DrumBeat: June 7, 2006
Posted by threadbot on June 7, 2006 - 9:15am
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
“Of all races in an advanced stage of civilization, the American is the least accessible to long views… Always and everywhere in a hurry to get rich, he does not give a thought to remote consequences; he sees only present advantages… He does not remember, he does not feel, he lives in a materialist dream.”
—Moiseide Ostrogorski (1902, 302-303)
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Total sees 2020 oil output peak, urges less demand
Aren't companies supposed to encourage increased use of their product, not discourage it?
Is it semantics? (e.g they are including tar sands, ethanol, etc and therefore it is a net vs gross disparity)
Is it they all use the same governmental/private research basis that is inherently flawed?
Is it political, in that they dont want to alarm people?
Or are the near term peakers missing something?
Or a little of everything?
I for one think people are conditioned to believe optimists over pessimists, and that the corporate esprit-du-corps will tend to build in best case, and therefore is unrealistic. I also believe that NO ONE knows, not Matt Simmons, not TOTAL, not westexas, not me, but that is kind of the point - operating on the precautionary principle because the uncertainty is an order of magnitude higher than the things we are certain about. Thoughts welcomed..
Don't misunderstand me, I don't mean this to sound conspiratorial, or believe it to be a particularly well organised preparation.
Long term bad news, preconceived, is seldom dished out bluntly.
Hey, Alice, your pet dog has cancer - it will die a slow, painful death. Treatment is too expensive, and this will only put off death for a short time anyway.
versus
You know, Alice, Rover has to go away for a while. It will be really good fun for him.
That's how we deal with bad news. Partly it's for our benefit, but often it's damage limitation.
Your Quote: "Slowly, gently, we are being softened up."
Please contrast with Zimbabwe's harsh 'reality beating' as Olduvai Gorge Theory asserts itself:
------------
ZIMBABWE again has been hit by a wave of nationwide power outages in winter as the struggling state-owned electricity utility increasingly fails to ensure reliable supplies.
Reports from Zambia said yesterday that that country's recent countrywide blackout was related to Zimbabwe's supply system.
Zimbabwe's capital, Harare, and other towns have for the past few nights been plunged into darkness as the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (Zesa) cuts power in the face of continued shortages and distribution problems.
Plush suburbs in Harare such as Borrowdale and Glen Lorne and areas like Hillside and Hatfield, as well as teeming townships on the outskirts of the city, have been without power the past few days.
The Combined Harare Residents' Association said that the power cuts showed government had failed to provide basic social services. Education, health, transport, and water and electricity supply are near collapse as the economy disintegrates.
Zesa said on Monday the worsening power shortages were due to "reduced electricity generation capacity, low tariffs, distribution problems and regional shortages".
Zesa owes foreign creditors a staggering $330m, making it technically insolvent. The crisis is compounded by shortages of foreign currency and spare parts.
-------------
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A212040
Zimbabwe is the model of how not to gracefully decline--the US should be entropically planning ahead on how to best shrink and relocalize electrical distribution to maximize uptime. Recall the posting whereby the US military controls the 'juice'.
I have said it before, but I will say it again: utilities need to be ramping prices much faster than inflation to have adequate funds to prevent blackouts. The rapid shedding of thieves, delinquent consumers, and poor cash-flow corps is essential so that those that can afford juice will pay for it vs buying gensets for themselves.
Hopefully, US & state utility regulators are examining this COUNTRYWIDE COLLAPSE and realizing that the early forcing of millions off the postPeak grid is the best way to keep the remaining grid blackout free, well financed for parts and maintenance, and well-guarded against attacks [both foreign & domestic].
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Whgat is wrong with having a PV genset you bought with your own money?
Absolutely nothing--in fact, that is the optimal solution for nearly everyone, but what tiny % of the US will ever be able to afford this? Recall that hurricane victims buy gensets instead of PV panels to power their refrigerators, at the minimum.
