil and World War
764. Oil Company hints
765. A Dip in Oil Price
766. Norway addresses Peak Oil
767. EU Transition to a Sustainable Energy System
768. Russia pressed at G8 Meeting
769. Global Warming and Peak Oil
770. Major Oil Companies seem to pass peak
771. ASPO USA Boston Conference great success
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/newsletter/en/pdf/Newsletter72.pdf
Articles in this newsletter:
2007 it is then. The chaos of War will end the Mass Delusion.
And when the Mass Delusion ends, Peak Energy will no longer be an academic excersize.
And we will no longer have the luxury of slipping back into our own daily delusions.
Mother Nature says, "You are responsible for you - no excuses will be accepted."
Best of luck in your profoundly locale.
What crystal ball does he have that allows him entree into the psyches of "doomers"?
His arguments are all ad hominem, which makes them not arguments at all.
Such psychoanalysis is the art of applying motives to other persons in such a way as to flatter one's own preconceptions.
Huh? Isn't that exactly what you just did?
His post also attracted some intelligent comments though, which are worth reading. Matt Savinar appreciates the psychology issue, anyway. The notable exception is the "kill the engineers!" comment made by one of the lunatics who post on TOD.
Let's face it though, males are pretty much superfluous. The only reason we exist is so that females can exchange DNA.
To hell with "higher purposes!"
I have some family who feel this way. Guys who think their purpose is bringing home the check, and then basically staying out of the way. They've given up on having a life themselves. Very sad.
I suppose you were joking, but 'many a truth is told in jest'..
Step Back mentioned how emotion and irrationality have to be tackled before we can even start making really sensible choices about securing our future, and the above is a fine example. Boys get taught that their highest value for their society will be their willingness to kill other men, or die trying.. a very old, very irrational message that sells lots of plastic (and Metal) toys.
Being very serious,
Bob
(Beloved Dad, Great Husband, Brother, Son, Friend to all mankind.. quite popular with the Puppies and wee Kittens, too.)
I have always been inclined towards being a generalist, but that hasn't had a positive affect on my career trajectory. And if I'm honest with myself, I have to admit that while I know a little about a lot of things, I don't know much about anything.
The bottom line is that being a generalist doesn't pay well. Ask the small farmer -- if you can still find one, that is. I guarantee you that he/she has more of the sort of knowledge that Hopkins is talking about than most of us, but if that sort of knowledge was really useful in our present society, family farmers wouldn't be working two or three jobs to keep the bank from foreclosing on them.
Rob's point is that a whole generation of young men has been conditioned by that pressure; and when they contemplate "peak oil," they respond with doomerism.
I don't think that Rob is judging so much as observing.
I tend to agree with him. I'm in the older generation (56), and don't feel freaked out by the prospect of peak oil. We will manage. Manual labor and household skills are satisfying in a way that desk jobs aren't. One doesn't need consumer crap and cheap flights to Europe to have a happy, satisfying life.
The good news for men is that we will again be valued for characteristically male skills: moving heavy objects, fixing machines, opening stuck jar lids.
Well I'm going to disagree vehemently with his theory (but not diss him as a person because it is the theory we are talking about and not its proponent).
There are major differences between the way women think and the way men cognate. If you are not aware of that yet then you are probably from Venus or Mars rather than from Planet Earth.
The life experience of most women is that if there is a "technical" geeky problem, some man will come around and fix it. No need to waste cognitive energy worrying about that kind of stuff.
On the other hand, for a geek oriented male (not an AMPOD) the inability to fix the next tech problem means you won't have a chance in hell (as if you ever had one) to mate with the alpha female and pass you genetic code onto the next generation of nerds. Thus it is doom. It is the ultimate catastrophe.
I do feel a number of regrets, though. Specializing for success in the last half century has meant taking on more and more sedentary, cerebral jobs. This has left guys like me in our mid 50's with too much lifespan left to avoid feeling the effects, but not enough physical capacity left to continue succeeding in the brave new world. If I was only 20 years younger...
The other regret is that I may not be able to continue caring for my family as effectively as I have, once the requirements begin to change. I think for many men this is a very disturbing realization.
Like Rob I've wondered why there are so few women in the Peak Oil community. It could be that since men are inherently problem-solvers, we tend to be more interested than women in seeking out and understanding problems. The women I've told about the problem all get it right away, but they tend not to obsess about it. Their reactions vary from "We'll muddle through," to "Don't talk to me about problems, talk to me about solutions," to "This might not be such a bad thing, you know!"
I think on the whole women tend to be more connected to the world around them, and suffer less from mind/body, man/nature dualisms than men do. Next time I'm coming back as a woman.
Yes, but Rob's theory is specific to MEN. He conveniently ignores the fact women are just as useless as men these days.
Doubt many of them would be attracted by our views, though ;)
I don't think it's as much of an issue for women. Even in these "liberated" times, females get the message that their place is to be decorative, not necessarily useful. "The average woman would rather be pretty than smart, because the average man can see better than he can think."
Men are the ones who are supposed to take care of their families, be the provider, etc.
Yes ... if we continue to accept current culture.
But if there is no oil,
If there is no way to care & provide,
Then you may see an epidemic of men going crazy,
Doing who knows what to those around them.
And then being "Pretty like Paris" (Hilton) instead of smart and swift may not be adaptive in a Darwinian sense.
But don't worry.
We'll "muddle through" that part also when we get to it. :-)
The women I've known to be concerned about peak oil don't get obsessed with it (especially not with the numbers and graphs). Instead they tend to get involved with food, gardening and community.
If one re-defines Peak Oil to include food, gardening and community, then the mix of the sexes is much more even.
There's something to be said for both approaches.
