 | Oh, Canada! -- Natural Gas and the Future of Tar Sands Production | The Oil Drum | A Critique of the 2006 EIA International Energy Outlook |  |
DrumBeat: June 21, 2006
Posted by threadbot on June 21, 2006 - 9:10am
Topic: Miscellaneous
George Orwel, an oil analyst and writer for both the Oil Daily and Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, has written a book about peak oil called Black Gold. You can read an excerpt at Energy Bulletin.
I have often been reminded of a Chinese saying that basically translates into something like this: Long is not forever. In other words, everything comes to an end; it doesn't matter how long it takes. I've been covering the oil industry for a long time and I often talk with many economists about the status of the market. They are a very optimistic lot. That's good because they deal with issues of wealth creation, except that when they let unreasonable optimism color their thinking in such a sway that their only concern is the short-term financial benefit, they run the risk of losing their credibility.
"We may not like to admit it," Mr. Goodell writes, "but our shiny white iPod economy is propped up by dirty black rocks."The Times also notes that the Scent of Ballots Is in Air, and Energy Bills Are Blooming. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) are pushing the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which will raise the CAFE standards from 25 mpg to 35 mpg by 2017. And Congress wants the oil industry to pay royalties that error let it avoid.
Internationally:
China cuts Saudi oil imports. Their refineries are having trouble with the new high-sulfur crude. This may explain the second quarter drop in Saudi production.
In Zimbabwe, Fuel Prices Skyrocket As Supplies Dwindle. Despite the high prices, lines are long and many gas stations have run dry.
And the invisible hand, at work in the U.S.:
As gas costs rise, so does use of public transit. Ridership is surging, with low-income people most likely to give up their cars.
DuPont and BP partnering to produce biofuels. Their first product will be biobutanol, a gasoline component made out of sugar beets.
The world's largest factory for making solar power cells will be built in the Bay Area. Seed money was provided by the founders of Google.
And Bob will be happy to know that poop is a hot new trend. Yes, including "humanure."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a0Uif4sdYWQY&refer=us
GM Debt Slips Further Into Junk Status
Credit rating agencies are upset with General Motors again after it unveiled changes to a 5.6 billion-dollar loan package. They say the changes put bondholders at a disadvantage.
Both Standard and Poor's and Moody's Investors Service lowered the automaker's debt deeper into junk territory. Wall Street rating agencies kicked GM and Ford's credit out of investment grade last year on worries about labor costs and slumping car sales.
The credit agencies acted after GM announced that it would offer lenders collateral, better pricing and other perks in exchange for extending the maturity of the loans.
Very sobering indeed.
-C.
I feel sorry for the workers. Once again management screws up and it's the worker who pays the price.
People should be responsible for their own retirement. However if pensions were promised they should be honored. But let's stop promising them and take some personal responsibility for a flippin change. I know it's hard when people want everyone else to give them the silver platter they never had.
(Yawn)
This is what is known as a 'straw-man' argument. Unions are simply doing what capital is doing in trying to secure the best possible deal for itself. For every 'lazy union worker' story you can trot out I can trot out 'worthless exectuive' stories. Words like 'results' and 'efficiency' doesn't seem to get talked about much when executive pay packages get discussed. Look at the correlation between executive pay and company performance. Oh, wait, there is none.
The management, however, is ultimately responsible to the shareholders who actually own the company. Workers don't make decisions on cars to produce or how marketing will work. Indeed, only the threat of a strike compells management to take worker concerns seriously.
People should be responsible for their own retirement. However if pensions were promised they should be honored. But let's stop promising them and take some personal responsibility for a flippin change.
While you may wish this to be so, reality points out that most individuals know far too little about investing to make the amount of money they need in their investment portfolios to get them through retirement. This is a well known fact. This, however, isn't what we're discussing.
I know it's hard when people want everyone else to give them the silver platter they never had.
Laughable. So, when workers make a good deal for themselves its called 'laziness' but when corporate exectuives get
golden parachutes and immense pay packages unrelated to performance that's called 'the market'. How very Orwellian.
I don't see any straws. I am not defending management. If you would actually look at the first parts of almost all these posts I admit they screwed up! You're not listening. Just as complicit as mangement has been, so is the union. It's a bed that both made and will now wallow in. Stop focusing on management for one whole second, well maybe a few more. For a human being to believe they are entitled to receive compensation for not working is backwards and scores at the basic misunderstanding of how business works. Management accepting these demands are even dumber. I don't dodge that, but seriously as a person you can't expect something for nothing. That's all I'm trying to say.
So what. Why don't people take the time to give a shit about how they're going to live 50 years from now and stop bitching that they don't get it. It's not that hard. if people put their flippin machine down and step away from the box, they might have the time to care about their future. The US doesn't save any money anyway, so what money are they going to fund ANY retirement with anyway? Oh yeah that refi money will work.
I never said a word about executive pay or "the market". If I did, please point it out since I'm not in that camp. Since you brought it up though, I'll speak on it. For one I don't disagree with you here. I'm a reasonable person and I enjoy playing moderator. I negotiate for a living. I'm not on the executive side per se, but I tend to look for discrepancies or anything that doesn't fit in an argument.
Strictly speaking from an ECON POV....there is an upside to this fat pay packages and that is it increases competition beneath them for the job. Corporate boards are the only ones who will change that and since they are populated by former execs, current ones, and generally those in power - the small shareholders have little say. I suppose the gov't could step in, but check out this article from Tim Harford as to WHY they make so much more than you and I.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/executive-compensation-tournament_cx_th_06work_0523pay.html
Because that was the deal that was made. If you pay me to do nothing and you agree to it, who is the bigger fool, you or me?
Let's turn this argument around. I am an executive. I get paid an immense amount. Company performance in fact diminishes. I demand and receive a substantial bonus. The company's future gets even dimmer. I demand, and receive once again, a golden parachute. The company folds. I go on to a similar job but before I do so I was able to pocket millions in stock options before the company tanked.
Tell me what the moral difference is between this and the above.
http://detroitvstheworld.blogspot.com/2006/06/eating-dead-horse.html
This morning's Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal reported that the DuPont Co. and BP have formed a partnership to develop, produce, and market biobutanol for gasoline blending.
The first step will be to convert an existing ethanol plant in Wissington, England to enable the production of biobutanol from sugar beets. The plant is expected to become operational in 2007 and will produce some 30,000 tons per year of biobutanol.
The article indicated that biobutanol has several advantages over ethanol, namely i) higher energy content, and therefore little or no reduction in gas mileage, and ii) does not absorb water and therefore can be blended right at the refinery and transported via pipeline.
DuPont also indicated that biobutanol can be made not only from sugar beets, but also from corn, wheat, or even straw and corn stalks.
I believe it was Robert Rapier who indicated a while back that biobutanol requires far less energy to produce because it does not require energy-intensive distillation to separate the butanol from the fermentation broth.
I think this is a very interesting development which, hopefully, might force some rethinking about the attractiveness of ethanol-from-corn and maybe slow down the ethanol-from-corn bandwagon, as least a little. (Though of course it must be recognized that the energy inputs for the growing of the crop feedstock upstream of the biobutanol process will not change one iota.)
Bio-butanol
It is potentially a much better option than ethanol, but still won't make a large dent in our oil consumption. There is just now way we can make enough of it. And, the ethanol lobby is firmly entrenched. Even if butanol is a better option, it is going to have a tough fight to displace ethanol.
RR
What use to be called cool, colorful Colorado, is currently being transformed into a desert. I fear the weather patterns and the climate have already been permanently transformed. This June was another radical departure from past temperature patterns. It used to be that several days of 90 plus weather in July was considered hot. Now June makes the old July seem cool. Combine this with a drowth of epic proportions and we may be saying bye to agriculture. I know. One region doesn't necesssarily describe the world. But the patterns here are so radically different that history, I can't help but think it means something very, very bad for the future of the planet.
Sorry to be a bit parochial here, but perhaps someone out there can feel my pain. Clinton?
The U.S. has something like 135 new coal plants in the planning stages. Bush acts like being addicted to oil is the only problem. How about being addicted to coal? Stop the insanity.
Your cut in demand will merely be consumed by others not willing to do so. This is a classic market failure in action -- all the more so because there are significant distribution issues involved.
Why should the poor cut their consumption when the rich do not?
Aluminum is very similiar. Even the servers that service this web site use amazing amounts of juice.
My wife and I live off grid on one solar panel and use less than a kilowatt hour per day; but we have no illusions that we're going to offset the industrial uses I just described.
the most recent one happened here and to a daycare center, they took the copper tubing from the air conditioner as well as some electrical wiring.
So don't lose hope or faith that things will turn out o.k. for humanity, Try to conserve. My electric bill has averaged about $35.00 a month for the last year and I use Green Mountain.
Suppose, for instance, we rely only on the price system with no major changes in policy. Who is going to get screwed here? Of course, those least able to pay. This will provoke resentment. In many places that resentment already promotes violence. Americans accept economic inequality only because of the notion that they've got a 'shot at making it big.' Peak Oil holds the potential to hurt everyone, but, more than that, change psychology such that people believe things will get worse, not better. Under such conditions will the 'poor' simply sit by, see all they've worked for slip away, while the rich are seen to be consuming as much as before?