PostPeak, those economically forced off the grid will resort to woodfires, kerosene space heaters, and ice chests-- expect a lot of house fires, carbon monoxide poisonings, and outbreaks of food poisonings.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I'm only pointing out that companies answer to their shareholders. I agree that upper management goals are not aligned with shareholder goals and therefore management doesn't tend to care about shareholders.
In the end, a company does answer to it's shareholders and if you don't believe me then there wouldn't be corporate takeovers, hostile or otherwise. Most times their is a majority shareholder who controls the votes on anything. Those that are in a position to make changes, can and do.
No - a more likely explanation is that these 'corporate' oil people are telling truth for the most part as they see it. (telling lies on such a grand scale is difficult - someone always leaks). They are seeing slight increases in production and megaproject list. What they are missing is the marriage of their view and the Hubbert view (voiced here of late by westexas and others) that SA is 58% depleted and the world is peaking. The answer that bridges these two viewpoints is a very steep world decline rate and a maximum production peak far to the right of the midpoint of the distribution.
If we are borrowing from the second half of the distribution curve, without knowing it, then the market will extrapolate our continued increase in production as evidence of no near term peak. The problem with this of course, is once the production peak occurs, we'll be well past the 50% Qt level, and have to fight much higher decline rates in addition to the net energy, net export, geopolitical stuff.
I continue to think everything is copasetic until its not with nary a few months in between. Essentially, this implies that few people in the marketplace really use or believe Hubbert on a world scale.
Kenny Boy is quite intelligent-he has a doctorate in Economics and has been in the upper management of three Gas Companies-but I believe he is responsible for seducing Skillings and Fastow and the partners at Arthur Anderson into the self-destructive paths that lead to their downfall. This wasn't Kenny Boy's first rodeo. He was the archetect of Transco's venture into coal bed methane that sunk the company(it became Williams Brothers), he talked the Republicans into decontrol of Natural Gas (look how much money we can make on futures). He had his first wife commited in order to cheat her of her community interest in Enron so he could marry Linda, he stole fro his employers by having his mistress on the Florida Gas payroll(that's Linda)and has generally behaved like an evil person while telling everyone how honest, how christian and how conservative he was. That's why we follow our King George II and just call him Kenny Boy.
Thought-provoking reply, LOL! We need politicians and businessmen with a more honest backbone like former Pres. Harry Truman:
QUOTE: "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
If TOTAL believed in a near-term peak they probably wouldn't say it - not good for the shareholders and way too controversial.
But equally why use a specific date 2020 unless you have at least some research to back it up. They actually seem to believe that production can grow until 2020. Why lie about something so important when you can just say nothing - after all the statement is meant to be a warning.
My back of the envelope calc - 85mbd at 2% growth per year to 2020 gives 110mbd - an extra 25mbd. Also the smart people at TOTAL must be aware that major fields are in decline - so they must have convinced themselves that there is an extra 30mbd+ to come on stream - 3 Saudi Arabias.
Saudi is promising an extra 3mbd and Canada oil sands an extra 3mbd - allowing for other developments lets call it 2 Saudis they expect to be discovered in the very near term.
How on earth can this happen - what on earth can they see that we can't ?
I think I am a natural pessimist and perhaps susceptible to PO theory. Most of my friends and colleagues think I am bit nuts. If this stuff was true they reason, we would have heard more about it - sometimes I wonder if they are right.
Can the smart people at TOTAL be so incredibly wrong ?
And even if you believe the execs only care about the share price - what about the thousands of oil engineers around the globe who live and breathe this stuff every day - why aren't more of them jumping up and down waving red flags.
I know some of the TOD'ers work for the oil companies - are your colleagues aware of peak oil, is it discussed at lunch or at the water-cooler - does it keep them awake at night ? Why aren't they all buying farms ?
Is there a particular search term or phrase that might help me find the editorial? Maybe someone else saved it someplace online.
Thanks!
Thanks!
So did the folks on Easter Island.
Studies show that people are very concerned about relative gains and relative distribution of resources, not absolute gains. What's important is being the big fish, not necessarily the size of the pond.