He basically says that if you believe Peak Oil to be a catastrophe, it is because you are useless IT geek with no skills. On the other hand, if you are more optimistic like he is it's because you are more usefull.
Okay, lets apply our critical thinking skills here. (Critical thinking will still be important after Peak Oil, correct?) Here goes:
The fact that modern women are as useless sans petroleum as modern men are seems wholly lost on him. His theory, that men are doomers b/c they realize are useless sans pretorleum is bunk. If that was what is repsonsible for doomerism, you'd have just as many women show up at the PO doom-fests as men b/c modern women are just as useless as modern men.
But I guess we can't expect too much critical thinking or analysis from Rob. He's got sock knitting classes to attend, don't you know?
This is mostly Rob trying to insult and demean people who don't feel the same way he does. Basically a peak oil dick size contest is what he's trying to engage in here.
Personally I've responded to PO with doomerism b/c I follow the money. It's simple: trillions are being spent for oil and oil wars while billions are being spent to get away from oil and oil wars. You do the math.
If you're not freaked out by PO I suspect it's because your brain has simply wired itself to keep the real consequences compartmentalized. (It has to do this or you wouldn't be able to function.) If you were in Baghdad right now, would you not be a bit freaked out by the consequences of PO? Simialrly if you were in Bangladesh, would you not be a bit freaked out by PO's cousin, Climate Change?
The problem with Peak Oil is that it's not something that one can solve with arguments or intense reasoning. One can go around and around the same issues to no avail.
Sometimes it's good to set those things aside for awhile and enjoy the little things in life. My mother-in-law used to hear me talking for hours with my fiancee on the couch... trying to think things out, plan for this or that contingency.
"You think too much," was her sage advice.
Well, I still think too much and I'm just as obsessed with peak oil in my way as you are in yours. But I've learned from women friends and working people how to slow down and take things one at a time. Hopefully I'm not such a slave to the "thinking" mode as I once was.
There's something to be said for knitting socks, long hike, preparing food. They help put things into perspective.
Dmitry's presentation, which was originally made to the Petrocollapse conference in New York City last April is now online in document form:
http://energybulletin.net/23259.html
A similar phenomenon occurs among men in retirement. Those who had all their self-worth tied up in their job do poorly in retirement - the death rate is very high. Those men who found their self-worth elsewhere (knitting socks?) had the easiest transition.
For as long as women can have babies, they will never regard themselves as useless. That is the fundamental difference. I thought you understood this stuff. Guess I was wrong.
Anyhoo, it would be more entertaining for him to call somebody like Kunstler "useless" face-to-face in real life as Kunstler has the viciously sarcastic sense of humor and would verbally rip him several new ones large enough you could plant container gardens in them.
when you are part of an army
of angry men?
I grew up with homemade bread, but I didn't slice my own until I left home. Mainly because my mom is something of a control freak. Her kitchen is her castle. She didn't like her loaves sliced crooked, so she did the slicing for us.
To be fair, her whole wheat sourdough bread is extremely soft - crustless, even - so it's not easy to slice evenly.
In our culture, someone who gave a three-year-old a machete would probably be arrested for child abuse.
also the other day I was listening to an interview with a local doctor who now spends six months of the year with the pigmy in africa. he said that, according to custom, all decisions on tribal matters are voted on by members of the tribe whose hands had not touched blood. so the men who kill the beasts and the women who prepare it are left out. that leaves the youth. crazy
I love the flexibility myself, to slice off just what I need for the current application (toast, sandwich, ...)
Actually, no. If he can make the case that our expectations are in any way about us, about our internal mental state, then it is not ad hominem.
I think that is a pretty easy case to make.
This might be true, but as others have asked, who is sure they are not doing that?
Nice "detail" on the ASPO newsletter on Norwegian natural gas export capability.
In Article 766 Campbell states that only 60 per cent of the natural gas production is available for export. The rest is flared, used as operator fuel or reinjected. The statistics from Norwegian goverment is gross production.
(from articles above)
-OPEC chief estimates oil oversupply at one million bpd
-China seeks direct talks with OPEC
Who's correct? This is like another case of "we have oil to produce but noone wants it". At least the chinese are clearly stating they are ready to buy. So, KSA, can you deliver?
And what happens when economic growth sucks up that "extra" million barrels??
-China seeks direct talks with OPEC
I will shed some light on this in my reply to WT. First, it isn't only the OPEC chief who has estimated oversupply. He is backed up by other sources. Stay tuned.
Second, China has been trying to lock in long-term deals with a number of nations. They are doing some long-term planning. They know the market won't be oversupplied forever.
This is like another case of "we have oil to produce but noone wants it".
I will also shed some light on this. I will show other sources that back up that when that statement was made, market indications were that he was telling the truth.
I get the sense the global oil supply is akin to a just-in-time system and when there is a minor reduction in demand due to the delayed onset of cold weather that this quickly shows up as a surplus. OPEC then reacts to this seeming oversupply, curtails production, winter arrives with a vengance and we discover we are badly undersupplied.
I don't have evidence for the above but I'm getting the sense that this is what we may be observing.
Cheers!
What producers do tend to do is anticipate growth and try to bring production online as it is needed. An oversupplied market it bad on prices. This is the case with most cyclical industries. When the market is undersuppled, everyone invests in new capacity, and suddenly the market is oversupplied and prices crash. So, we have the cycles. I think everyone got caught off guard in 2005 as multiple events came together to tighten up supply. The demand was not anticipated correctly, and hence less production than needed (to keep prices low) came online.
I do believe, though, that the oil industry is on the verge, if not there already, of no longer being cyclical. If new production can't meet demand, you don't have a cycle. You have escalating prices and big profits.