In experiments chimpanzees who were trained to trade two tokens for a cup of fruit juice become enraged and turned violent when they saw a chimpanzee trade in two tokens and receive more than one cup of fruit juice. If a newly impoverished John Q sees Thomas Fatcat motoring around merrily in a world of increasingly scarce fuel...
Many nations have good plans addressing energy consumption, conservation and even global warming.
Japan is a conservation-driven nation (for good reason -- no FF) http://energytrends.pnl.gov/japan/ja004.htm
Poland has a plan http://www.kape.gov.pl/EN/About/
Sweeden -- cevre.cu.edu.tr/annex14/sweeden.PDF
Germans -- cevre.cu.edu.tr/annex14/sweeden.PDF and they lead the world in solar cell production
French, even with all their nuke power have a plan --http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=353
The Dutch have wind power and the Finns are going at the problem full blast. Norway is confronting the drastic decline of domestic production.
Are we Americans a strange lot? Would things be different if John McCain had beaten Bush in the 2000 primaries? Are we the only major industrial power not doing something about the combined oil/GW/national security/current-account deficit problem?
Stuart is betting the plateau will give us time? We may need it if Colorado is turning into a non-productive desert.
The "multi" in "multilateral" scales nicely. I pay less energy bills if everyone in my house conserves. I get lower utility rates if everyone in my region conserves. I get a better economy and national security if everyone in my nation conserves ... and of course I get a better environment if everyone on the planet conserves.
I'm starting now, with individual conservation, but I don't think it's wrong for folks to push for international agreements, etc., that will broaden the multilateral effort.
(BTW, I might spring for a high efficiency washer (after talking about it for a while and hearing my old washer get louder and louder as it ages) ... isn't it neat that something as meaningless as style and conspicuous consumption has created this big selection of front-loaders? They're even coming down in price a bit.)
We're part of larger collectives. If those collectives fail then we do too.
Jevons' Paradox assumes that your cut in demand will be sufficient to lower the price, leading to increased consumption by others. Real electricity prices, however, have been on a steady upwards climb, driven most recently by increases in natural gas prices. Given that there are additional factors that seem likely to cause continued problems on the supply side -- for example, all existing nuke licenses, accounting for 20% of current generation, are scheduled to expire between about 2010 and 2035 -- it seems likely that the trend of increasing retail electricity prices will continue. Unless your cut in demand is sufficient to reverse this trend, Jevons' Paradox shouldn't come into play.
We know that Energy Star programs are supported in:
* Australia
* Canada
* European Union
* Japan
* New Zealand
* Taiwan
* USA
We know that fuel economy mandates exist throughout much of the world.
What are you saying, that there's nothing going on? We see that's not true. If you are just suggesting there is not enough going on ... that's your value jugdement. You know, your first word above was "pointless."
"Pointless" to me would mean that we didn't have any of those things.
Maybe that's what I'm asking you, why do you ignore the real world plans and programs addressing the "tragedy?"
- Petroleum underlies our current world civilization.
- Multiple consuming nations compete to own, purchase, and consume that petroleum.
- Supply is diminishing, not increasing.
If we use the analogy of the commons then the mitigation projects everyone mentions here in essence make the sheep eat less grass without hurting the shepard's ability to sell them at market. So, what's the logic? You get more sheep. Or, if you don't, your neighbor does. Likely you both increase the number of sheep you have because you are in competition with each other and he who has the most sheep wins. But the size of the commons is never getting bigger, It is, instead, getting smaller every day. Unless we find a way to use something other than the commons' grass our mitigation efforts will simply mean that in the end more sheep will starve than would have otherwise been the case.That's the logic I see. Maybe these mitigation projects really will lead to using some other 'grass'. I really hope so. I don't, however, see current projects either seriously increaseing or stabilizing the size of the commons' resource. Projects discussed here are basically all about making the sheep metabolize the grass more efficiently.
That seems to me to be the path to follow, the model.
Your argument against it is that somebody, somewhere, will use more grass. That's the theory, and in an unregulated environment it is the tendency. Fortunately many countries already see it in their own self-interest to conserve, hence all their efficiency rules and mandates.
The way to extend that, obviously, is to extend the conservation effort. This will happen naturally with price increases. It will happen naturally as more energy consuming countries persue their self-interest. It can also come through international agreement. Carbon taxes and limits are great in this regard because they combat not only world-wide energy use, but also world-wide climate change.
It can also come through international agreement.
This is probably the one thing I'm most skeptical of. Oil is an incredibly strategic asset. In addition to making the economy go it fuels all those tanks and aircraft that world power is based upon. So, having secure and steady access to oil isn't just for economic purposes, bur for self-protection too. Oil represets power, both in BTUs and military might.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0623-05.htm
I'm kind of amazed that the International Energy Agency is talking about cutting energy use by half. That's certainly better than them being the cornucopians and saying we should double ...
Of course, you are right in the long run at least as far as the grass goes because the sheep here are eating what is a large but finite stock of grass, and the long-term carrying capacity is zero. So what I really need is something that's like a sheep but that can live on wind, sun, coal (while that stock lasts), the uranium/thorium in the back yard, etc. Some people think that's easily doable (Amory Lovins). Some people think that's impossible to do (dieoff.org). Me, I'm in the optimistic part of the middle and think it's doable but difficult.
It seems, obvious, however, that my individual action may be laudable but will have little to no impact on the overall problem. Kind of like Bush's policy to get corporations to voluntary cut their emissions. That's not the way the world works. Even if we are so inclined, we will not maximize our positive actions unless everyone else is required to do so. This is especially true of business which needs to operate on an equal playing field.
What are waiting for? For everyone to spontaneously cut their energy use? That's what it seems like. When you combine that with a government that seems to think that voluntary actions will solve our problems, things are pretty hopeless.
Why do people think we are waiting? I've heard that California started early on all this, but aren't your power companies doing similar programs?
For what it's worth:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2006/tc20060330_795002.htm
his book, "One River". In 1880 Cocaine was used
in many home remedies,tonics and cures. In
several medical journals it was even recommended
as a cure for opium addiction. This seems to be
the kind of thinking going on today.
--JB
Actually there is. This particular liquid has been around for hundreds of years:
Simple Borsch
+ (if there's any left in the future) 400g beef or meat, then 2 average red beets 200g cabbage 4 little potatoes 1 carrot 2 tomatoes 1 tsp. vinegar salt and pepper, to taste parsley dill spring onions.
+
way cool recumbent bicycle
=
human powered transportation
future side effects include, losing weight, going as fast as you want on the car-free highways and roads, feeling good, and some occasional global methane release.
One link I read mentioned it would produce Acetone and Ethyl Alcohol also.
That is the abe process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_acetobutylicum
yawn Nothing new here. The buytonal.com people have the 'new' something.
The discoverer has an interesting place in history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Weizmann
Yesterday, over 1,000 Red Maple (Acer rubrum) seeds from Newfoundland were shipped to Iceland for trials by the "Tree Growing Club" (I am the only non-Icelandic member) and the Icelandic Forest Service. Icelandic collection teams visited Newfoundland several times from the 1950s to 1970s but missed this species because it drops seeds in late spring, not the fall.
Newfoundland has a climate somewhat similar to Iceland and other Newfoundland species have made the transistion. Red Maple is a beautiful tree in the fall and has some lumber potential. Reasons for humans to plant them in great number. But first, multi-decade trials are needed before widespread planting (Iceland plants almost 6 million trees/year).
Tests in greenhouses show that the dominant native tree in Iceland (the Icelandic birch, 98% of the trees when the Vikings landed) will do poorly when CO2 levels rise (it gets confused about when to winter harden & it evolved for the colder climate). Icelandic birch has minimal commerical value and is not an impressive tree. 5 of the 6 million trees planted are imported species (Siberian larch, Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine, Swiss stone pine, etc.) and there is a need for more fall color.
The Vikings cut down 97% of the primeval foreat and released 6 billion metric tonnes of carbon. Annual fossil fuel use world-wide releases less than 7 billion tonnes of carbon,
Reforesting Iceland with larger trees will reverse Global Warming by a year or, potentially more. Humans just need to be induced to do that. Today, Iceland plants 17 trees per capita per year, but they are decades awey from 4% forest (30+% forest cover at Settlement). In 1900, there was only 1% forest cover.
So I am trying to give us humans more & better reasons to plant trees by expanding the choices of trees to plant. My contribution to reducing Global Warming (and helping Iceland). Finding interesting species and then finding someone willing to collect seeds locally is an interesting multi-year challenge (3 years in this case).
Does anyone know someone in Nepal ?
Anyone see this:
http://www.physorg.com/news70040977.html
The winning vehicle gets over 3000 miles per gallon.
It could have a significant impact, IMHO. If lumber trees are planted, about half of the carbon captured is sequestered in housing & furniture. Capturing half of the CO2 is an attainable but very aggressive goal IMHO.
I am supporting (along with two Nobel Peace Prize laureates) the American Chestnut Foundation efforts to breed a disease resistant American chestnut. Quick growing, furniture grade lumber, bountiful nuts that are low in fat (rare in nuts). 40+ years and a decade away from the first of many releases.
www.acf.org
I encourage your support.