So what is heard is that the experts say everything is OK for a long time. And yes, since that is what people want to hear, they will choose to beleive it over other information.
That doesnt jive. A 1% decline in demand offsets peak date to 2030? That implies an exteremely long plateau and must be taking into account numerous alternative energy sources...
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0530-03.htm
PARIS - May 30 - Greenpeace today revealed that France's iconic sparkling wine, Champagne, is threatened by radioactive contamination leaking from a nuclear waste dumpsite in the region. Low levels of radioactivity have already been found in underground water less than 10 km from the famous Champagne vineyards.
We currently have the conventional wisdom (CW) folks in one corner asserting that the world peak is years to decades away. Historically, when CW has been matched up against Hubbert Linearization (HL), HL was won, most recently in the North Sea. I am not aware of any specific HL predictions involving the North Sea, but I don't think that anyone disputes the plot. It's basically a perfect linear progression. The North Sea is a fascinating case history because it tests the "technology will save us" theory. The North Sea peaked at the same point, relative to depletion, as the Lower 48, 29 years after the Lower 48 peaked. So much for the technology argument.
(In an interview in Barron's, Matt Simmons said that the major oil companies working the North Sea were predicting, in 1999, that the North Sea would not peak until 2010. Note that the major oil companies working the North Sea had the best data, best engineers and the best technology available.)
In any case, given the vast complexities involved in evaluating world oil production, I have pretty much reduced my argument to just Saudi Arabia (SA). I certainly think it is possible for the world to peak without SA peaking. However, I can't imagine anyone asserting the opposite--that SA can peak without the world peaking, which brings me back to my point that SA is the canary in the coal mine.
Khebab's HL plot for SA--which showed SA to be 58% depleted in 2005--looks just like the other regions that have gone into terminal declines.
To expect to see flat to rising production in SA from the 58% mark is to expect to see that which has never before happened.
The HL method and historical models predict a production decline in SA.
The Saudis have admitted to a 5% year over year production decline, but they claim that it is voluntary. I doubt that it is voluntary.
As I have relentlessly pointed out, the immediate problem for the world economy is that the top exporters--like SA--are more depleted than the world is overall, while oil demand in the exporting countries is, in most cases, going up very rapidly, resulting in a two way squeeze on available net export capacity.
I strongly advise everyone to practice ELP--Economize; Localize & Produce.
Economize--Assume that your income just dropped by 50%.
Localize--Assume that gasoline prices are in excess of $6 per gallon.
Produce--Look into becoming or working for a provider of essential goods and services, especially anything related to food and/or energy production/conservation.
Humanize could also refer to the need to cultivate human relationships of interdependency (social capital) between local groups of like-minded individuals, the principle being 'united we stand, divided we fall'. Self-sufficiency is very difficult if it only involves the self and immediate family. In contrast, a loose network of individuals with a variety of skills can all make each other's lives simpler, more secure and less dependent on monetary income.
-pop
Food for the People
This is why I consider myself an extreme pessimist about humanities prospects to survive this crisis. The one-two punch of oil depletion and climate change may be a knockout blow to our species unless a rapid reduction in our overshot population happens soon. That's why I am hoping for some sort of pandemic to produce a massive culling. It may be our only hope at this point.
interesting times ahead...
-pop
I've kept a small garden for the last two seasons, had about 400 square feet to play with, and planted eight or nine different crops. Each season, due to my own ignorance, I had two crops fail. Even so, there was still a great deal of product. For the most part, the food from our garden has been far better than anything we've got from a store. If things were to go bad, I now know what I need to generate the bulk of my family's food and it wouldn't even mean completely giving up television.
All this required was seeds, converting lawn to garden, water, and a lot of labour. The water came from my roof (and only a tiny fraction of that was captured). Seeds to grow a year's supply of food can be had for about $50. There is no shortage of lawn. And, if TSHTF, there will be a surplus of labour too.