This would still place geologic peak off in the future. But many of the impacts of this logistic peak will be similar to the impacts we would expect to see with Peak Oil i.e. the scope of the impacts will be similar but the scale will be somewhat reduced from what we would likely experience under peak.
The picture is starting to come into focus. Thanks!!
And this does not have to be due to Peak Oil, right? It could be from poor production/refining investment and forecasting. Will this be your arguement?
As I said, the differences between WT and RR are nothing like the differences between WT/RR and Yergin.
As Jeffrey indicated, Peak Lite. We have already seen some of this. Prices were increasing before Katrina as excess capacity dried up. Supply was in fact still increasing, but demand was increasing at a faster pace.
Perhaps what you are identifying, Robert, are the little peaks along a bumpy plateau, whereas what WT is trying to identify is the "true" peak along that bumpy plateau. It may just be a matter of resolution and perspective, but it might be true that WT is merely identifying a bump along the plateau.
An unresolvable question at this point in time.
What is more likely to happen is that the cycle will grow up to capture the whole economy. As the prices rise there will be alternating periods of ever-worsening recessions, causing lower prices and lower investment, followed by short revivals until we hit the same ceiling again.
IMO how long it will take for us to get out of this depends on the speed we are going to develop alternatives. And it also depends on the government policy which must ensure a long-term strategy for replacing oil will be maintained independantly of the business cycles.
I know nothing about electricity transmission but is there not any way to transform (efficiently) Direct Current into Alternating Current at or near the point of usage? IE some kind of transformer.
If this is possible, what are the problems (cost, energy loss, etc) associated with it?
Magnus can give more details on Sweden.
So far, HV DC is "point to point" in all cases that I am aware of. No multipoint inputs or outputs. Solution is to place input near large generator (usually hydro) and output near large load (city) and use local HV AC grid to distribute. The output can be thought of as a large power plant.
Hope this helps.
Best Hopes for workable solutions,
Alan
So it would theoretically be possible to transmit solar-powered electricity from the Sahara to northern Europe if it is possible to overcome the issue of the multiple input and offtake points?
Any idea what the DC-AC conversion costs might look like per MW of installed capacity? Surely cheaper than the multi-billion Euro cost discussed in the article, where the preferred solution appears to be to convert the entire European HV grid from AC to DC. That does not even seem workable from what you have said about "point to point" transmission.
The new lines from Wyoming to Phoenix (~1,600 km, capacity ?, but probably more than 1 GW) are scheduled to cost a little over US$ 1 billion each.
Going through Europe and underwater cost MUCH more.
Feeding Italy & Spain seem better targets IMHO.
Alan
There is a fairly large power line project where a "point to point" 400 km HV DC cable is suggested instead of a new 400 kV HV AC overhead line. I hope the DC cable looses out since it would be at least 30% more expensive, have less capacity and not ad as much redundancy as another interconnect in the 400 kV grid.
We have five HV DC sea cables to neighbouring countries. The one too Finland is to be more then doubled in capacity for the grid to absorb the additional capacity from Finlands new 1600 MW nuclear powerplant. The odd thing with that HV DC link is that both ends are in the same syncronized AC grid, its a shortcut to avoid transfering power all around the sea. And there are two cables from the Swedish mainland to the iceland Gotland.
Here is a map of the Scandinavian grid, page two is in english:
http://www.svk.se/upload/3756/SVKK030121.pdf
The long north-south links were built before HV DC was a good option. Some of the long HV AC lines have series capacitors wich might be odd.
The big news in the overall grid is a major cablification project for rural distribution to get them storm resistant, a reworkning of the power distribution structure in Stockholm and that lots of switchyard equipment is nearing end of life and reliability is becomming more important prompting large reinvestment projects.
The HV AC grid gets some new small or large additions every other year to keep up with demand from electricity trading and new production. I have not heard any rumours about building a HV DC grid. I dont think it would add enough benefit to be worth the technology change unless it is needed for pan european power transfer. In such a project it could make sense to build a HV DC power line to hydro power in northern Sweden.
Myslef I would very much like more nuclear powerplants in southern Sweden and additional HV DC sea cables for electricity export to Germany and Poland.
Urban Rail almost always takes medium voltage AC and converets it into low voltage DC (600 V DC for old systems, 750 V DC for new, Seattle is 1500 V DC, BART 1000 V DC) for transmission to the cars. There (except in New Orleans) it is converted back to AC for AC motors. New Orleans uses DC motors, two in series at 300 V DC for new built Canal & Riverfront cars.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Inverters convert DC to AC. My camper has an inverter that allows AC 110V use from the 12V DC battery.
Rectifiers convert AC to DC. The alternator in your car generates AC power, and is converted to DC in the alternator through a rectifier bridge.
HV DC to Egypt and Algeria are in draft plans. Pushing them further into Spain & Italy is technically doable, but Africa is "sensitive" about this.
Best Hopes,
Alan
It says Angola will peak in about 5 years, 2011, at 2.6 mb/d. That is about 1.1 million barrels per day higher than they are currently producing, or an increase of about 220,000 barrels per year, each year.
Non-OPEC production has been basically flat since December 2003. Most non-OPEC nations have been declining since then. Five non-OPEC nations have been increasing however, and their increase in production has been what has kept non-OPEC production flat instead of declining. Those five nations, well, counting the Caspian area as one nation, are Russia, Angola, China, Brazil and the Caspian area.
The Caspian area is covered under "Other" in the EIA's International Petroleum Monthly, spreadsheet 1.1c. True, many other nations are covered under "other" as well, Denmark, Germany, etc. But they are all in decline. The increase in the Caspian area production however has far more than made up for the decline in those other nations.