A mature chestnut forest can rival a wheat field in productivity, and is MUCH more sustainable. Many of the sustainability issues shrink when orchard farming is considered. Orchard farming suburbia is a real possibility.
I look for "leverage points" where one person's efforts can make a difference in a larger global effort.
More desireable tree species in Iceland encourages humans to plant more trees which has some effect on Global Warming.
I see TOD as a leverage point that will grow in influence as more bits and pieces hit the fan. I chose TOD out of all the Peak Oil sites for that reason.
I make my arguments for an overlooked policy option, trying to convince others (and learning myself as well). Those that I convince, spread the message (in modified form) to others. Eventually, when panic begins to force action, my policy options are one of those straws grabbed because of my earlier efforts to "pre-position" them.
I am quite deliberately using TOD as part of my outreach /lobbying efforts.
A long shot, yes, but the stakes are so large that it is worth the effort.
When I would know, that tomorow the world will break up in thousand pieces, I would plant a tree today.
(Martin Luther)
I think that is where the spiritual response to Peak Oil (sine qua non) begins.
Another point about trees, they are an excellent defense against flooding and erosion, problems that will likely worsen in the future.
Something similar happened in the Amazon, with large tracts growing fruit and nut trees prized by humans.
Bringing back the American Chestnut is a highly laudable goal. Thanks!
Why would you want to grow birch when apple, pear, plumb, etc. offer vitamin rich edible fruit? Fruit trees have faster growth rates and depending on the area will offer quick cover and free fruit. Why not pass a law requiring vegetables, fruits and fast growing trees in all places that now contain perennial grasses? Grass offers nothing but the loss of topsoil.
Over time as the oil depletes people will continue to use wood for more then building. Like in England who had the worlds first peak wood effect they burned all wood in site to stay warm in a few years time. Good for them coal was discovered. You could plant a tree on your head and someone will fall it to stay warm or be able to cook.
Some forests are near monoculture, Iceland before Settlement, Eastern mountain ridges were nearly 100% American chestnut, redwood groves as three examples.
All West Coast building may start with Douglas fir, we use pine down here. Siberian larch is a great outdoor wood (barns, outdoor furniture) and useable for framing.
Growth cycles vary considerably from species to species and are not easily grouped.
Most fruit trees are short and require direct sun in order to bear. That is, no forest canopy. No fruit tree will grow in Iceland and only citrus & pecan (if irrigated) in Phoenix AFAIK.
Different trees for different goals. Most fast growing trees are low value trees.
Wheat, corn and rice are grasses.
Iceland had only one mammal when settled, the artic fox. Still there.
If you let the native Grasses of the Plains regrow on those Lawns that dug them out decades ago you could change a lot of the erosion we see.
Trees work where trees are native, but grasses work where grasses are native. Any ecosystem takes 100's of years to stablize.
It is Noble for Icelanders to want to get back the forests of old.
Take the Big desert cities and grow shrub and catii. Not lawns and swimming pools
about the only tree seeds around here are from Meaquite, and I doubt they would thrive there. -:)
They say that war gives man meaning. I know we have become somewhat jaded about all the wars we have fought, war on drugs, war on terror, war on bla bla bla. But the war of global warming is one worth fighting and one we have not yet begun.
Excellent post and so to the following thread.
As a historian I have a fondness for Malta. Been there twice. Of course before it was inhabited it too, like ancient Greece, was forested. Malta today is a barren rock and the topsoil for the most part has ended up in the bottom of the Mediterranean. Great place to start is each of our yards.
I agree about the lawn stuff. The only benefit my landlord gets from mine is the birds get bugs. I've added disease resistant pines and local native oaks.
Planting 17 trees per Icelander each year is a major effort, but there are not many Icelanders and lots of Iceland.
I think we can do "down by 20 percent by about 2035" but the sooner we start, the less painful it will be.
The paragraph talks about "the decline rate for the older reservoirs that form the backbone of the world's oil production", yes?
Coal may grow with electrical demand (worse case, baring carbon taxes), but we've seen with the South African examples that it's hard to build significant "barrels per day" output.
And I don't think 2020 counts as "close."
I should really keep a link to Stuart Staniford old article about slow decline and adaptation. You don't happen to have it handy do you?
* - as opposed to specific fields or regions
FWIW, I disagree with Stuart on that point. I don't think it's going to be a slow squeeze. I think Hirsch is right: the peak is sharp and sudden, and you don't see it coming.
If I had to bet, I'd say Deffeyes was right, if only because he knows a lot more about it than I do. But I don't think we can call it yet. I wouldn't be too surprised if next year, there was a big jump, then a collapse.
But I was talking about in the Hirsch sense. The oil industry certainly knows the end is coming. No well lasts forever. What they don't see is when it's coming. In particular, he found that at peak, there was wild optimism about how much production could be increased and how much longer it could be maintained. So much so that when the next year showed a decline, it was assumed to be a temporary problem, and not recognized for what it was: the beginning of the end.
I'm really not sure how this will play out. Will we outbid everyone else and be relatively unaffected, at least for a few years? (A plateau for us, a cliff for everyone else?) Or will we find out that the global economy is a two-edged sword?
China is a centrally planned country and this is good for a few reasons. For one the reason we don't get anything accomplished here is the disagreement. Literally you have to convince 535 (im sure this may be off a bit) to do something. On top of that there are 330 million people geographically dispresed across 3.5 million sq miles. We are all over the place and cars have gotten us to that point. I would venture to say we may have the largest all year round land in the world, with less than 7% of the world population. We needed someway to quickly get across all this land and the cars & trucks worked. As Americans we are individualistic in nature. It may not always have been that way, but we seek self gratification first and sharing it with someone on a train doesn't sound as good as driving your own car around.
As long as the leadership in China is sound, they can do what is best for China. It isn't cars, and they know it. They will not build the highway system we have, they will build mass transit. Cars will stay a luxury. There won't be room for the demand growth except for the upper classes.
Now India, I'm not sure about. I have a pretty fractured view. From one standpoint they crank out engineers, doctors, & computer programmers at obscene rates. They do it faster, arguably better and at a cost savings that is unreal. Then I read how 80% of the population is very, very poor. What's the disconnect? I talk to Indians all the time and they are almost religous in their quest for knowledge and understanding of anything! They learn two languages from birth. What is holding them back? Again, I don't see a massive interstate system being built and cars taking to the road. It will not be economical at all.
There are additions to demand as more and more people do drive. But the bigger point is that there will be a price point at which cars are seen for the money pits they are. In this country people will do whatever it takes to keep the house and then the car. Food is important, but you don't get money from your food, at least not here. People see a car as their access to money which is their access to everything else.
I'm a slave to my car, but if I had access to public transit, I would use it. Unfortunatly I was born in suburbia and raised in suburbia and I've never ever rode a public bus. I've taken local light rail to downtown ball games though. I would use it more if it were more widespread. Not to mention I don't gotta worry bout drinking and driving. I think as more and more people pay each week, some will start to put the bigger picture together and add up a monthly gas bill. When the see they spend more for the gas than they do for the monthly payment, this will wake many up.
Now, new sources and discoveries are not likely to drive the "easy motoring" cornucopian future ... but we need to add them (whatever they are) to go from 3-13% to the aggregate curve.
That's looking like a 2 year plateau to me... and they're going to get that up to 12 MB/Day?
-C.
We saw a similar pattern in Texas in the Seventies--rising oil prices, increased drilling, and falling production.
As I have previously noted, falling petroleum imports into the US this spring combined with rising oil prices also seemed anomalous to me.
It would also be interesting to chart North Sea production against oil prices. Since 1996 or so, it would show rising oil production, with falling oil prices, and then falling oil production with rising oil prices, starting in 1999.
It would be interesting to superimpose an oil price chart with the Saudi production. It would show that the Saudis responded to higher oil prices with flat to declining oil production.
Ask and you shall receive.
oil price per barrel super imposed on Saudi oil production :)
the transparent layer is the oil price. I didn't put dollars since you were really interested in seeing how the Saudis react to price.
-C.
Help?
try the link directly maybe Click Me
http://s17.quicksharing.com/d/1989789/1150922771/saudi_superimpose.jpg
Here's the link as well Link to Image
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/21/9103/44750#151
-C.
Can everyone see this?
-C.
Hubbert Theory says Peak is Slow Squeeze.
... I'll re-read it later today, and see if it still matches my sentiment.
Based on numbers pulled from the graph, specific gravity is decreasing at roughly 1% yoy for a total of a 5% drop over the last 5 years. The interesting numbers come out of sulfur content. The graph starts at roughly .90 (hard to tell, but it's not .88) and ends @ 1.04. Now the 5 year increase in sulfur content has been 3% yoy for a total of 15% increase in Non Opec crude quality.
This is the world avg in spite of SA, so I would think it is only getting worse at an increasing rate.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/06/oil_market_pred.html
http://futures.fxstreet.com/Futures/content/100120/content.asp?menu=commodities&dia=2162006
Another long term bullish story came out yesterday when it was reported that China and Saudi Arabia agreed to cooperate and build a crude oil strategic crude oil reserve in China. The plan is for a 10 million ton (73 million barrel) oil storage facility located in China. The project is probably the first of many. We cannot of course forget of course that China's Finance Minister once said that China was interested in building a strategic petroleum reserve that was bigger that the United States. And they could pay for it with cold hard cash. Make no doubt about it China's desire to build this reserve and also acquire new sources of energy around the globe will keep a floor under prices perhaps for years to come.