With a little preparation and/or warning, even the fat first world can feed itself.
might not be so easy to replace them.
This is a major problem,because with global
warming extreme climatic conditions will mean
that some years you will lose certain crops.
Replaceing them the next year might be
difficult.
Pre 1800 europe tended to have a famine one
year in five,mainly due to the weather, England
one year in ten,due to milder maritime
conditions. I hate to think how often people
would have gone hungry if you added global
warming in to the equation.
People keep on saying how well Cuba coped with
it's peak oil . Very few places in the world
have such a good all year round growing climate.
They would have suffered much more if their
climate had been like the mid west.
Chasing the 5,000 square foot three SUV "dream" is rapidly becoming a nightmare, and the sooner that Americans abandon the dream/nightmare, the better off they--and all of us--will be. Unfortunately, someone--probably all of us to some extent--will be left holding the bag for the debt driven suburban dream/nightmare.
I gave my PO spiel to the high school age daughter of some family friends. She asked what college major she should choose. I told her "agriculture." She looked at me like I had sprouted two heads.
Agriculture is all about factory farming. I wonder if horticulture might not be a better future fit ? And where would one learn about orchards ?
I see orchard farming (nuts & fruits both) as becoming "permaculture" quite easily.
I have two favorite examples.
Adjustment of fertilizer application optimsed for each "machine width" x "machine lenght" by frequet soil samples togeather with tracking the yield for past years and for instance current crop colour. I think there is a very intresting future in doing a lot of the "hand and eye work" of more advance ways to culture by machine and thus get better nutrient efficiency then an average eye.
Automated dairy farms where cows have transponders "Rfid tags" and walk between computerized feeding stations, milking robots, rubber mats to rest and even a rotating "car wash" brush to scratch any itch. Continues volume and quality measurements on the milk to optimize the feeding for each cow and keep track of their health. Another good idea is sensors on or in the cows to keep track of their ovulation. Lots of capital and electricity in but they give a very good milk yield and happy cows.
The most important electricity uses if your are thinking about backsliding technology is electrical lights and an electrical motor for the milking machine vacuum pump. You do not want to do milking as manual labour by hand, it is very tiering, back breaking and the moisture exposure is not good for your hands. Btw, in a farmer poll in about 1999 in Sweden about the most inportant technical advancement during the 1900:s electricity beat the tractor.
http://webgarden.osu.edu/
I also use Oregon state as well.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/NWREC/
How useful all this will be in post-peak I do not know. Nitrogen appears to be the hardest element to "make" (perhaps why nat gas is used so much). I would think a combination of small ag and animal husbandry (for the available manures)is going to be critical.
It is so hard to find young people to take up hort. There is a learning curve to being a good grower. I tell every one that it takes 3 yrs per variety to get it down pat and get consistantly repeatable results. This is with at least a 2 yr degree to get the basics.
Dave
I know you weren't talking about a 5000 sq ft SUV, but I saw this commercial on T.V.yesterday, and had to pass it on.
An R.v. Dealer in Tucson was offering a deal on one, at $948.00 a month for 240 months. All I could think of was. MAN that must be some R.V.
From memory, Texas production varied by less than 1% in the years 1972, 1973 & 1974 (0.5% delta between two of those years). A couple of large (and very short lived) producers later found in the Austin Chalk could have concievably been produced earlier, in late December 1973 and shoved the Texas peak year from 1972 to 1974. Two or three wells found a couple of decades earlier than they were in fact drilled is all the difference required.
Would shoving the Texas peak from 1972 to 1974 have made any practical difference ? Would it have invalidated HL as a valid and valuable tool ?
Of course NOT !
Would a "disproved" HL analysis for a 1972 peak superceded by a new 1974 peak have hurt from a PR POV ?
Unfortunately yes :-(
SA has about 90 million barrels in storage. We have valid SA sales #s, but not production #s. 90 million barrels is enough to manipulate the peak around by a year or two. Add the potential for overproduction and SA has some potent tools to delay a provable peak.