But now Russia and China are showing signs of peaking. Angola, Brazil and the Caspian area are nowhere near peak however. But this report is an eye-opener. Angola is only five years from peak and the increase between now and peak is not that great.
It simply does not look like Angola, Brazil and the Caspian area will be able to keep up with the decline in those other non-OPEC nations. This of course assumes that Russia and China are near peak. But even if they are not so close to their peak, their production increase is clearly slowing. It is slowing so much that there is, in my opinion, no way they can replace the decline in the other 15 non-OPEC nations. Those other 15 nations, combined, peaked in 1997 at 23,584,000 barrels per day and are currently producing about 20,000,000 barrels per day, a decline of well over 3.5 million barrels per day.
Non-OPEC production peaked, so far, in 2005 and it looks for all the world like that peak will hold. OPEC also in 2005 and we are currently about 800,000 barrels per day below that peak. This is of course before the cuts initiated by OPEC on November 1st.
This is just another reason that I believe the peak is behind us. Of course if you believe those massive reserve numbers that the EIA, IEA, BP, CERA and others say are out there, then we are absolutely nowhere near peak. I don't believe a damn word of it. Those so-called reserves, reserve growth and undiscovered reserves are purely mythological.
But we shall know soon, a lot sooner than most people on this list think, whether or not we are post peak. Just as soon as OPEC lifts their quota, or puts it back to last year's numbers, and they are unable to produce those numbers, we will know we are post peak. And I predict that will happen in less than two years.
Ron Patterson
I will ask you again a question you didn't answer yesterday. What do you believe Saudi's reserves to be, and on what basis do you make that estimate?
Sorry Robert, but I must have overlooked that question yesterday. I think Saudi reserves are somewhere between 65 billion and 100 billion barrels. That estimate is based on several sources. The Hubbert Linearization puts Saudi reserves at about 70 billion barrels. Gleaning data from "Twilight in the Desert" I come to the same conclusion. Simmons is very careful not to give an exact estimate of reserves, but from the data he does supply, you can estimate that Saudi has less than 100 billion barrels of reserves. And, from my own careful study of Saudi Arabia, and the production history of all their major fields, I estimate that their reserves are closer to 65 billion barrels than 100 billion barrels.
And Saudi Arabia is about 58 percent depleted.
Ron Patterson
http://energybulletin.net/16459.html
Then I think that is consistent with what he has. It looks to me like URR is 185 or so, and we are at the 110 mark or so.
However, I note two things about that HL. It has changed dramatically over time (at one time it would have predicted URR of less than 100 billion barrels), and lately it has shown an uptick. The last 3 points are above the extrapolated line, and if that trend continues it will predict URR of well over 200 billion barrels. Note that the behavior doesn't remotely resemble the HL for Texas.
Regarding HL, in most cases, you don't begin to get an accurate HL estimate until you get a P/Q intercept of 5% to 10%.
Regarding the last three years, we saw exactly the same inflection in the Texas HL plot, just prior to Texas peaking. You can see the increases in the two regions, prior to 1972 and prior to 2005, on the production rate versus time plots showing both areas.
We can argue why KSA is down, but no one can argue that KSA is down, as we predicted, in the captioned article:
For example, as you know I predicted rising gas prices right after the election. We have seen that. Prediction fulfilled. My prediction was based on what inventories were doing (and I know that you agree with the prediction).
Others predicted that prices would rise as oil companies stopped manipulating them. They can also point to a fulfilled prediction. But it doesn't mean their underlying premise was right. Mine is indisputable. Inventories have been crashing. Theirs is completely subjective, and they haven't actually offered any evidence in support of their contention. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone offer a hypothetical about how any U.S. oil company is going to manipulate prices without it being obvious as to what they are doing (e.g., shutting down all of your refineries would do it, but you couldn't hide that).
I'm sorry, but the only indisputable proof, that a country has reached his peak, is that it produces less than a given date. So to say, the only reason why we all say and admit that Texas has peaked is that the State produces (far) less than in 1972.
If the KSA is down for one and a half year or 2 years, IMO we can assume they peaked and the people who wish to contradict must demonstrate they have plausible reasons to think it will go high again..
The burden of proof is, at one time, reversed..
That is of course no indisputable proof, as Saudi production has been down year on year many times in the past. That's the whole point. If production is down because demand is down, that is not an irreversible decline.
If the KSA is down for one and a half year or 2 years, IMO we can assume they peaked and the people who wish to contradict must demonstrate they have plausible reasons to think it will go high again.
I guess some people are just more willing to accept claims based on less evidence than I am. If KSA is down in 2 years AND oil prices are high AND demand is high, then the argument is solid. If KSA is down in 2 years and we are in the middle of a worldwide recession, not so solid.
Both are observed correlations.
The trickiest thing humans have to face is that after a successful prediction they do not get to declare their cause as the driving one. Put another way, a successful prediction does not prove past correlation as causation.
FWIW, I like your inventory-driven explanation. I also like the idea that the post-election rally could be some kind of bizarre group-think and self-fulfilling expectations.
But I'll never really know.
A question for you to ponder.
If the decline in Saudi oil production is involuntary, due to depletion, and not a voluntary reduction, would you expect them to admit that the production decline is involuntary?
Note that they promised, and failed, to increase production after the hurricanes.
I have pondered that question. I think it would be very difficult for them to keep it quiet. Within any organization, there are always whistle-blowers.
Note that they promised, and failed, to increase production after the hurricanes.
Do you have a reference for this? I would like to read the story.
By the way, just want people to know that I am taking a day of vacation today to deal with some relocation issues. I have more time than normal to respond than if I was at work.