More Ethanol Critics Emerge
RR
Does anyone know what a reprocessing plant is? Why don't we use them now if it is so simple to do to thousands of reactors he wants to build all over the country decades from now? I dont get it. If we could avoid the waste issue, wouldn't we have done that for all the nuclear reactors now? If anyone has any articles I can read, point me in the right direction.
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2006/webcasts/3324_june_9_webcast.html
The Bush Administration has proposed research into fuel reprocessing that extracts all of the transuranics, plutonium, neptunium, americium, etc. as a whole for further us ein special reactors. (Some reactors can only run on enriched uranium, others on any of a variety of fuels. Candu can run on almost anything).
Reprocessing costs more than newly mined uranium. And there are three types of products produced; transuranics, slightly enriched uranium & fission products (split uranium and you get two more or less random atoms).
Fission products, once one waits a few centuries, will be a rich source of platinum group metals with some gold.
This is an extremely general diagram, so it isn't tied to any one type of reactor. On the left we have the starting materials of fission, and on the right are the products. At the lower right, we have fission products, which will always be produced by any process that also yields energy. The fission products consist of a mishmash of random isotopes of random elements, in random states of nuclear excitement. As they settle back to their stable ground states, they emit all kinds of radiation. Some have half-lives measured in milliseconds while others last thousands of years.
The neutrons from fission events are not all captured to trigger additional fission events, so they go flying everywhere from the reactor core. They tend to be absorbed by atoms in due time, transforming an element into the next-heavier isotope of the same element and typically emitting some gamma rays. Interestingly, lightweight elements absorb neutrons more strongly than heavy elements; a neutron can fly right through quite a bit of lead. Some of them are absorbed by non-fissionable heavy nuclei transforming them into fissionables. This is "breeding".
There is an inverse relationship between the half-life of a particular isotope and the intensity of radiation it emits, so the really short-lived fission products just contribute to the heat of the fission reactor while the longer-lived ones can become disposal problems. There are really only a handful of isotopes which cause serious environmental problems: ones which have a half life in the decades to centuries range and which are actively accumulated by living things, for example Cs137 and Sr90.
Reprocessing consists of dissolving all that crud in something really strong, like nitric acid, then taking it through a series of chemical steps to separate the heavy fissionables and nonfissionables from the fission products. So the reprocessing plant ends up with this witches' brew of extremely radioactive nitrate-rich liquid/slurry that needs to be disposed of. Unfortunately, the current "free enterprise" system does not deal in a sufficiently long time horizon to accomplish this task.
If I ran the circus, these unwanted products would be sequestered, first by drying the solvent, then in a low melting glass, then the glass in concrete, and the concrete dropped into oceanic trench subduction zones. After the useful heavy elements (and any handy lighter isotopes) have been separated, of course.
The proponents of pebble bed reactors claim that it solves some of the disposal problem, as the fissionable fuel is contained in these tennis-ball sized packages throughout their lifetime. If true, of course they still need to be disposed of at the end of their life. Here is a NIMBY site just to be "fair and balanced", heh. And this outfit seems to be doing some serious research on the topic. There are links to descriptions of the different reactor designs on that particular page. Pebble bed would be a derivative of the GFR design.
And yes, we should be working on fission energy.
Errr, how are you getting an explosion?
Oh and about the xplosion. If we're trucking this crap around or even rail. Rail would be probable and rail I know, I work there. There are derailments all the time, if you have this junk on it you don't see a potential for explosion?
I see a potentional for spill or for it to be spread about as a 'terror' event.
But not an explosion.
Containers can withstand 1500 degree heat for 30 minutes. I don't know if this is what you guys are talking about.
From the article:
Read more from someone (Joseph Sornsel, nuclear engineer) familiar with the issue here:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1108
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/2006_10-19/2006-18/pdf/56-60_618_technukes.pdf
Here is the details in the plan. For those who are in the know (the select few), I'm looking for the problems with this solution. There is a real good point about the BS proliferation and if someone wanted to steal the material, there's plenty of tanks with the junk sitting in it. How does reprocessing this increase proliferation? They appear to be doing it overseas just fine, not to mention right north of us in Canada.
Our country is like a drug addict. No one gives a shit about anyone but themselves. There hasn't been long term planning for a half century. Well I take that back, the long term plans used have not been in favor of the 95% of the rest of us.
And,buy the way, the problem I forsee with nuclear waste reprocessing is the same as with the Yucca Flat storage facility. No one wants poison being trucked through their state.Logic and facts don't enter in to the politics of nuclear waste.
Having read both, there is no mention of trucking any waste anywhere. The reprocessing facility would be onsite and there would be no need for trucking anything between sites. Oilmanbob...please read both articles or even just the shorter one by greyzone. I lived near the Savannah River site described in the larouche article. He isn't lying, I've been there. I didn't know the extent of what goes on, still don't, but I know that spent nuclear material CAN be reprocessed and hauling it around isn't the issue. So aside from politics, what limits this as a viable alternative RENEWABLE fuel?
They will produce tons of bomb-grade plutonium, (Mixing in other trans-uranics in reprocessing makes fabrication into a bomb more difficult, it will be quite "hot" in radioactive & temperature sense with neptuniun etc. added).
Now that we do not to cart all this crap around, it doesn't seem as viable. I mean if you built even 1000 nuclear reactors you would have TONS of materials floating aroudn the country on trains at any given time. Scary thought, but couldn't we plan these routes to at least minimize potential losses?
Speciality "survival" casks have been designed.
I keep thinking about Europe though. Don't they reprocess? Is any of the material you get recyclable?
1.radiation is safe.
2.nuke waste problem is over blown.
leave their address or if you live in a apartment leave the address of a relative that owns a house so we can transfer nuclear waste to your location for storage. you will be responsible for the materials in regards of containment and maintenance.
A small lab-scale operation in each reactor cluster is not such a bad idea. They need the remote control robot arms and such for normal re-fueling and maintenance operations anyway. Now just add some chemical seperation facilities - bench-top-scale stuff - and reprocess a few kilos per day when not doing other maintenance work with the robot arms.
And don't leave all the Pu in one big big drum ;)
Yes, do not keep all the Pu in one space >:-)
Don't take my word for it. Keep reading.
If Lyndon LaRouche told me the sun came up this morning I would check it.
What more can be said?
Ok, what do you think of "This refers to the famous photograph of New York Stock Exchange President Richard Grasso embracing Raúl Reyes, the head of FARC finances, in the cocaine-producing DMZ of Colombia."
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2001/2839grasso_factor.html
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad8.html
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending June 16, 2006
Imports are up, inventories are up (especially crude oil, which is at the highest level since 1998), and refinery utilization is up. Gasoline inventory only went up by 300,000 bbls, which was a bit surprising to me.
RR
So imports are up more than 1,0 mbpd. Since production is almost flat, someone must be using less.
US production is down 7% year-to-year. UK production is down 7% year-to-year. Seems to me a bidding war will soon start for the light sweet stuff.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The American Petroleum Institute said motor gasoline supplies fell 1.9 million barrels for the week ended June 16, contrary to the Energy Department's reported increase of 300,000 barrels. Crude inventories were down 3.7 million barrels. The government report had showed an increase of 1.4 million. Distillate stocks rose 1.9 million barrels, the API said, nearly matching the Energy Department's 1.9 million-barrel increase.
Who you gonna believe - the same people who bring the CPI stats?
RR
The blog
http://energikrise.blogspot.com/
recently had a post with a diagram (in English) showing the developments in oil production (believed to be all liquid energy), oil consumption and net oil exports from the Middle East.
The diagram speaks by itself, but as of 2005 net oil exports from The Middle East has not reached the levels of the 70's.
Based on EIA International Petroleum for June 2006, the growth in oil production in the Middle East has seen little growth (less than 50 kb/d) for the months January to March this year compared to the same period last year.
(And then there is various messages about reduced production from SA in April and May this year.)
- Total Net Imports are UP 3.6%
- Domestic Production is DOWN -7.1%
- Total Prod Supplied is UP 0.2% at 20.887 Mbpd
All numbers are YTD (166 days) 2006 v 2005.I wouldn't be suprised to see imports flatten out again pretty soon due to the building oil inventories. We do have a finite amount of storage capacity.
RR
Case #1: Oil imports were lower since the fall because refinery capacity was knocked offlne. Presumably oil prices spiked 15% to 25% because of geopolitical considerations. All importing markets--rich and poor--are well supplied.
Case #2: Oil imports were lower because of less oil being exported. Prices spiked in order to equalize supply and demand. Oil exports to the high bidders picked back up, and the low bidders, in poorer countries, reduced their consumption.
Fact: The EIA reports that world crude oil + condensate production is down by about 1% since December.
Fact: We have seen persistent reports of civil unrest in developing countries because of high energy prices and energy shortages.
Fact: The Saudis have admitted to a 5% decline in production. Why is another matter.
Robert, my question for you is how can you be certain, given the information we have, that Case #1 is correct, and not Case #2--especially since world oil production has been trending down of late?
Oil imports were lower since the fall because refinery capacity was knocked offlne. In addition, there was less oil being exported due to lower production. I mean gas shot up 50% in under a month. It can't be ONE or the OTHER. It rarely ever is, but a patchwork of different variables that are constantly changing seems more likely. On paper even if refining capacity stayed secure, when production drops you would get a price spike due to lower supplies. Now if there were lower crude supplies coupled with a slower ability to refine this would SEVERLY disrupt the entire supply chain.
I think that's self-evident for either case. Imports were lower because less oil was being exported. This means that probably less oil was being produced, unless someone is storing it. But the question we need to answer is "Why?"
Fact: The EIA reports that world crude oil + condensate production is down by about 1% since December.
And refining utilization at that time was running at 85% or so. It has just crept up to 93% as of this week. When utilization was lower, it is a fact that they didn't need as much oil. That means they weren't buying as much oil. That means the producers didn't need to produce as much oil, and less oil needed to be imported.
Fact: We have seen persistent reports of civil unrest in developing countries because of high energy prices and energy shortages.
No doubt. But it is mostly because of high prices, which are due largely to geopolitical factors. But part of it is also due to the tightening of supply and demand. Several years ago, there was a multi-million barrel per day cushion. Now, there is a small cushion. It makes the markets nervous, hence, a premium on oil.
Fact: The Saudis have admitted to a 5% decline in production. Why is another matter.
Well, they did say it's because they weren't finding buyers for all of their crude. This would be quite easy to verify by merely calling Saudi Aramco and asking if they can fill some contracts. Phrasing it as you have is prejudicial. According to the Saudis, the decline was voluntary. Maybe, maybe not. But it is hard for me to believe that they are claiming to have excess oil for sale, if they really don't. It's just too easy to verify that.
Robert, my question for you is how can you be certain, given the information we have, that Case #1 is correct, and not Case #2--especially since world oil production has been trending down of late?
I don't believe it has been "trending down". I believe that it has been somewhat erratic since last fall, but the latest estimates indicate that production is coming back up. We also know that oil imports have increased as refining capacity has come back online, supporting my version of events. But inventories are still very full, so it would not surprise me to see imports start to decrease again - especially after the summer driving season.
Let me ask you this: What would it take to convince you that my version of events is correct?
RR
I don't have any contacts in Saudi. But all major oil companies do. All major oil companies have traders of Saudi crude who could confirm or deny what the Saudis claimed.
If it's that easy, why hasn't someone done it yet?
You can be assured that they have. Anyone needing crude called them up when they announced they had extra crude for sale. That's how I know they were telling the truth. You just can't deceive everyone about having product for sale in an open market if you don't. Imagine you trying to pull this off. You tell everyone you have something for sale that's in demand. But, you really don't have it. How long is that charade going to last? Oh, until someone calls you up to verify your product, or wants to come over and take a look at it.
RR
I think we can agree that we really don't know and the wait and see attitude is best especially as we may be at the precipous of a permanent decline either way.
Several months of rising oil production would be a start. The problem is that since December, we have seen several months of falling oil production, which fits the HL method--which has a proven track record, with the North Sea being the most recent example.
Where you and I disagree is that I just can't see how we can increase production when the four largest oil fields in the world are almost certainly declining. One of them--Cantarell--may, and probably will, show catastrophic declines. Given analogue case histories, Ghawar is also a candidate for catastrophic decline rates.
In any case, you agree with me that less oil was exported over the past few months, but you assert that it was not because of peaking production.
I am presenting an argument based on mathematical modeling of historical analogues, and the most recent production data fit the mathematical model.
My question remains: why are you so certain that exports were not declining because of peak production?
Also, just because imports have rebounded here, it does not follow that imports have rebounded everywhere, and anecdotal evidence suggests that imports have not rebounded everywhere.
Look at refinery utilization over that time, and you will see exports falling as refineries were taken offline for spring maintenance. As refineries came back online, imports came back up.
I presume you would agree that if refineries are running at 85% as opposed to 93%, they aren't going to be buying as much oil? That is a difference of around 1.5 million barrels a day, and we didn't see that kind of sustained inventory build. Hence, imports had to fall.
My question remains: why are you so certain that exports were not declining because of peak production?
Because declining exports so perfectly tracked the refinery utilization numbers, and I know that there was plenty of oil available throughout this period.
You realize that exports are running some 2 million barrels a day higher than when you started making this argument, and that they are now at their highest levels ever? Doesn't that make you wonder whether your hypothesis is sound?
RR
Through the week ending 5/19, all of the 2006 weekly (four week running average) net petroleum imports into the US were below the four week running average ending 12/30/05. During this time period of reduced imports, oil prices went up by 15% to 25%, to the highest nominal oil price ever recorded. Beginning with the week ending 5/26, total US petroleum imports have been higher than the four week running average ending 12/30. However, the US is not the world. My basic thesis is that the richer markets are outbidding the poorer markets.
Again, I don't see how you can so confidently assert that world oil production will increase when the four largest oil fields in the world are almost certainly declining--and since December, world oil production has been falling.
IMO, we can simply reduce this debate down to Ghawar. As goes Ghawar, so goes Saudi Arabia. As goes Saudi Arabia, so goes the world economy. The world is incredibly dependent on an oil field, Ghawar, that is 68 years old. The Yibal Field, redeveloped using the same redevelopment program as Ghawar, showed about an 80% drop in production over a five year period--much to the surprise of Shell Oil.
Some 2004 comments by our friend AM Samsam Bakhtiari:
Published on 2 May 2004 by Oil & Gas Journal. Archived on 2 May 2004.
World oil production capacity model suggests output peak by 2006-07
http://www.energybulletin.net/147.html
by AM Samsam Bakhtiari
Excerpt:
Simmons even questioned the potential of the world's largest oil field and the Saudis' major producer, the awesome Ghawar: "Aramco [the original Arabian American Oil Co.] estimated Ghawar's reserves to be 60 billion bbl in 1975 on the basis of 400 wells and a very clear mapping of the oil-water contact...and with 55 billion bbl now produced, Ghawar is about to become another Brent, Prudhoe Bay, Samotlor, or Yibal.
Now, the terminal decline of Ghawar would signal the beginning of the end for Saudi Arabia's oil. This should trigger alarm bells all over the petroleum industry and even in the general public (who should realize that global oil supplies are not "forever," not even in Saudi Arabia).
It is worth mentioning that Wocap model predictions for Saudi Arabia (up to 2020) are in full consonance with the potential consequences of Simmons's highly rational thesis.
That's because you are looking right into the heart of spring turnaround season, which was busier than normal this year. The 4-week running average that ended last week showed 14.7 million barrels per day of imports, which is a million barrels a day higher than the December level, and 2 million bpd above the April level. During this time of rising imports, mid-April to mid-June, oil prices have fallen. Total average world oil price was $62.66 for the week ending 6/16 and $66 in April. So, prices have fallen as imports have increased by 2 million bpd. That doesn't sound like we are bidding anything up.
Again, I ask if you think it was a complete coincidence that imports fell as refinery utilization fell, and that imports are increasing as refineries come back online?
IMO, we can simply reduce this debate down to Ghawar.
Not really because that's a different debate. That's about increasing future production. The debate at hand right now is whether your hypothesis about oil imports is starting to spring leaks.
RR
If it were not for the price increase, I would probably agree with you. What did not make sense to me were record high nominal oil prices when we were importing less petroleum.
I first raised the question of net export capacity with a post back in January. I pointed out the top three exporters, based on the HL method, were more depleted than the world is overall. I predicted that we were facing a potentially catastrophic decline in net export capacity in 2006, as production from the top exporting countries fell, at the same time that their domestic consumption is growing (except for Norway) quite rapidly--my "Export Land Model."
My observations about the price/import anomaly this spring were based on that prediction--that we would face a net export crisis before we faced a significant decline in world oil production.
The EIA is reporting that oil production in Saudi Arabia, Russia and Norway are all down so far this year. Consumption is up in Saudi Arabia and Russia. What effect do you think that has on net oil exports?
I am not building my case on weekly import numbers. I am building my case on the HL method, which has a proven track record. And in my opinion, the price/import anomaly we saw this spring is pretty strong evidence that we are in the early stages of a bidding war for declining net oil export capacity.
Let's assume a decline in net export capacity. We would expect to see a decline in US imports. We did. We would expect to see a price increase, even as imports fell. We did. We would expect to see the imports go to the highest bidder. We know that our imports are back up. We also have persistent reports of civil unrest over high prices and energy shortages in developing countries.
Finally, the question of the largest oil field in the largest exporting country is central to the net export question.
Again, why do you predict rising world oil production when the four largest oil fields in the world are almost certainly declining?
Despite the increase in the price, the commodity was in short supply at most service stations with some fuel attendants professing ignorance on when they will receive their next deliveries.
There were long winding queues of cars at the few filling stations that had fuel, such as Ford Garage along Chiremba Road in Chadcombe
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/27/14471/5832
Hubbert Linearization Analysis of the Top Three Net Oil Exporters
Posted by Prof. Goose on Friday January 27, 2006 at 2:47
[ED: This is a guest post by westexas...]
Excerpt:
As predicted by Hubbert Linearization, two of the three top net oil exporters are producing below their peak production level. The third country, Saudi Arabia, is probably on the verge of a permanent and irreversible decline. Both Russia and Saudi Arabia are probably going to show significant increases in consumption going forward. It would seem from this case that these factors could interact this year produce to an unprecedented--and probably permanent--net oil export crisis.
I am not going to keep debating this, as we shall soon see who is right. But I would ask you to consider what you wrote above. You use it as support for your argument. Yet in the past 2 months, the exact opposite has happened. Imports increased and prices fell. Yet you don't see this as evidence against your argument. Don't you see the problem here?
RR
The most recent total US petroleum imports are up 600,000 bpd (four week running average)over the week ending 12/30/06. However, oil prices are still about 15% higher than the week ending 12/30/06, at the same time that we see persistent and continuing reports of problems with petroleum supplies in deveoping countries. Again, US petroleum statistics do not reflect the totality of the world petroleum supply. A driver in Los Angeles may complain about the price of gas, but in many cases a driver in Zimbabwe can't find gas.
But again, I am arguing that the US price/import anomaly is simply a sign of a developing bidding war for available net export capacity. Virtually all of the large oil fields in the top exporting countries are old and many of them are declining. What baffles me is that you continue to predict increasing production when the four largest producing oil fields in the world are almost certainly declining.
However, imports are up sharply since mid-April, while at the same time prices fell. If you are using price as an indicator, then I know this great ethanol stock called Pacific Ethanol. The price recently ran up to $40. It is about $20 now. In reality, it is maybe an $8 stock. But people have overpriced it, just as they have done oil.
You will see soon enough. Just remember this conversation, and determine for yourself what it's going to take to convince you. Given your reluctance to address falling prices and rising imports since mid-April - about the time refineries were coming out of turnarounds - I think you have set yourself up an unfalsifiable position.
RR
Incidentally, I see this question as mostly a red herring with respect to the current debate. What I am arguing right now is that your hypothesis about oil imports and peak oil is wrong. Increasing production is a different argument, which I have laid out before. I believe we may see a peak in 3 years, but no more than a logistical bottleneck is what we have seen recently.
To summarize, you have argued that falling imports, along with rising prices, is evidence that your hypothesis is correct. World markets have bid up prices in a bidding war in order to secure oil. The rich markets have outbid the poor. This is your hypothesis.
However, in the past 2 months we have seen substantially higher imports, but the price is falling. Since you are using price as an indicator, why would the price fall if we are outbidding other countries for the oil? You have to admit that these recent trends do not support your hypothesis.
RR
RR
thanks again for both your perspectives
No. I just think you are mistaken about rising production. I don't think you are the Antichrist.
Some do. I think it's those 6's on my forehead. :)
Prediction: You will see production rising from April through June or so. I think demand is tapering off, and that is the wildcard. But imports are up, and prices are down. I predict that when final production numbers are released, we will see rising production, and most likely a new production record.
RR
As I look right this sec, the spot price is 71 a barrel. Prices are down from the 75 high 8 months ago, I concede that. But this "band" of $4 is like 5%-10% depending if you're going up or down. So prices haven't fallen.
If you're talking at the pump, I call BS even more. My gas was cheaper 5 months ago, then it is now. I paid $2.50/gal and now it's $2.80.gal. 12% increase in less than 6 months.
This is in response to Westexas' hypothesis about falling imports and rising prices. Over the first quarter, oil prices rose and imports were falling. My hypothesis is that oil imports were down because spring turnarounds were going on, and prices were/are high because of geopolitical events. His hypothesis is that imports are down because oil has peaked, and prices are up because we are in a bidding war.
However, I note that since mid-April, imports are sharply up, even as average world oil prices have fallen by $4 a barrel (from the official EIA numbers). This is in direct contradiction to his hypothesis. You may say that $4 isn't much, but why should prices be falling at all, if his hypothesis is correct? After all, this $4 fall came at a time when the U.S. sharply increased the oil that we are importing (to record levels). Based on his hypothesis, imports increased because we are outbidding the competition. Since when does a bidding war result in lower prices? My point is that this is evidence directly against his hypothesis.
RR
As someone with a background in statistical analysis (my father taught it & I learned ay the kitchen table), I am MUCH more cautious than Westexas about extrapolating from limited data. And I COULD see, since peaks can be flat (Texas 1972-74). that SA could peak a year or two after Ghawar and the world a year or two after SA. (48% of Qt still gives us, maybe, 3 years even according to HL till 52% Qt).
And unconvential oil could well shove the peak back a year.
So I am agnostic (some days I believe 2006, some days 2008, and some days I think 2010). And I am used to looking at data over time and seperating "signal from noise".
However, I think there is much validity to the :export land" model. The Russian Minister of Economics projects Russian oil production to grow by 2.7% in 2007, "at least" 1% in 2008 & 2009 AND a significant drop in oil exports due to rising internal demand.
Which is more important to oil consumers outside Russia ? Their total oil production or their exports ?
I say their exports. And I am convinced that we will see "Peak Exports" before Peak Oil, most likely a year or two ahead.
I am fairly convinced (90%) that 1Q07 world exports will be less than 1Q06 exports.
Trying to be too specific right now is impossible given unknown (and some unknowable) but critical variables. We are close enough to the peak in my opinion that I think we will see fluctuations within relatively narrow limits rather than any clear trends (until decline asserts itself finally).
I see very steady $70 per barrel prices right now and not much slacking off from that. Yes that is down from the absolute peak price but where were we last year at this time?
http://www.newratings.com/new2/beta/article_884680.html
I had lost interest and didn't realize this conversation was still going on. The thing about the price drops, is that it happened as imports sharply increased. If Westexas' theory was correct, we should have seen the price increase. We certainly shouldn't have seen a price drop during this time.
Overlay the imports over the refining utilization, and I think the picture will become crystal clear. Throw in the price if you want, and you will see a disconnect from April through today.
RR
There is so much bad news that I will admit that I am somewhat vulnerable to what looks like good news. This company has heavy backing with heavy hitters. They just might pull it off.
Combine this kind of thing will some breakthroughs in the battery world, and we could be talking about transitioning to an electricity based transporation system vs. a liquid based systems. Yes, there are all sorts of pitfalls, caveats, and technical barriers, but I fear that when we hear so much talk about solving our liquids problems with coal conversion , tar sands, oil shale, and the like, that we need to keep our eye on electricity vs liquid fuels as a more environmentally sound path to the future.
Yes, we would probably have to radically change our driving patterns, living patterns, and type of transit, but wouldn't it be worth some "sacrifices" in order to provide relatively clean energy for the future. Right now our energy future seems to be mainly based around coal in all its forms, and the fantasy of biofuels and hydrogen to supposedly save the day. I think this path, especially coal, is unacceptable and suicidal.
Meanwhile, current total worldwide primary gallium production is apparently about 69 tonnes per year.
It seems like they could have a substantial niche play, but they will never have a noticeable effect on overall world energy production until they either find a substitute for the gallium, or else find an awesomely large and rich (relatively speaking since the quantities are so incredibly small) gallium mine.
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=hotStocksNews&storyID=2006-06-21T151 909Z_01_N21207410_RTRUKOC_0_US-MARKETS-STOCKS.xml
So let me get this straight. TWO companies made money so everyone will make money. That's the logic behind this. Gee Stanley made money b/c they ALWAYS make money moving money around. This is like a no brainer, but then we get package champ Fedex. Well, since they have instituted a surcharge that changes monthly (sometimes bi monthly) on gas charges; I'm sure they are enjoying it when prices retreat, but their surcharge is unchanged. We are getting used to fuel surcharges. I work in transportation and I see it. I talk to these guys and it's going to get brutal in the coming years. So all of us are paying more to ship crap, the street didn't know that already. Overnighting a piece of paper costs $20 or more.
Both these companies are like pieces of our infrastructure and should make money. MS makes money on moving money. The more there is (hello INFLATION) the more money they make. I wonder what the correlation to increases to the MS and increases in investment banking earnings would be? Fedex is one of the co's that move all the crap around the globe. Gee no wonder they made money. The red will return tomorrow. Both these companies are integral and needed. Those types of businesses always make money, even the mob knows this.
For about 20 minutes, a good brief review of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth."
The last 40 minutes gets into the current US energy policy, the Iraq War, and a very clear critique of the dysfunctionality of the pattern of getting energy in the way we do. Also, Gore is asked to reflect on the role of our appetite for imported petroleum on the Iraq War policy.
I recommend it!
Charlie Rose asks excellent questions, and Al Gore gives straight, clear answers.
Gore gives 4 reasons for the Iraq War: 1)Saddam Hussein was a thorn in the side of the USA (not a good reason to invade/ invasion was a foolish way to solve the problem); 2) Desire to sit on andcontrol Iraq's huge petroleum resources, plus establish a crucial political base in the Middle East.; 3) Karl Rove's use of war as a domestic political tool to manipulate US voters to support Republicans in mid-term elections (being repeated now);
Gore's solutions:
1)renewables -- cellulosic ethanol (not from corn!) Gore emphasises the need for better processes; Rose really questions this as to efficiency and cost/benefit. (Imagine such questions put in the MSM to a person of Gore's stature seriously exploring these issues!) Gore believes that the petroleum industry does not want the competition from any biofuels at this point....hmmmmm...
2) reduce payroll taxes and tax CO2...."price environmental consequences into the market"...
Rose would we "be better off with gas at 4.99 per gallon?" Gore: only if the effect on the poor and working people could be mitigated.
Gore again: "We are at or near peak oil."
Summary of Gore: we got maybe 10 years, the political system in this country is not even ready to deal with this.
Gore's reason for hope? A political tipping point can be reached for a kind of "sudden political climate change" which can cause the fast and furious positive change.
Another crucial point: mother Nature's voice is the most powerful of all.....!
Well -- it is worth a listen, if you haven't heard the interview already!
All due respect to Gore, that assertion is ludicrous. What would prevent the petroleum companies from producing biofuels, if the fundamentals are good? After all, petroleum companies are flush with cash. What would prevent them from building biodiesel or ethanol plants? Nothing. They have the infrastructure in place. They have the market contacts. It's just a silly assertion, and another attempt to smear oil companies.
RR
RR, the answer to your question "What would prevent the petroleum companies from producing biofuels..." is that they have never been in the biofuels business. I think it's just that simple. Insiders like Bubba and others before and after him have said the same thing. This is just human nature at work here. Nothing mysterious about it. It's hard for people to change. I know it's been hard for me.
By the way, Gore's website is climatecrisis.net.
Consider BP. No oil company had been in the solar business before. But, they saw an opportunity, and got into the business. By comparison, a move into biofuels would be a piece of cake.
RR
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=rw-br&FC2=/rw-br/html/iwgen/leftnavs/zzz_lhn2_2_0.htm l&FC3=/rw-br/html/iwgen/about_shell/wind/wind_1017.html
make yourself apear bio freindly now and you get more customers to buy your gas.
once it suits them to drop support they will.
Some oil company policies are terrible, some are very progressive. But, if you stereotype them you will lose any chance of influencing them in a positive manner. The only reason your attitude doesn't piss me off is I am insensitive. Ask any of my ex-wives.
A parallel phenomenon, it seems to me, is this: The electric utilities here (Minneapolis, MN) seem to drag their feet on every renewable option while embracing every possible way of using more coal or hydro from the massive Manitoba Hydro projects in Canada. I find it odd that they do not embrace renewables more readily, given that many people want to shift to renewables. There are "public relations" programs to give some appearance of chage, but we still get less than 1% of our electric power from the wind in a state which is one of those "Saudi Arabia of Wind Power states.
My point is that sometimes people in industry make decisions that appear to be short-sighted and even self-defeating -- from my viewpoint.
Another, complicated but odd parallel to illustrtae what i mean has to do with the auto industry. Honda and Toyota are doing well while GM and Ford flounder, Honda and Toyota embraced what seemed to me the obvious need to begin moving toward offering high-mileage, low-emission options while GM and Ford seemed rather stupidly short-sighted.
So why can't petroleum companies have similiar bouts of shooting themselves in the foot? (Said with a bit of tongue-in-cheek.)
At any rate, Al Gore makes a number of other comments in this interview which are worth contemplation and perhaps further discussion.
Thanks to Dave for the mentioning the link to climatecrisis.
There are any number of complex issues to wrestle with, and I tend to think that the petroleum industry is capable of great blunders as well as of great profit-making ventures.
The real issue is, of course, whether the oil industry is, on the whole, addressing peak oil and global climate change in good faith. So far the industry has a pretty bad track record in my book.
In "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore speaks about the way in which his family quit farming tobacco. That story says it all about why we -- and the oil industry as a whole -- fights for intentional ignorance even if it kills us all.
Well, I work in the petroleum industry, and I can tell you that I have never run across anyone opposed to biofuels on principle. What you will find is opposition to mandates, which distorts market signals. If you subsidize ethanol, and the price gets too high, people don't have to buy it. If you mandate it, you have now said that no matter how high the price goes, and no matter that a better alternative might come along (butanol, perhaps) you are still going to have to use ethanol.
RR
Heavily tax all carbon inputs while at the same time eliminating subsidies for alternative liquid fuels like ethanol. The market price will then tend to more realistically reflect the relative carbon intensities of the various fuels. Let the cheapest fuel win. This way ethanol boosters can't hide the true energy and financial costs of their fuel. Also, they won't be able to push their product largely through smoke screens intended to debunk their critics like Patzek and Pimental.
Getting a carbon tax, of course, requires the acknowledgement that carbon is a problem. Just saying we're addicted to oil doesn't get it. We're addicted to carbon and we need to get off it.
While I'm pointing out the obvious, at least to you, there remains the question of what one does with solar and wind, for example. Assuming the implementation of a carbon tax, do we just let the market decide or do we continue to gives tax credits for solar and wind on top of the relative advantage they would get from a carbon tax. I would tend to favor continuation of the credits for now to get the industry up to speed. However, if I were a power player in a position to bargain, it might be worth giving up those credits for a significant and universally applied carbon tax. If the energy return for these techologies is as claimed, they will hold their own against the alternatives.
But is solar an alternative to ethanol? Eventually, I think it is. Our desire to continue a liquid or gas fueled transportation system seems doomed if we want to do something about global warming.
This is an approach I strongly advocate. It will reward good EROI options, and punish poor EROI options.
But is solar an alternative to ethanol? Eventually, I think it is.
Agree. I think solar combined with PHEVs are actually a pretty attractive option.
RR
It has been said that we will run out of light sweet before anything else since this is what is easier to get.
I'm guessing that this trend will force refiners to change/upgrade their installations to handle a wider crude quality range. Do we see this phenomenon happen right now?
Also, crude oil is refined to a lot of different end products, will the changes in crude quality means that some of the end products will become much more difficult to produce than some others. Ie. jet fuel vs. diesel.
Thanks.
The U.S.-EU Summit between Bush, Wolfgang Schuessel et al ended today with a joint declaration that tellingly has an extensive section on energy policy.
One thing I found interesting was the way the joint declaration echoes Matt Simmons' call for data transparency:
"Supporting effective implementation of transparency and data sharing initiatives, such as the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), including on the evaluation of oil reserves, and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) will improve transparency and predictability of the market for all stakeholders."
On the 18th's Drum Beat I posted a topic about what we Earthers need to do now. The premise is that all of the observations are true and we are headed to possible extinction. That post received quite a few replies. Some did offer suggestions yet most asked a burning question.
What good would a plan to save us from ruin be if most people are in denial of the true issue? A few posters came out and asked me how that little biscuit could be dunked. Let me walk you through my thoughts on this.
This is the one Rumsfeld quote that I choose to review every so often. It in fact is testable and true. The best part is that those of you that had no idea that there were known knowns were brought up to speed by the ruling class. Yes, hearing about unknown unknowns from the well paid few allows the rest to see clearly that we no longer have a point in life. The ruling class talks down to us and the media as though we were small children. In that statement lay our purpose in life.
We must remain the unknown unknowns for once we become known then we are processed like cheese at a wine party. We that realize the trip down will be faster should we not change our lives today can do a lot. For instance in my life my GF at first refused to listen to any of this. She in fact accused me of being insane. Today I can say that she put together a survival kit and has been storing rations for many months now. I never gave up and now there are two of us.
The biggest obstacle that we face is government authority. They know what is happening and have been doing their best to ensure their survival at our expense. They have determined that since 6.6 billion humans can't truly live then around 4 billion of the poorest ones will need to go away.
Alpha's Plan for Low Energy Living(Consider this a rough draft):
1) Read the Declaration of Independence and determine if our position is the same or similar to that of the Founding Fathers in 1776 then proceed to this part...
2) We should figure out what would make us safe & happy. I for one realize that eliminating or editing my 1st through 5th amendments does not make me safer nor am I one bit happier! To me happiness would be to catch a brook trout, to go on a long hike and not get hit by a car. Happiness for me would be knowing that we eliminated nuclear weapons and nuclear waste so that our children are not burdened by it. Safety would be that the constitution is restored to its former glory allowing us all to share the same protections. Happiness for me would come from fair laws that would implement efficiency in an honest fashion that all citizens would be accountable for.
3) Since you have done all of this you must remember that several laws now in place prevent me from being anything less then a patriot. You should know in your heart who a true patriot is. To me Washington was in fact a true patriot he sacrificed his life, property and wealth so that you and I might have a chance at being unencumbered by silly laws and destructive taxes. After the Revolutionary War, Washington was in fact asked by the roaming mobs of Americans if he would be their King. He was flattered but declined and soon the Constitution was born. So since current laws hold entities like corporations above individual rights by in fact making persons of corporations there are two possible paths individuals can take. One possibility would be forming the largest corporation of all time named along the lines of "Citizens of the United States of America for Constitutional Restoration Inc." The other option would be to heed Thomas Jefferson's advice when he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
4) Passing step three gives us all the responsibilities laid out in the original Constitution. This time around we do things differently. Using the Eminent Domain laws would give every single citizen and American family a home by declaring that all land in the USA would be property of "We the People." Corporations would be returned to pre 1800's laws in order that "We the People" may once again give or revoke corporate charters. Corporations would no longer be able to legally lobby the governing body as a result. With the use of Eminent Domain we could grant all citizens a home that will be (over time) energy efficient and best of all free. All dwellings shall be rent, mortgage and duty free and shall be property of the actual dweller(s) in name till the dweller(s) move or pass away. No dweller may occupy more then one dwelling unit; this is to say that you may only dwell in one home at a time; the exception would be those who are in service of the People. If you are elected as a State or Federal Official you are not expected to give up your home. Other service workers may also fall into this category though this would be on a local basis.
5) Through declaration a basic standard of living for all citizens must be implemented. This is to say that situations like chronic homelessness will not be acceptable, though in the event of flood, fire, war, etc a citizen(s) may become homeless and require shelter. A basic living standard will require that over time energy efficiency will be established and when possible increased. Over time it may become necessary for a resident to move from an inefficient home to an efficient home this is to say that as new homes are built that have better R values residents living in inefficient homes will be compelled by law to move to new dwellings so that the older homes may be dismantled, recycled, etc.
6) Through declaration the Federal Reserve will be eliminated and the US Government shall print US Barter Credit notes so that people can trade for goods but no taxes can be levied on the transactions nor could any interest be earned. A credits scale will be established setting the minimum allowable of credits to be paid to a given type of worker group. This system shall be fair in that an individual could earn more credits by doing more work and that the work an individual performs from picking fruit to providing solar cells is the valued element.
7) I'll stop at seven except to say that we would establish an efficient free society based on a town surrounded by efficiency based homes surrounded by farmland. Towns will be connected through bio-powered rail. Food transport will be the priority. All towns will be built in accordance to geography and food production. This will mean that the elected officials will have to understand the areas that they live in. Land permitting crop diversity shall be stressed so that transport of specific crops like oranges can be addressed. We could once again develop sources of entertainment and socialization starting with the town. By clustering the homes around the town we reduce the need for travel. We conserve just about everything this way!
Naturally nothing is without issues. If you follow the logic I used here you would see that this is democratic rather than socialistic. The government has elections, terms, etc. yet since the society is made of people (corporations are eliminated from being anything other than businesses) that have different goals then corporations and businesses do it would be logical for socialistic behaviors and laws to emerge.
Corporations that we have now have a different goal then individuals. As you know the main goal of a corporation is to turn a profit at all costs. People as per the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution have a completely different goal. We people seek happiness and security. As people our goal is to do the correct thing to attempt to guarantee our survival. Corporations attempt to profit first and often can run opposed to the needs of a society as a whole.
I decided here that all men were created equal. I would eliminate poverty by setting living standards. Ideas like elected officials do not get paid they serve and receive compensation in the form of perks and wages similar to that of a juror should be discussed. If I could I would compel citizens to serve the local government at a minimum. I would eliminate career politicians so that way more people get turns and the friendship link to lobbyists would be severed.
No matter what your age, health, sex, etc. you would never have to fear the wrath of a society hell bent on materialism, capitalism and money. You could be happy no matter what!
You lose big points here. I'm not going to argue over race, but class. Look at section 8 housing and tell me free houses are a great idea. They aren't taken care of b/c there is no, "I paid for this through my blood, sweat, tears etc." As an economist there is no such thing as a free [house]. The problem is the creation of money through debt. Eliminate that, and your housing issues will fall in line. I know it's simplistic, but you pay for free housing in so many other ways.
Review the DrumBeat thread from the 18th. Read all of the posts. The one thing most agree on is that once the decline starts going there will be poverty that you can not even comprehend. As the economy folds up more and more will fall into the ranks of the poor or homeless. Eventually if you had the resources you would have to pay for protection. Regardless siege would be laid and you would perish and your wealth would be redistributed in that fashion.
In the end most would perish regardless of class. The reason that class is an issue is that you fear the loss of status since you are upper class. The fact is that when push comes to shove the poor already outnumber the richest. Let's face some more facts...
- Wealthy people often live in homes larger then 3000 ft. and this is much more space then is needed by a family of 4. As a matter of fact a 3000 ft home could support 12 people with room to spare.
- Wealthy people often invest in real estate. Those that know how to play that game wind up as owners of vast tracts of land. Since the inheritance taxes have been eliminated for the near term this land would never make it back to the public domain.
- I see it as fair that housing, food and energy for all would be free. Those that are determined to do as little as possible will not earn any credits. They will have the basics and not be lying in the streets. Over time this sort of lifestyle would be purged. The social issue of the day is that the middle class are disproportionately burdened by taxes and consumer prices.
- Wealth in the form of orderly and efficient lifestyles will have to replace materialism and consumerism.
I will not say that the plan I posted is the best plan for you. I would say that it would be the best possible chance for Americans of all classes to avoid massive anarchy followed by a feudal lord system only to face global extinction. I'm not going to state that everyone will like every portion. The bottom line is that you should do is spend the time and thought and write your own extinction escape plan for the masses. See all BS for what it is and isn't. Show us what you could do for all people if you had the power to do so. I would follow you if you had a fair plan that excluded no citizens! Show me the plan or show me how to improve mine.Free energy (and free food !)
You have no understanding of human behavior.
And with free housing, I have several places within two blocks that I would like to move into >:-)
I read some replies in several other threads to your posts. In general several members here including myself feel that you do not see the bigger picture. Here you claim that I have no understanding of human behavior! That is an opinion on your part. I know that when laws are passed people obey them or don't. You offer no alternate hope for the USA or humanity in general in all of your postings.
Normally I don't allow a poster to invade my space as you do but I must say that now you're picking fights and not offering to me or this site. I wish you would grow up. A. You do not see the writing on the wall. B. You have no alternative to offer. If the citizens elected me I would end money. Money is over anyway look at the debt your portion of it is around $100,000.00. I would declare the nation bankrupt as a matter of fact. The current method is more war and more debt. Land is all that is left so it has to be fairly distributed.
If I were elected (even though I think you are pretty much a shill) you would not be cast from your home nor would you be subjected to rent. There would be no Iron Triangle or Big Oil if I were elected since all corporations would for a period be taken over by the people. You think this is a joke but you have no comparison and laugh since your in denial of the gravity of our current dilemma.
If we were to move to a free culture based on towns surrounded by efficient homes surrounded by farms connected by rail it would be hard work that you would not be forced to participate in. You would not do much more then exist at that level of input yet I would fight for your right to life.
Since you pretend to know so much why don't you share your complete (as possible) plan?
I'm starting to like the Danish model more and more, too bad it doesn't work here.
at best it might buy a decade of continuing how we live.
as a example look at this post in this very drumbeat thread.
Inputs are a problem: but an even bigger problem then raw materials for production is oil depletion that makes obtaining the raw materials impossible.
We need to use the diesel locomotives that we have and fuel them with bio-diesel. Copper is recyclable and for a great deal less then mining it. We simply will not need 200W electric services in our homes. Each town could generate methane for cooking and heating from human and animal waste.
If you don't have a plan when the lights go out, I do and to me there is hope. I can sleep at night and do not fear the dark. Life would be much different then what you're used to but blowing your brains out over it would spoil the challenge. You do have to know that cave people survived much harsher conditions then what we will face.
Once you remove the cars, SUVs, aircraft and military the demand drops substantially. Once you eliminate waste and create homes that remain warm in the cold from waste heat calories from your own body you increase your ttl. The USA @ 350 million has something all the other nations of the world want...FOOD. Permaculture is about the only hope. Once you grow food locally you can feast on it raw. It is good that methane is a natural product of shit and burning it allows you to generate BTUs.
You would have the methane or the carbon yet the main reduction would be from living in town/homes/farms rather then the silly way it is done at this very moment. Methane from decomposition is a natural force.
Frankly the Earth is due for a magnetic reversal. There are 2 schools on what that implies. S1 says it's no big deal your compass goes nuts. S2 says the Earth changes its spin and at that moment all life ends. Ironically we are having global issues now and at the same time the poles are in a high state of movement. If that isn't enough we have global warming and the Mayan calendar runs out in 2012. I wouldn't be surprised if Damien Thorn or who ever is the Antichrist is here. With all that against us it would be better to do the best we can. Don't you agree? I mean maybe the world will not end? Aliens may come and save us?
They say the Mayans were brilliant and that along with the calendar ending is all I know. I brought all that up to lighten things up on the thread! This end of the world possibility from a magnetic reversal is better then Scientology.
Who could have thought this stuff up? The Earth will stop spinning for a moment and then start spinning in the opposite direction. The tectonic plates will move in real time then.
We must not forget that 4 angels will come to destroy the earth and a 5th will stop them so that the 144,000 servants of God can be saved and the rest perish.
In the mean time we have used everything up and will die from starvation, exposure, war, floods, fire...
The shocker of shockers is that Bill Gates is retiring and it appears that he may be one of the 144,000
So not to worry if PO is wrong all the rest of this will get us for sure.
Your comments are cleaver and I'll bet you have to work hard at being that cleaver? You commented that my plan is nonsense. Then you commented that I went off topic. Then you said that if I'm serious about my nonsense then nature's cull of Homo sapiens is an example of why humans will be culled. Mr. Grey Zone, I hope that you are able to locate help for your issues prior to the cull.
I can go off topic or choose to discuss topics that go in a lighter direction. Some may laugh and others may be too cerebral or clever. As it happens I had been talking with another mem