Just be cautious in your predictions. HL is a superb but not perfect tool.
Am I missing something here?
If we look at regions that have these characteristics, we consistently see two data groups, the noisy nonlinear data set and the linear data set. It's actually pretty easy to pick the point to begin the linear extrapolation. For the world, I think that most people are using 1983. You always start the linear extrapolation when the data starts showing linear behavior.
The following regions have all peaked in the vicinity of 50% of Qt: Texas; Lower 48; Total US; Russia and the North Sea.
The really stunning test of the accuracy of the technique was the work that Khebab did with the US and Russia data sets. He took only the Lower 48 production data through 1970 to predict post-1970 cumulative Lower 48 production and he took only the production data through 1984 to predict post-1984 cumulative Russian production. Actual post-1970 Lower 48 cumulative production through 2004 was 99% of the HL prediction, and actual post-1984 Russian cumulative production was 95% of the HL prediction.
You can see four HL plots at: http://www.energybulletin.net/16459.html
Why not do a comparison of Texas vs. the Lower 47 vs. Alaska. If all three regions meet the criteria of producing at least 2 mb/d for 20 years or so, and they are mutually exclusive, I think you will have a more persuasive argument.
Along those lines, I think that Texas and the Lower 48 are the best analogues we have for Saudi Arabia and the world (thus our recent EB article).
When you look at the historical models, the thing that is striking about SA is how far they are down the HL slope they are. If the HL method is valid, it just defies common sense that they would show increasing production. Matt Simmons came to the same conclusion based on a field by field analysis, which leaves me back where I started, to-wit, if SA has peaked, who doesn't think that the world has peaked?
I see little hope (neither does their Energy Minister BTW) of Russia peaking past 2010.
* Assume the best of 5 Pemex scenarios for Cantarell.
* Assume Libya & Algeria have some upside, more from Central Asia.
The above scenario is certainly possible IMHO. I am NOT betting $$$ on it coming to pass. And a world wide peak in world oil production in 2010 should scare the *SH!T
!! out of us !I think the reason why small data sets close to the peak tend to overestimate URR is related to the behavior of swing producers. Almost by definition, a swing producer is inclined to underproduce, using its spare capacity to control market prices. As a swing producer approaches peak, more and more of this spare capacity is brought into play. This causes the HL curve for that producer to flatten out, rather than sloping downward. Texas did this from about 1964 to 1972-- it's easy to understand why someone looking at an HL curve for Texas in 1971 would have thought "This is a completely bogus method, over the last eight years it shows URR suddenly rising to infinity!"
This is related, I think, to the reason why swing producers tend to peak well past 50%-- whether intentionally or not, they effectively save an additional portion of their reserves to sell right at the peak, when the prices is high. Since swing producers are so large, the flattening of their own HL curve leads temporarily to a partial flattening of the region/world curve.
Saudi Arabia (with OPEC generally) has been in the process of "walking horizontally" for the last few years, as it starts to draw down on the spare capacity it's been using to control prices. The question is when this process will end. At that point, the HL curve for SA will start to slope down again, instead of running horizontal as it's done for the last seven years.
Invest
Invest in solar water heating.
Invest in solar space heating if you have a hydronic system.
Invest in PV if your utility provdies intertie and especially if your state or utility subsidizes PV.
Invest in wind energy.
Invest in insulation.
Invest in an economical car.
Invest in a garden.
Invest in a greenhouse.
Invest in compact floresent light bulbs.
Invest in a bicycle.
Invest in your body by walking.
Invest in your local community.
Scroll down until you see The Big Berkey and replacement filters.
You can also google British Berkefeld water filters for other places that sell a variety of models in different sizes.
I have been using www.mees.com, but that shows April 2006 higher than April 2005. May is not out yet.
Thanks in advance,
Rick
My new job will be in jeopardy within a year, but once I am settled in I will be trying to work my way into the alternative energy industry. Living in the bay area I also won't be nearly as prone to huge natural gas / heating oil bills as I was in Minneapolis and Boston.