Saudi Arabia ready to help US after hurricane
08.31.2005, 04:14 PM
I think that there was some question about quality issues regarding the oil that the Saudis could deliver, but in any case, production did not go up, and the release of petroleum from emergency reserves, in my opinion, is the new "swing producer."
Besides that, I guarantee that refiners would rather tap the SPR and pay the crude back later instead of buying more crude on the open market at those escalating prices.
Since Bush 43 was sworn in (2001), world C+C consumption has increased from 68 mbpd to 73.3 mbpd currently, and we will have used, since 1/1/01, about 153 Gb of oil though the end of 2006.
If see about the same rate of growth in production, in the next six years, through 2012, we will consume about 166 Gb of oil. 166 Gb is about 17% of all remaining conventional crude + condensate reserves, based on the HL method.
The world is at the 50% of Qt mark, the same point at which the Lower 48 peaked. Actual cumulative Lower 48 post-50% of Qt production was 99% of what the HL model predicted it would be, using the same level of production data that we have for the world to generate the model (though the 50% mark).
Total US petroleum imports have gone up from about 10.5 mbpd in 2001 to about 12.5 mbpd today, which would put the US on track to be importing more than 15 mbpd in 2012, which I estimate exceeds the current combined net exports of the two largest exporters, Saudi Arabia and Russia--whose domestic consumption by the way is increasing at double digit rates per year.
As I said, I think that the illusion of an infinite exponential growth rate is in the process of meeting the reality of an exponential decline rate.
Not really. I get into this in my opening segment - why I have an issue and why this is more than just academic. But I have decided to stop posting on the issue, and just take a break from TOD until I am done. I expect my reply to be posted next Monday.
>>For example, as you know I predicted rising gas prices right after the election. We have seen that. Prediction fulfilled. My prediction was based on what inventories were doing (and I know that you agree with the prediction).
At best your methodology, all you can do is make short term predictions since the data your relying on is based upon short term trends. You have absolutely no way to predict whether long term global production will rise and fall, Since its not possible for us to make a absolute scientific assestment because of incomplete data. Therefore, we are forced to make a guess based upon the data we have, plus some information leaked to the public.
It really doesn't matter whether production is permenantly declining today or in 2010-2012 as you have suggested in the past. What matters is that hard times are ahead and action is required to address it.
Personally I side with Darwinin and WT. Although, I hope your predictions are right since it buys more time before a serious crisis begins, but I am not betting my future that you're right. I think your time would be better served not debating whether or not PO is today or even a decade way, but which mitigation investments and other efforts would best serve our future.Your work on debunking Ethanol was excellent work, and I would as I am sure the majority of others would be interested in your thoughts on other "promised" technologies.
This discussion about the scheduled arrival of a crisis is a dead end road. I don't believe that your efforts in this discussion are going to change minds on either side. While you stop to debate a near pointless issue, the clock keeps on ticking.
Best of Luck.
As I said, this is more than academic. If you think my dispute is over the timing of peak, you have completely missed the point. Stay tuned. Last post.
I do think it would be a good idea to address the Saudi question since: (1) it is showing lower production, as I predicted, and (2) it's the world's largest exporter. I am very interested in an explanation of why Ghawar is not in trouble since the best case is that the field is producing at least one-third water, after the horizontal wells were drilled.
It does appear that you are going to get quite a vigorous response.
So far...I like the civility of the discussions and the repect you two show for each other.
It's been good to revisit some of old ideas/data in a new light and all in one place.
I'm pretty sure Robert is going to give reasons why decreasing imports don't signal the big PO but instead "normal" business trends/cycles. I'm guessing but that seems to be his slant on it.
I, too, appreciate your civility (as Dragonfly41 said below).
Re: "It occurs to me that the debate between RR and myself is akin to a couple of engineers debating how soon the Titanic is going to sink."
Would you each be willing - at some point - to put forward some either ideas or steps along the lines of elements you would place in a national (or international, for that matter) energy policy? Robert, given we have the time you espouse. Jeffrey, if not, or in either case.
Perhaps w. assumptions: such as, what are the pre-conditions (what would it take) money, access (to whom?) or whatever. Could you take these as givens (pretend) and then say exactly what you would like to see done? A hypothetical "king-of-the-world" question. Still, relevant given your statement above. (I hope.)
Increase gas taxes dramatically and use money to reduce payroll taxes.
Push electrifying our frieght railroads ASAP, and shiftingb freight from truck to rail.
Dramatically build out Urban Rail, electric trolley buses and encourage transportation bicycling.
Jeffrey links to my proposals.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
There is more as well that I support, but the above is a good Phase I. I also have specifics on how to do the above, depending on how radical I can get away with :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
WHAT??? You think KSA would tolerate any whistleblowers that are currently "in the know"? That could mean great pain to the individual and his/her family.
The only people that even speak about ARMACO are those that have retired or left and are safely away from harm.
Just a coincidence I suppose.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/supply.html
Anyone want to volunteer to plot Saudi C+C production by month versus the Saudi stock market?
It looks like the 2006 peak of the stock market pretty well correlates with the 2006 production high of 9,500 mbpd in February. The Saudi stock market is down about 60% so far this year.
Note that Venezuela, which has long life unconventional reserves, has had a booming stock market so far this year.
Bloomberg quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SASEIDX:IND
The index is down over 60% since peaking in late February.
Does KSA have a central bank?
Sorry...don't have time to google it all...just wondered if anyone knows off hand.
IMO, Richard Heinberg is telling the truth about his conversation.
If we take that as a given, then the question is whether the source that he spoke to, and the original sources are telling the truth.
It just seems like an awful lot of coincidences: Saudi production is down, despite the highest nominal prices in history; they have vastly expanded their drilling program; they are constantly talking about new "voluntary" production cutbacks, and last but not least, their stock market started crashing when the production started falling from its 2006 peak. A lot of coincidences. And BTW, it's at the same stage of depletion at which Texas started declining.
I don't think you can make a direct connection between KSA declining production and the KSA stock market crash. If Oil production was the trigger the Media would have been all over the rumors. Most likely the Market rose too fast and because oil prices were stabilizing between $68 and $74, profit gains would also have to stabilize. IIRC, other markets also peaked and declines. Metals, and other commodies also fell around the same time.
They are attempting to milk the market for all it's worth - they are just very cautious about:
*At what price demand slows down by voluntary cuts
*At what price alternatives are explored - especially political movements behind alternatives
*At what price they get targeted militarily by an oil-hungry superpower
*The calculus of price versus volume (nontrivial for a majority-market player in a commodity), a preference for price stability rather than cyclical variations, and the risk of the above three happening is what decides their actions
3 years ago they may have thought that 60 dollar oil would cripple the West's economies - recently institutional speculators, Middle Eastern instability, and Katrina drove prices well above that - and we didn't stop driving. We didn't attack them politically (with the exception of some prop 87 rhetoric). We(the US at least) didn't embrace alternatives as much more than a dog, pony, and pork show.
But it hasn't, yet. And so they fire their analysts of our economy, and $62 becomes the new $25. At least until the coming US recession in '07 or '08 and the potential ensuing collapse of the de facto world anchor currency.
The whole 'whistleblowers' argument only seems to work when you have someone who has had a 'change of heart' either from an attack of ethics (the ethical rarely get in any real power) or are turning states evidence.
Actually people were bringing attention to problems in Enron well before they blew up.
As far as whistle-blowing, I don't mean someone comes out publicly. That would be career suicide. What happens is someone faxes a document to the media or something. Doesn't Heinberg claim to have a source providing him with information? Do you think he is the only one with such contacts? It is a big organization, and they would be sitting on one of the biggest secrets in history. The bigger the organization and the bigger the secret, the harder it is to keep quiet.
In fact, the whole short term/longer term Peak Export/Peak Oil debate can pretty well be distilled down to Ghawar--is the field declining?
The problem I have with a sustained production level of 5 mbpd for Ghawar is the best case that the field is producing one-third water, after being redeveloped with horizontal wells.
re: "Doesn't Heinberg claim to have a source providing him with information? Do you think he is theonly one with such contacts?"
So, does this mean...you take Heinberg's comment seriously?
'Rumors' have existed for some time about who burned the German Parliment, who was proving support to Lenin, who provided support to the IRA, who funds the FARC, what really happened on 9/11/2001, what happened WRT pearl harbor, et la.
At what point does it stop being 'rumormongering' and start being 'whitleblowing'? Is the difference who's hanging the lable on whom?
Or is it if you like the message or not?
...that is, if you believe in HL curves.
Texas peaked in 1972 when it was about 57% depleted.
Again, the question before us is not whether the largest exporter in the world declining. The question is: why is the largest exporter in the world showing declining production?
Opec insiders are reporting Saudi production in December, presumably C+C will be somewhere below 8.9 mbpd. With the massive contraction in tanker traffic, it could be a lot below 8.9 mbpd, but we shall see.
In any case, we are looking at least a 7% decline in Saudi production--from 12/05 to 12/06. According to the EIA, they showed an increase in consumption of 22%. If this continued into 2006 and if Total Liquids behaved like C+C, the Saudis are going to show about about a 13% drop in net exports from 12/05 to 12/06.
BTW, Laherre's plot, as of 2004, showed remaining recoverable reserves of about 74 Gb.
Fortunately, my response to you has an entire section entitled: Why Were Imports Down? :-)
If "rough ultimate" is 180 (or a bit less, as it appears in the chart) and cumulative production is in the 105-110 range - again, from the chart, then "left" must be 70-75, not 98...
Steverino, if you are referring to the chart below that quote, you need to have your eyeballs calibrated. Cumulative production is about 105 GB while the line intersects zero at about 175 GB. A little simple math then puts remaining reserves at 70 GB.
Ron Patterson
While I respect your opinion especially since you are literally on the inside. However do you really think they have that much oil in the ground?
Sorry it gets cut off, but the point is the change in 89 to 90 without any significant new oil discoveries. So for 16 years it's been BS. So if we take the original 170B and subtract the last sixteen years of pumping, we might be a bit more accurate.
I am aware of the big upward revision in 1990. I am not sure what reasoning they provided for this upward revision, and it certainly looks suspicious. Let's take the 170 billion, and subtract 16 years of production. I don't have the time to do the entire 16 years, but eyeballing it says their production averaged around 8.5 million barrels per day; maybe even less. That is a little over 3 billion barrels a year, and in 16 years would mean they are down 50 billion barrels to 120 billion. This is well more than the Saudi skeptics have allowed for.
That is a little over 3 billion barrels a year, and in 16 years would mean they are down 50 billion barrels to 120 billion [From 170].
From WT's post
BTW, Laherre's plot, as of 2004, showed remaining recoverable reserves of about 74 Gb.
So subtract another 2 years production at 3 billion barrels a year and you get 68Gb remaining
Why would the HL predictions and RR's simple URR-cumulative production numbers be off by so much? 120 billion vs 68 billion.
My understanding is that Aramco is the Saudi company.
Saudi Aramco was the company owned by the major oil companies.
Saudi Aramco's (the major oil companies) estimate of URR was about 170 Gb, as of the early Seventies I believe.
The HL method gives us a mathematical estimate of URR, what Deffeyes calls Qt.
The Qt estimates are in the 180 to 186 Gb ranges, versus the original Saudi Aramco estimate of an URR of 170 Gb.