Militants attack Nigerian oil facility, kidnap 5
Didn't someone say the airlines are similar to the canary in the coal mine?
-C.
Second the fuselage will be entirely plastic/carbon fiber. On commercial planes they have to pass rigerous FAA testing and one test is to withstand a lighting strike. The metal fuselage handles this without problems (most times), but plastic doesn't conduct electrifcity very well, so what happens? They don't know yet. Also what happens when this thing crashes? Metal absorbs the impact much better than plastic that will break into MANY pieces.
Lastly after talking to some guys on the inside, the attitude is kind of laissez. Boeing's plan is to become the DELL of plane making. They don't want to make all the parts, only assemble them. So they have created a highly complex supply chain and Boeing ability to coordinate these massive movements will determine how successful this plane is.
In the end I will agree that the demand will be there. Airbus screwed up big time and they know it. Boeing is sitting on a cash cow and they know it. Let's just see if they can put the whole puzzle together.
Not to mention when you get into the specifics there is little wonder how the Japanese managed to get first in line with nearly 50 on order, nearly 35% of it will be made in Japan (wings, mostly).
I had a real nice picture that showed EVERYWHERE parts were going to come from. I mean it was immense, but I can't find it when I need to.
Machines do the carbon fiber layup and need Japanese QA & QC supervision & inspection.
Quite frankly, the savinsg on wages is a minor % of toal costs.
BTW, there is some question if Airbus will be able to duplicate the Japanese process with German technology.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/06/060606180328.5jqhfzft.html
I've read in other places that fuel has surpassed labor as the highest cost input.
Now you've got Northwest Airlines attendants refusing to take a pay cut, so I guess many would rather not have jobs all together. I don't understand the rationale for this when the data says, NW can not afford to pay you an outrageous salary for smiling at people and instructing them how to escape. It's not like they are serving food these days.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B7123A CC6-0E49-4D56-8D67-F2C51B4FF661%7D&keyword=
Where in this article does it provide annual salary info.
You're right I did say they made too much money. It's a low skill service position. They should be paid accordingly.
As an aside, competition from lower cost carriers is causing bigger problems for 'legacy' carriers than high oil prices - without the competition, prices would simply escalate. Further OT - the competition would not exist if the CAB did.
Even if the bankruptcy court doesn't get rid of the contract, then what? The company bleeds itself to death and everyone at the company is out of a job. It's a sad situation.
High quality people? You mean they have to smile a lot? What high qualities do these people HAVE to have? Good attitude - yeh they need that, but so does any other CUSTOMER SERVICE job.
The difficult working conditions I can agree on. However there are plenty of coal miners that will go into coal mines with little regard to their safety over in the east.
Check out this article on how dangerous coal mining is, yet they aren't being adequetly paid.
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair06032006.html
Again labor comes down to scarcity. Airline attendants are a dime a dozen, especially after the last 5 years and massive layoffs. TWA used to be home here, but it is now AA and following the merger it wasn't too long after that most of TWA lost their jobs. There are plenty of attendants willing to take their places.
But he doesn't see supply increasing or demand decreasing any time soon.
Also, why do the airlines seem to plan to simply go out of business instead of just raise the ticket prices? There will always be enough wealthier travelers to go around if they do that. IS this disinformation? It doesn't seem to make any sense for air travel to cease to exist instead of just become more expensive when the airlines could continue to make plenty of benjamins if they do the latter.
Their overall costs are quite low (highest wages and almost lowest labor costs due to productivity) and their famous fuel hedges (from memory, 55% of 2006 fuel at $36/barrel).
They keep growing at a steady rate of about 8%.
Given their VERY strong financials and operations, I cannot see any scenario where they stop flying.
I am on record predicting that they will order 400 787-like 737 replacements (25+% better fuel economy) in 2008 for first delivery in 2012. When they are flying hundreds of these and their competitors cannot afford more than a handful, their strategic advantage will grow.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06157/696124-28.stm
The recovery of the U.S. airline industry is counterintuitive given rapidly escalating fuel costs, but they are managing their business quite well right now. They have reduced the number of planes flying by 21% from the end of 2000 to 2005, reduced available seats, are increasing their load factors, and, of course, are raising prices:
The airline industry will not disappear, but it will become increasingly expensive and unpleasant to fly commercial in the coming years.
A recent article in Asia Times <http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HF07Ak01.html> gave a glowing review of Dubai, calling it the 'post-oil Arab dream.'
From this article and others I have read about Dubai, it sure appears to be a truly incredible place - sort of a combination of Hong Kong, Las Vegas, a mega Disneyworld, and Tatuoine, all rolled into one.
However, I don't see how this totally artificial little fantasy world could survive a post-peak situation, being completely dependent on air conditioning, desalination, and global commerce and finance. Not to mention other countries coveting what little oil it might have left. Yet, reporters, such as the author (and the likes of David Brooks) see places like Dubai and Pheonix/Tempe, AZ, as what the future will be like. It sort of reminds me of those articles in Popular Science magazines of the early 1950s predicting that by 2000 we'd all be commuting to work in our own personal atomic-powered aircraft.
Perhaps a more chilling side to Dubai (about the only thing this reporter got right) is its almost total dependence of imported near-slave labor from Pakistan, the Philipines, and SE Asia. These people work in dreadful conditions, have zero rights, and are kept out of sight and out of mind. Having extreme wealth and privilege so close to extreme poverty and wretchedness is an inherently explosive situation. Perhpas a little Dylan (Bob, that is) might be apropos:
"You never saw the frowns
On the faces of the juggles and the clowns
When they did their tricks for you...."
It seems almost axiomatic that the greatest extremes of ostentatious wealth and conspicuous consumption always occur right before the shit hits the fan, e.g., Roaring Twenties, pre-October 1929. I kind of getting same feeling now.
We all assume that a) post peak, prices will rise, and b) a higher proportion of the world's oil will come from the me. This implies far higher regional income even as they pump less oil, probably throughout this century. So, how is this bad for dubai?
I think this comparison is very apt. Last time I looked, the Dubai market had recently crashed by over 60%. I would say the party is over and the morning after is about to begin.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060606-1305-ford-creditrating.html
In regard to the "fracturing" of the triangle, there are several examples. For one, there is the article about Total above. For another, the Dallas Morning News, one of the targets of one my Peak Oil articles, is supposed to be running a Peak Oil op-ed piece this Sunday that Alanfrombigeasy and Bart (from the Energy Bulletin) helped me put together.
I pulled this:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a6d89bcc-f582-11da-bcae-0000779e2340.html
Heres what I see. These PD are being "deployed" into man made exotic financial instruments that build their value based on even more derivatives. So we've got derivates ontop of derivatives and this in a mostly unregulated industry. This is truly a house of cards, ready to be blown away.
I posted a link to an article yesterday that an Economists doesn't understand why oil prices are being bid up higher, but energy companies are taking a minor hit on their stock price. What gives? He proposed a hedge fund is in trouble somewhere. I can't seem to find the link again.
I would think if you are long on the future, then shorting the stock would balance this out. I'll find more info.
http://marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/sat_data/?product=sst_comp®ion=gulfmexico¬humbs=0
National Data Buoy Center
Remember the movie "Day After Tomorrow"?
"We have a Buoy that registered a 13 degree temperature drop.." LOL
This is what you want to look at anyway.
Enjoy.
-C.
The continuing drought in AZ gave us Phx locals an obvious climate change reminder last night [CNN.com video]: "Miles long duststorm turns sky black"-- sorry, don't know how to link to it-- please go to CNN and watch please.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
What Can We Learn From The Oil Field Size Distribution?
Price of oil is dropping...
OH SH!T !!
US Demand is UP!
Higher prices are NOT creating ANY "price elasticity of demand"
Even with two years to digest and adjust to the the first round of higher prices. Buy smaller cars, move closer to work,strat bicycling to the store, etc.
Unsustainable. The "Other Way" is demand destruction. Unemployed people drive less, closed offices and factories do as well.
OH SH!T !!
Indians are not happy!
Most of the energy riots reports I see linked to relate to the removal of subsidies or infrastructure breakdowns. I don't think you can make a case that supply constraints indicative of peak oil - beyond current high prices - are behind them.
Can Struggling African Economies Survive Escalating Oil Prices ?
http://www.afdb.org/portal/page?_pageid=473,1036251&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
This from Dan Drezner, oddly in an anti-Chavez post:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002738.html
Here's an example from today's news:
South Africa's bright future will have to be candle-lit
In some countries, TPTB are having to choose who gets power. Residential users? Farmers? Industrial users? Hard to tell just from news reports, but it seems like it's often the industrial users - mining companies, factories, etc. - that are the last to get the power cut. Of course, they are often the ones producing raw materials and goods for export.
In the short term we could say that the price of oil is highly inelastic, but it's there. In the long term we know oil is price elastic. I did a paper on the price elasticity of drugs on the black market. In the end the demand for drugs is price inelastic.
Part of the reason I am a bit of an optomist is that in the U.S. a lot of the energy usage [in particular motor fuels] is totally optional and adds very little from my perspective to the quatlity of life. Commuting alone. Four trips to the mall with one passenger in a week. The list goes on.
Cutting back on this sort of nonsense is quite forseeable.
For the record, in addition to tomato, cucumber and pepper seeds, a peak oil seed saver might want to get some poppy seeds. Opium was a major medicine before fossil fuels. (as was cannabis)
Coke prices are down due to the massive supply. Remember it used to pretty much be one man, Escobar. Now it's a constant fight to establish to dominant cartel and each cartel is operating independently in their own best interests. So it's a consumer's market.
Keep in mind that even though the prices have fluctuated it's mostly due to the increase in supply. I said the elasticity of demand was inelastic for drugs. The demand doesn't really change. On net over the last 20 years, little has changed. We all know the drug war is a failure. The introduction of cheap crack via coke made it even cheaper.
The heroin comes from Afghanistan, mostly. Almost all of it today anyway. The southern asian countries also push it, but the scale doesn't even come close. I've read countless articles about how the poppy drug lords control many of the northern territories. Their are raids all the time, but again the scale that they operate on is immense.
How many alcoholics have joined AA only to be "cured" by Eli Lilly? How many speed-freaks are getting what they need from some start-up, soon to be bought by Merck? What is the spread between Ukranian jet-fuel and a $5 bottle of "decent" Chardonnay.
We shall just slump towards Armageddon.
I found this article about instituting an energy tax, but based on the CO2 emissions. Some interesting snippets...
Couldn't resist this one...
I would love to see some real details and meat to this idea.
Full details: http://www.forbes.com/home/columnists/forbes/2006/0619/020.html?_requestid=4274
You might have to sign up for a free account.
The best part of this plan is that it taxes the black market at the same rate as a guy working at Exxon. Think about it, they have to buy gas for their cars and home. They got to buy electricity. We wouldn't be dependant on someone working to get some money. They can hustle and the gov't would still get your money.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=fitts+%22bank+of+america%22+solari&btnG=Search
In fact they are at #1 on the 'top 20' list.
Following is Solari's list of the 20 Best Banks to flush from our lives in the US. In 2004 alone these 20 banks reaped $89 billion in net income, while in the same year US households ran a deficit of $342 billion [1]. Think what could happen if we turned the tables?
1. Bank of America
Nice to see the energy-saving effort.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060607/azerbaijan_iran_caspian_pipeline.html
Bodes well for US access to Iranian oil.
ASPO Newsletter 66 (June 06)
Articles in this newsletter:
A bit like the "Bugle Call Bulletin" for the Spanish-American Veterans Association.
:-P
Perhaps we should found an American Society for Post-Peak Oil ? ASPPO !