If 170Gb is the correct number for the early 70's and it remained unchanged until 1989 that's another 17 years or so of production we need to subtract.
17 years * 3Gb a year (roughly) gives us another 50Gb(roughly).
So take that 120GB number, subtract another 50Gb an you get 70Gb of URR remaining.
Pretty much what the HL plot says.
Wow.
The Saudis stopped allowing their reserves to be verified in 1982, when reserves were 165 GB. You would also assume that they did find some oil between then and now. Most everyone else has. How much? Who knows? But, I would say that 70 GB of remaining reserves given what we do know is on the low side. Even if they didn't find another drop after 1982, that still gives them about 90 billion barrels or more based on their production rates.
Would 20Gb of reserve growth and new discoveries be reasonable?
That is the difference between the '82 165Gb and the QT estimates from HL of 185GB.
So the HL says 185GB of URR and 70GB remaining.
RR's (URR+discovery/growth of 20GB)- 24years production says 185GB and 90GB remaining.
I still don't understand why the two numbers are off. Unless there are actually another 20GB of reserve growth/discover and SA URR is not 185GB but 205Gb.
What am I doing wrong here?
Ron Patterson
You are right of course. I realized last night that I had transposed them
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a4eRl8w9Rols&refer=europe
The "But China is strong and will buy up all the oil available" argument is currently weak. At the moment China is the second derivative of the US and EU economies - when the they are importing consumer goods, China's economy explodes upwards. If they cut down, China implodes.
Of course those "explode/implode" words are strictly relative. To China a 2% growth would be an implosion.
Regards
Total US product supplied (four week running average, mbpd, for late November:
2006: 20.97 (2.4% over 2005, again some hurricane effects in 2005)
2005: 20.48 (-0.6% over 2004, hurricane effects?)
2004: 20.60 (2.8% over 2003)
2003: 20.04 (1.3% over 2002)
2002: 19.78 (1.1% over 2001
2001: 19.57
Because of the combined effects of (historically) rising demand and falling production, we need close to 5% more total petroleum imports, every single year. The only way that our demand for imports will stop growing is if our demand falls off at the same number of barrels per day that our production is dropping--assuming that we can't dramatically increase US production of course.
Furthermore, always for the same YTD period,
05 vs 04 was +1.76%
04/03 +1.47%
03/02 +2.5%
02/01 -0.61%
You can see how the economy plays a very important role (notice the dip in the recession 02/01).
Regards
Japan 30%
China 16%
UK 10%
Oil Countries ~5%
etc for the rest
Now 16% is still a big number when it comes to international finance, but I can easily see China reducing their dollar holdings to, say, 10% with some downward pressure on the dollar but it would depend on how others deal with the situation as to whether the dollar 'collapses' or not. So far the dollar's downward trend looks more like the so-called 'catabolic' collapse that will proceed in stair-step like fashion and not happen all at once.
Bubble? Looks that way to me...
All of this investment is creating a huge upsurge in "domestic" GDP but it is in fact 100% related to exports. You can immediately see that if manufacturing capacity is overbuilt and exports slow down...implosion. Their cash flow will turn negative at the same time that asset prices will collapse.
Regards
The key issue with China is that the exports are both low end (clothing, shoes, and toys etc) and high end (high value, high tech exports). The primary reason for this advanced export mix is the decision of US firms to locate production in China and transfer technology to their Chinese production plants. When the US complains about Chinese exports they are really complaining about US multi-nationals (HP, Intel) and US retailers (Walmart) and the degree to which US consumers make purchase decisions on a price basis rather than place of orgin basis.
Pogo had the answer: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The "you are correct" comment refers to ET's post. Hellasious raises the question of domestic demand soaking up production if exports are curtailed.
Even were the exchange rate to alter the US would still be forced to purchase Chinese exports. The US plants that once made substitute products no longer exist and it would take a period of years to recreate them.
I suspect part of the advantage China may have in negotiating energy contracts is that they can offset those energy imports with product exports to the producing countries. If we accept an increasing level of wealth in the energy producing nations then we can anticpate they will seek to duplicate western consumption patterns. Note that this is a reciprocal relationship and is advantageous to both parties. This is very different relationship from the US "export" of democracy to Iraq.
I was not referring to import substitution but overall lower consumption levels in the US, brought about by a host of reasons (too much debt, negative personal savings rate, etc).
Even a level of US consumption growth that is lower than manufacturing capacity addition in China would seriously damage the Chinese economy. They have overbuilt simply everything and that is where economic troubles almost always begin: overcapacity and high borrowing to build it. Japan learned the hard way and the Chinese are many times worse. They are the world's most fanatical gamblers, FYI.
Can the oil exporters substitute for frenetic American consumption? No, I cannot see that they would be able to make up but a portion of the loss from America.
You may be right. How do they stack up against a nation that runs a negative savings rate, that insists on an energy intensive non-negotiable lifestyle despite clear evidence of global warming, a people that expects the rest of the world to finance their purchases and accept their fiat currency on an indefinite basis, that invades and occupies a foreign country simply because they don't like the head of state, that have absolutely no plans for what to do once they complete the occupation, who take initiatives which plunge a critical region of the world into crisis, and who then threaten further attack on a nation seeking to mitigate Peak Oil?
Those Chinese gamblers!! There should be a law!! Down with Mah Jong!!
Sometimes I post and then think boy, should have put in a</joke></sarcasam></humour> indicator or else this will be the start of a four page flame war.
All the best, Cheers!
I'm not sure this is true for Brazil. This article from 2003 quoted Wood MacKenzie saying Brazil would peak in 2007
A another Wood MacKenzie report published last year said
An analysis posted here seems to put peak production at around 2009-2010.
Ron Patterson
Gates: U.S. not winning the war in Iraq
Remember the Timoth McVey / Federal building bombing?
I remember the 1st few minutes the Rush Limbaughs were saying 'its the Arabs' and calling for retaliation.
The Vietnam analogy has been repeated (and repeatedly criticized) but there is one VERY big difference. In Vietnam, the US could get into its helicopters and fly away. Beyond a certain loss of face, there were no overt long term consequences.
In contrast, we all know what's at stake here: the survival of the Israeli state and the continued existence of the West's industrial economy.
W, W, W...
I kinda doubt they did. After that tantrum he threw when he learned about the Easter Bunny...
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/americas-breadbasket-moves-to-canada/
<----
Note the accompanying map. The new grain growing area is right on top of the tar sands. The eastern portion of the new grain area is in the Canadian Shield, an upthrust belt of granite hills. Great ski slopes but not sure how you farm a 70 degree slope. Ski lift may come in handy to get the farmhands to the top of the field however.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15809.htm
Until then the forecast is hot
Fascinating link: I hope all TODers watch this video!
I have been following this for several years, in fact, my first post on TOD was a long scenario on GW-induced Antarctic melt, WAIS collapse, super-johkulaups, and subglacial lakes that Prof. Goose deleted because it was about ten feet long on the screen [because as a fresh newbie I didn't yet know the TOD protocol]. =)
What would be interesting to try is to preplan, then totally shut down all airplanes worldwide for 30 days so scientists could study the effects more. I suspect the results obtained would make most of the scientists immediately switch careers to permaculture and horticulture.
Hopefully, videos like this BBC example convince more people of the need whereby 60-75% move to relocalized permaculture. If not, I still remain a fast-crash doomer... then it gets much worse from there, of course.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Its sobering to know that I'm in the top 50% at a time I thought I was a poor student.
Big Drawdown or not?
I'm thinking natural gas had to have taken a huge hit from the artic blast that hit the country last week. When do those weekly figures post?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngs/ngs.html
Extinction Pact of the Kiliwa
Spanish language Source: LaJornada
English Source: The Herald:
-----------------------------------
TIJUANA - In protest of what they say is neglect by the government, the 54 remaining indigenous Kiliwa people in California have agreed to
stop reproducing and let their ethnicity die out.Elias Espinosa, who serves as the community´s leader, said they had reached a "death pact." He is married to Mónica González, an ethnic Cocapá, who says her 260-member tribe has decided to
do the same.The Kiliwa, who inhabit northern Baja California, have traditionally
subsisted through hunting and gathering.However, they say they have been forced off of their ancestral lands in recent years, which, along with environmental degradation, has forced them to make a living by working on farms and ranches on the lands that were once theirs.--------------------------------------------
Death of a 100,000 year-old culture?
or is the true value sentiment:
A Diamond is Forever tm
---------------------------------------
Uprooted and marginalised: how the Bushmen lost out to diamond hunters
FOR YEARS the government of Botswana angrily told the world that diamond discoveries were not the reason for the forcible removal of the Bushmen of the Kalahari from the
last place in Africawhere they pursued their traditional hunter-gatherer way of life.South Africa's Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu issued a statement backing the Kalahari Bushmen. He said they represent a
100,000-year-old culture that should be considered one of the world's treasures."While progress is necessary, it cannot be that the only way to achieve progress is to remove the San as the Bushmen are sometimes known from their ancestral lands," said Tutu. "When a culture is destroyed in the name of progress, it is not progress, it is a loss for our world.
The Bushmen cleared from the CKGR now live in squalid settlements around the edge, where there are neither animals to hunt nor traditional wild plant foods, including truffles, to harvest. The camps are places of despair, marked by unemployment, alcoholism and disease, including TB and Aids.
Botswana's president, Festus Mogae, has described the Kalahari Bushmen as "
Stone Age creatures who must change or otherwise, like the dodo, they will perish." ...Mogae dismissed the appeal by the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, saying Tutu's remarks would have no international impact.---------------------------------------------------------
You gotta give credit where credit is due: Pres. Mogae is being brutally honest by saying indigenous tribes don't stand a chance against a diamond's five C's:
- COST
- COLOR: predominately fresh-blood-red African black
- CUT: yes,by the thousands; bullets for Marquis & Princess
- CLARITY: extremely rare, 99.9% heavily clouded by Denial
- CARAT WEIGHT--sets off exponentials of 1-4
Please imagine a bejewelled Elizabeth Taylor lost in the Sonoran Desert of Baja or the Kalahari Bush--the Alpha-Female Indigenous Stone-Age Consumer?Diamonds of Extinction?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"Saudi Aramco raised the premium to its benchmark price for Super Light crude oil by 80 cents to $6.80 a barrel, Extra Light's premium by 50 cents to $3.45 a barrel, and Arab Light's premium was increased by 25 cents to 15 cents a barrel, said refinery officials who received notices from the company. The Saudi state-owned company cut Arab Medium and Arab Heavy prices."
Iranian oil traded in euros gets noticed
Bhanu Baweja, head of emerging markets currency strategy at UBS AG in London, comments on a Tehran Times report that Iran has started substituting euros for dollars in its crude oil trading.
``It's something to keep a very close eye on because if other oil exporters ``were to shift from dollars to euros as they invoice oil receipts changes, it improves the euro's value as money.
``Money is defined as a store of value and a measure of exchange. It massively increases the euro's function as a measure of exchange.
``That will automatically mean central banks will have to stock more euros, so diversification will have to follow.
``If global oil producers do that and this picks up momentum, then this will probably be a much bigger negative for the dollar than the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates.