 | "Deeply Troubling" (or, wanna have a laugh/cry...?) | The Oil Drum | Peak Oil, Persuasion, and the World Meme |  |
DrumBeat: July 12, 2006
Posted by threadbot on July 12, 2006 - 9:25am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Citgo to Stop Selling Gas at U.S. Stations
CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela-owned Citgo Petroleum Corp. has decided to stop selling gasoline at some 1,800 stations in the United States following calls by President Hugo Chavez to nix contracts that benefit U.S. consumers more than Venezuelans.Citgo, which is wholly owned by Venezuela's state oil company, currently has to purchase 130,000 barrels a day from other refining companies to meet its service contracts at 13,100 stations across the U.S.
The Houston-based company has decided to sell only the 750,000 barrels a day that it produces at three U.S. refineries in Lake Charles, Louisiana, Corpus Christi, Texas, and Lemont, Illinois, according to a statement late Tuesday.
That will mean that over the next year Citgo will withdraw completely from 10 states and stop supplying some stations in four additional states, Citgo spokesman Fernando Garay said Wednesday.
Iran's mullahs promise to cover China's demand for energy
Chinese Ambassador to Tehran Leo Jen Tung conferred here Tuesday with the Head of Majlis Energy Commission Kamal Daneshyar on expansion of mutual cooperation on energy sector between the two countries.[Update by Leanan on 07/12/06 at 9:41 AM EDT]At the meeting, Daneshyar called for continued expansion of good relations between the two countries and voiced Iran's readiness to meet the demands of China in the energy sector.
The Mother Of All Battles: For Oil
Blair is going nuclear to avoid blackmail over gas
The BBC gives us a Guide to Russia's key energy clients
Malacañang Palace seeks to cushion new oil price hikes
Pakistan: Loadshedding across country planned
With no let up in energy crisis, the government is expected to start formal loadshedding and spread its duration evenly to different parts of the country to enable consumers to plan their life accordingly....He said the government believed that announcements in the past of no-loadshedding had been counter productive because there was nothing the government could have done when there was a clear gap between demand and supply. “It is better to face public and come up with shortest possible means to fill the gap,” said the senior official.
U.K.: TV standby buttons will be outlawed
THE Government is to outlaw standby switches on televisions and video and DVD players to cut the amount of electricity wasted in the home.Refrigerators, washing machines and dishwashers will have to become energy-efficient, and lightbulbs that burn too much energy will be phased out.
IEA sees oil supply growth exceeding demand in '07
When fuel is the price of champagne
[Update by Leanan on 07/12/06 at 10:48 AM EDT]
The Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending July 7, 2006 has been released. There was a big draw on crude inventories. Price of oil is heading skyward.
[Update by Leanan on 07/12/06 at 2:21 PM EDT]
Oil sends trade deficit higher in May
WASHINGTON (AP) — America's trade deficit rose in May as the price of imported oil jumped by the largest amount since 1990 in the run-up to the first U.S.-Iraq war...."Oil is sucking us dry and even stronger world growth cannot keep the trade deficit from widening," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors.
Ie what is used in the fractional distallation process NG ?
How much of each usable fraction from different types of oil do you get.
Can anyone confirm whether non-OPEC is up 1.1 mbpd day this year yet? I was under the impression that it was flat or delining, with the decline being made up by OPEC.
The best guess is that Russia and China have sided with Iran, and told the US/UK that they will not under any circumstances stand by while Iran is attacked. US expansionism has thus been brought to a rude halt.
Possible?
Soon the time will have run out on the latest offer made to the Iranians, and the Iranians will continue to try to drag it out without outright rejecting it. I doubt they have any intention of giving up the nuclear fuel cycle. So what will we do then - just say "ok, then, never mind"? Not likely, and the rhetoric is increasing already.
This is a regular strategy of these people, both domestically and otherwise - you use a tool like the UNSC to enable you to do what you want with some level of legitimacy, and if you cannot you do what you want anyway, and thereby destroy the credibility of the organization that opposed you. You count on the fact that no one will actually try to enforce the rules. In the end you have absorbed new powers.
BTW, I find it very interesting that the saber rattling over N Korea is so muted by the administration. It was the liberals who wanted a preemptive strike, while Cheney played it down. Why? Because they have nothing we want, and we must save the military force for those places resources we actually care about.
Definately not, but US has an experience of presenting defeat as a victory. Most certainly the neocons will impose unilateral measures - diplomatic restrictions, additional trade restrictions etc. Some satellites (UK) will also join for the measures to look more impressive. The practical effects will most likely range from mediocre to none, but the media can fume them enough to save the administration face.
I still consider attacking Iran as highly unlikely - whichever way you look at it, the consequesnces even from a limited air strike will be disastrous, and I can see it only as an act of desperation. I don't really believe that people with so much (money and power) to lose would act so short-sightedly.
yea, the US will make sure the embacy is closed, stop buying oil, and the important date trade.
Now, if nuclear reactors didn't exist as an option for civian power...what WOULD be the reason for Iran to have such for power?
(the %5 link - because I just find out and wanna share how selling Iran oil mattered....)
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2006/07/greening-antarctica.html#comments
COTA to slam brakes on transit options
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Tim Doulin
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
COTA might abandon any attempt to add light rail, streetcars or bus rapid transit.
The Central Ohio Transit Authority has been studying all three, but none qualifies for federal funding right now, officials said.
COTA President William Lhota will share today with the agency's board preliminary findings of a study that looked at how much each option would cost and how each would affect such things as noise, traffic, parking and the environment.
The same findings will be shared in public meetings over the next month. Lhota wants to hear from the public before recommending to the board at its July meeting whether to continue pursuing one of the options.
"At this time, based on everything that we know, it is our plan in July to recommend to the board that we not proceed any further," Lhota said yesterday.
There has been talk of a light-rail system in central Ohio since the 1970s. As recently as 1999, voters rejected a levy request that would have funded light rail.
From 2002 to the end of April of this year, $13 million, including about $367,000 in COTA money, has been spent to study the feasibility for light rail, bus rapid transit and streetcars.
As mandated by the Federal Transit Administration, COTA in the last year weighed the capital costs of each of the three transit options against projected ridership, travel-time savings and other benefits.
COTA found that light-rail and streetcar options each would cost $510 million to $640 million to build and would have a projected average weekday ridership of 9,000 to 18,000.
Bus rapid transit would cost $225 million to $375 million to build and have a projected average weekday ridership of 6,000 to 9,000.
Under the federal guidelines, light-rail and streetcar options would have a cost-effective index of $60 to $100 and bus rapid transit would be $35 to $45.
The FTA requires an index of $23 or less.
"The bottom line is that, when you cut through all of this, light rail, streetcar or bus rapid transit do not meet the current criteria for federal funding," Lhota said.
Federal funding would cover as much as 50 percent of capital costs.
"The FTA approval process is complicated and, from my perspective, has always been a moving target," said Bill Porter COTA board chairman.
"While this is a disappointment to the short-term future of alternative modes of transportation in central Ohio, it does not mean that light rail, streetcars or bus rapid transit will never be a reality in our community."
COTA would need local taxpayer support to fund about 25 percent of a rapid-transit system.
COTA still plans to seek voter approval for a tax-levy increase on the November ballot. If the board drops the thought of alternative transit, money from an approved levy would be used to enhance bus service.
"We still need a levy to pay for expanded bus and paratransit service necessary to alleviate crowding and lack of service in some areas," Lhota said.
COTA's study is separate from the city's streetcar study. Earlier this year, Mayor Michael B. Coleman created a 42-member panel to study streetcar service for Downtown.
Karl Gelfer, a COTA rider for more than 30 years, said that while he supports light rail, COTA shouldn't pursue it at this time.
"The voters don't want it," said Gelfer, a retired state worker who lives in Clintonville.
"The bus service needs to improve before we go with a light-rail option."
URL is:
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/06/06/20060606-A1-01.html
In this case, Columbus Ohio is denied a chance at a non-oil transportation alternative because of limited Federal funds and limited local support.
Yesterday, it was about how Manila increased rail capacity by 50% by just buying more rolling stock, a VERY economic scaling effect. (My guess, +10% costs, +50% capacity)
Rail typically scales up beautifully, unit costs go down (strongly) as volume goes up. Add miles anywhere on the system and this will add ridership density on every existing mile and every station. Transit Orientated Development speeds up the larger the system grows.
I rarely get comments with these articles though. Are they of value ?
Keep 'em coming! Most of us TODers have very little knowledge of RR and mass-transit. I try and soak it up just like I try to absorb the info series on Shale oil.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I'd like to take up your invitation with a few thoughts on light rail. As a child, I lived in Oak Park, IL, within easy walking distance of a stop on the Elevated system. It was very convenient: from there, a dime would get me almost anywhere in Chicago. At that time also (1930s) there were connections from the downtown "loop," or from convenient stations, with electric interurban routes to points up to 50 miles or so away in northern Indiana and west and southwest of Chicago, as well as north 90 miles to Milwaukee. All these were heavily used commuter lines. All this was in addition to the "heavy rail" local and commuting services.
In the early part of the century, electric power use was heavy in the winter months and somewhat slack in the summer. In order to balance the load, power companies across the country, especially in the north, invested in amusement parks where there was light rail access. I can't speak for other areas, but around Chicago, the interurban lines were built as part of a utility holding company pyramid scheme headed by Sam Insull, that collapsed in 1929, taking some of my Dad's stock with it. However, the electric lines continued to operate beyond the depression years. The need for summer load balance turned around after the war, with the spread of air conditioning.
In my view, the public and political resistance (re: Ohio, in this thread) is simply stupid and short-sighted. It appears to stem from it being seen as antique or quaint -- nostalgic and just not "progress" -- therefore unwanted. But, dammit, it WORKED!
Cheers,
-- Mort.
There have been efforts to kill it/grab the real estate from right of way using precisely the quaint & antiquated story. But it still WORKS.
IME, people tend to just scroll by large chunks of text.
But, rest assured, it is appreciated...along with your tidbits of life in New Orleans.
Rick
I have to admitt, though, that I very often scroll down, whenever it gets too technical, or too specific to certain US locations.
Absolutely, your posts have great value, especially if you are living in the US, but less so on this side of the Atlantic.
I'm having a great time at TOD. You could wipe me off the floor reading that OPEC does not belief PO "theory". That debat is over; PO is not a theory, it's a physical certainty. OPEC may belief that it is at least decades away, but claiming they do not belief in PO is for sure a lie. Ask Indonesia.
So, keep up the good work. It will be appreciated.
Casey Jones
If you want to add "and this is why New Orleans is one of only 3 cites worth saving" and I'll respond telling you to go pound sand.
Rubber VS road - 40 lbs of force to move a ton. Steel wheels VS steel track - 5 lbs of foce to move a ton. It is a 'DUH' issue. So what are you looking for? A 'thanks' each time you point out how much better tail is?
Actually I've never heard Alan mention anything about tail. Rail, yes, but no tail. Interesting Freudian slip though.
Does anyone (worldwide) use gondola technology to enhance rail? I would think that this type of technology could be used to move goods and people over and thru areas where even light rail would be expensive to implement.
There is a ski-lift type gondola system from Manhatten to small island 1/2 way to Queens. From distant memory, seats about 60. Used by commuters.
Probably a few more examples.
In the overwhelming # of cases, rail works best for higher volumes of people.
Or...here's a vision...a micro-gondola device that can traverse power lines...even in rural areas. Perhaps the poles would have some widget added to allow the micro-gondola to by-pass them. It could be used as a "package" delivery device . I wonder how much additional weight the average power line can hold?
They are quite common in former east europe.
As far as I know no such system is in use in Sweden. The proposals have so far lost out to biogas or ethanol busses or more ambitious proposals for tramways, most of them not yet built. And there allays someone who somewere tries to sell some track-taxi concept.
Reminds me that I once heard that the reason for the hight of overpasses on the original German autobahns were to provide clearance to electrifie truck traffic. Trucks were smaller in the 1930:s.
I dont think there are any pressing reasons for complete automation of passanger traffic since there probably will be plenty of people competing for the driving jobs.
Gondolas on power poles will need some new kind of power pole system but the electricity distributors would perhaps prefer a cablification. Cables in the ground are much more reliable and are very storm resistant, they also look better, that is not at all. :-) I have seen power poles on manny US programs and it look a little thirld-world cobbled togeather. Perhaps they are popular due to a need for a much larger number of transformers to save on expensive thick 110V wiers?
Anyhow, I would image that a new power line micro-gondola system would eventually be rather attractive. I think a box about the size of a typical office desk could work (6'x3'x3'). Perhaps the power companies would get rid of that "third world cobbled together" look over time. I can image my "take out Chinese" dinner arriving in minimal time (kept warm by a built-in hot plate device) -- as the delivery gondola slips silently up to my house (while my car stays silently parked in the driveway).
The standard over here is that if you cut a cable you pay unless you have asked for a free cable marking and then you only pay if you dig at the marking. If the cable is at the wrong location the power distributor pays.
You mean if ground level transformers and switches get flooded? Regular PEX insulated cables are water proof and most of them are also used in water, they even work better in wet ground when loaded since that provides a little cooling.
I have onle seen very short press release versions of cost comparisions. Cables won when comparing the whole multi decade life lenght, they do probably not win if the intrest rate is high. Cheap labour might change the calcualtion but the material cost should be about the same globally if you are a large distributor.
And there might be other reasons, people here dont like overhead wiers, they look ugly, farmers dont like to have poles in their fields and poles alongside roads is an additional traffic risk. Large parts of Denmark looks better then Sweden and one of the reasons is that the have cablified more. But the main reason is reliability during storms and the cost of having service people waiting everywhere. Power line building and maintainance is no longer local busines as it used to be over here and cablifieing is a technological way of providing the same kind of reliability.
Almost the only new power poles installed for voltages less then some 20 kV are where the ground is bedrock or full of stone blocks and there insulated wiers or cables depending on how you define them are regularly used. They can handle a tree leaning on them withouth interrupting service and if a whole forest goes down modern linkage breaks in a controlled way saving the poles, I dont know if the cables are tough enough to survive that. My guess is that damaged insulation is ok as long as the wire/cable are strong enough to be rehung in the poles isolators if you have a real emergency. In the same way as emergency 20 kV ground cables were left on open ground to get repairs done faster, this gave some fireworks when forestry machines rolled over them but I dont think anyone were killed.
Micro gondolas sound like a very fun idea to contemplate and calculate. I have read about simmilar compressed air tube-transportation ideas or micro wehicle in small culvert ideas. They have a problem with the capital cost for building the system. Your micro gondola system is unfortunately not something for where I live since it probably will have a hard time with ice on the powerlines.
My guess for future logistics is much more rail combi traffic with local battery or plug in hybrid distribution wehicles and probably manny packet/post offices to collect packages at the same time as doing other buinesses.
The local trend in Sweden is a now completed closure of most traditional complete service post offices over 15 years. Probably since the dismantling the cash only spare banking infrastructure in case of WW 3 and definately due to the arrival of internet banking overtaking the payment order system we used instead of cheques. This has been replaced with a more fine grained system of small delivery points in shops and larger kiosks for collecting packages and mail to big to fit in your mailbox.
In my home town is a small logistics central being established to recieve heavy trucks and repackage the deliveries to small biogas driven delivery trucks thus getting rid of heavy and awkward delivery traffic in the city center and saving a fair ammount of fuel. It is situated so that a railway spur can be added later. We are not yet ready for the second or third(?) try for getting light rail combo traffic going with small containers. And such a system is technically an easy one.
It would be not just for postal package delivery, but also for normal retail transactions. Perhaps the micro gondolas would have "line heaters" where necessary.
The first niches that make sense seem to be deliveries to disabled people and high profile luxuries that were fun as internet ghee-whiz.
This part is fairly independant of delivery via optimised car routes, compresse air mail tube or micro gondolas. But the staff and capital cost and delivery times are of course different.
If you want to solve this figure out chilled gondolas, freezer gondolas and why not also heated gondolas.
Line heating has been used to defrost high tension lines but it eats power since it essentially means turning the power line into one long resistiv heater in freely moving cold air. Dont bother with the minus celsius part of the market. If you get people to want any kind of system like this you have done good and if you get something workable that is better then small delivery trucks in any climate you have done even better.
A real problem is that if a truck gets stuck under a bridge, the bus can't divert to go around it, adding to the traffic jam. Plus you can't easally turn a bus around unless it had an onboard emergency genset. (not a bad idea given upcoming chronic rolling blackouts!)
http://www.ruf.dk
A power company could attach micro-gondolas to the tops of existing power poles. They could start (after peak oil makes this look more sensible of course) by delivering the most popular single trip items on the most popular routes. They could have Pizza, Chinese food, diapers, cigarettes, DVDs, and beer & wine delivery to a selection of "destination poles" in big neighborhoods. The pilot project would branch out from the initial network -- just walk down to your neighborhood community center and wait for the gondola to deliver your dinner!
Could. Most poles that are installed are ment to hold up wires. Not the forces of a gondola.
Go talk to the engineers at the power company and ask for the design calcs.
Then, visit a gondola firm and ask to see the force calcs for their towers.
Also look about - how many power poles have 'gondola obstructions'?
That stuff looks like it requires a lot more real estate and equipment investment than my micro-gondola concept.
In some magical future where electrical energy replaces all oil, the power grid will need to be reworked. Already, the present grid is overtaxed in parts of the US of A. The ruf concept could house the expanded power grid, which would be needed for a electrial power grid transport system.
A "redo" with a ruf system makes sense if the power grid needs to undergo a large expansion of capacity, and part of tht new demand will be transportation. Room temp superconductors stikes me as a reason for such a new buildout. Or perhaps when nuclear power gets too cheap to meter eh?
Those power grid towers that hold up long distance power lines could work also for micro gondolas. They look strong. I wonder if they are hurricane strength? Perhaps UPS or FedEx should look into this.
If it got going almost everywhere (between major cities) the airlines could use them to send our luggage from airport to airport. This would probably pay for itself before too long.
An endless array of new & innovative transportation designs keep appearing. Monorails are the most enduring (in part because they are the best solution in a very small niche) and RUF is one on the newest ones. A bewildering array of airport people movers have been installed world-wide.
Collectively, these concepts have been lumped together as "gedgetbahn". Much time, money and effort has been spent on them and none are as generally* useful or economic to build and operate as convential rail systems. The US actually built a few in the late 1970s and early 1980s when we were looking for solutions to our oil dependence (see below).
However, IMO, we do not have the time or money to waste on more experiments wuth gadgetbahn. We need to build what works !
RUF is not worth the waste of time to consider. It has an exposed high voltage rail. In an accident, a twisted metal structure could short that out with "adverse condequences". Someone could have a flat tire, get out, jump over the "V" and put their hand in the wrong place. Not acceptable today.
What happens when the bus stops every few blocks, does a line of cars behind stop as well ?
Unique design cars and buses are required with "limited utility" and market. How does one induce Toyota to design and build just one RUF model ?
*Monorails have a very small and limited market where they are the "best" solution. Advocates routinely underestimate their costs to build & operate and discount the value of commonality everywhere with multiple suppliers to chose from.
Some US gadgetbahn:
Miami MetroMover
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/miami.htm
Morgantown Group Rapid Transit
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/morg.htm
Irving Texas Peoplemover
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/lascol.htm
Jacksonville Monorail
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/jack.htm
All of the above are quite uneconomic by any standard transportation metric.
Most transit advocates see "gadgetbahn" proponents as being pro-car and anti-transit, who are using an impractical design to confuse & delay a good solution.
What happens when the bus stops every few blocks, does a line of cars behind stop as well ?
Because you don't feel it is worth the time to consider, no one will ever be able to answer your straw man.
Oh wait. If you think like a linear rail, stopping and staring is a problem.
http://www.ruf.dk/w_calc/la_calc/la9.htm
" At or near each rail crossing is a station and a multi branch rail access/egress point." Guess THEY have thought of the problem.
A nice RUF feature is the ability to move about cargo w/o the need for humans. Like the 'micro gondola' idea. I have yet to see the 'what works rail' plan for that.
I have talked privately with Westexas that Trolley freight on the Dallas DART lines is doable off-peak one they finished expanding the system.
The electrified Long Island RR also runs freight off a 3rd rail.
This is NOT six months after President Carter's speech !
If we were fully funding every viable Urban Rail project in the nation, and electrifying 100 miles of freight rail/month and the date was July 13, 1982; then I would be willing to fund some gadgetbahn experiments (RUF would likely not get my vote though).
Consider the time to build prototypes, debug them, build a minimal real world system (with Toyota or Honda building low volume one car & one mini-bus model), gather operational & cost data, re-engineer for any safety or operational problems. expand the initial network a bit, etc. Most likely a dead end that ends up being scrapped.
At an absolute minimum, if successful, you would take 15 years (20 to 30 years more likely) before RUF displaced 0.1% of US oil consumption. Meanwhile RUF would consume resources and time, delaying projects that we KNOW work, and work well !
I am generally opposed to gadgetbahn now. We have a large # of choices that we know work, and work well.
For example, there may be a place for funiculars, which we know all about already.
In my micro gondola design, the gondolas could by-pass each other at any tower (appropriately configured). Think of it as a segmented line rather than a continuous line.
I'd bet there is an air corridor NY-DC (225 miles) or Boston-NY (215 miles) where the airlines could save enough money by "shipping" luggage over the gondolas to pay for itself in a fairly short time. Let's see...those "flights" take about 1 hr 20 min to 1 hr 36 min (gate to gate), add on waiting, loading, and un-loading will get you to at least 2 hours. So the micro-gondola would have to travel about 110 mph to make the same trip in the same time.
Looks like I'd have to install a lot of pole-top "?" (<-- that's the shape) hooks and run a lot of strong wire. <P> This is not really for gondola companies though, it may be more of a robot thing. What's the closest existing vehicle that traverses a "wire" with its own motor? Electric rail? Roller coaster?
Hummm, 225 million devided by 6000 is $37,500 per rider. Be a lot cheaper to buy each rider a new fuel efficient car and supply them with free gas for the rest of their lives?
The G8 Conference is heating up already. Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion and an strong critic of Putin says his group is being arrested and beaten up by police and operatives of the FSB:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/07/11/012.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1173244.ece
-------------------
President Vladimir Putin's fiercest domestic critics and political challengers have defied the Kremlin and held an alternative G8 summit in Moscow, four days before the real thing.
The "anti-summit" was an attempt to persuade the West to get tough with the Russian leader. Speaker after speaker complained about the state of democracy and urged G8 leaders to stop treating Mr Putin as a democrat.
Igor Shuvalov, Mr Putin's G8 point man, had made it clear before the anti-summit that the Kremlin did not want "high officials" from foreign countries to attend, warning their participation would be viewed as "an unfriendly act". Two senior officials from the US State Department also ignored the warning to stay away.
Another protester tried to punch the former Russian prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, who is a potential presidential contender for the opposition.
----------------------------
From Yahoo news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20060707/cm_ucgg/hostingg8summitcantchangerussiasrealities
-------------
One of the cleverest recent comments about the New Russia came from Ivan Krastev, a prominent Bulgarian strategic thinker. "The transition," he said, "has been from one-party state to a one-pipeline state."
--------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Russian president tells NBC that VP was on `an unsuccessful hunting shot'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12355000/
Putin translator, "Move Rook to position f3."
http://www.regnum.ru/english/672003.html
-----------------
President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili believes that the upcoming G8 summit in St. Petersburg will have determining significance for the world politics.
As the Georgian president stresses, his last visit was not limited to negotiations with George Bush. "There was a separate meeting with the US vice president, where US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defense secretary and energy secretary, other officials, we had talks with practically all top officials of the US administration," Mikhail Saakashvili notes.
According to the Georgian leader, his visit to the US was a historical one "because of the moment, at which we are all now." He stressed that "the G8 summit would be a decisive one in terms of where the world will go in the near future" and that "everything is being decided right up at the moment": "What is this world? Is it where everything is determined by weapons, money, oil, big strategic or global interests, and small countries even do not have their own place? Where bargains are stricken behind them, and their fate is determined by others? Or is it the world, where moral, principles, freedom of various nations are equally important as it has been declared by the free world for decades? Will small countries have their say in this world?"
Mikhail Saakashvili finds it very symbolic that before the G8 summit he had a meeting first with Russian President Vladimir Putin and then with George Bush, which was the last meeting of the US president with a foreign visitor before the summit, which coincided with the US Independence Day and Bush's 60th anniversary. "I think it is a clear indicator for everyone of the role of our small country in the big world politics. We are actors not only in protecting and forming our fate, but because our people are special, and because of special events in our new history, we participate in forming the biggest world interests and policies, in determining, and what the main thing is, what our place in this all is," the Georgian president stresses.
"I do not have claims to be a world actor, or for our country to become a world actor. It goes here about the fact that we have our own interests, our small interests that are very big for us. Our country has turned out to be in the center of global interests. We have very powerful friends now, and it has its price: we have very strong enemies too. And I want all of us to comprehend it properly," Saakashvili notes.
----------------------------------
Will Bush push Georgia to join NATO? Will Putin cutoff Georgian FF supplies if they try to join NATO?
Speed Chess allows very little time to prevent miscalculation in the Great Game! Yikes!
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The latest EIA data show a big drop in crude oil inventories, because of big drop in crude oil imports.
As I predicted, total US petroleum imports, on a four week running average, have started falling again--and oil prices have started rising again.
IMO, the pattern that we will see for years and probably decades to come is the following: (1) a drop in oil exports; (2) followed by an increase in oil prices, as remaining exports go to the highest bidder, followed by (3) a period of relative stability, and then the cycle starts all over again.
We had one complete cycle this spring, and IMO we at the start of another cycle right now. What amazed me this past spring was the number of people that kept trying to explain how falling petroleum imports and rising oil prices meant that we had plenty of oil.
Look at the consumption numbers--up in the US and China and way up in many oil exporting countries--while world crude + condensate production, as predicted by the HL method, is down 1% since December. Someone has to be cutting back.
As I said, this ain't rocket science. What baffles me is that anyone is contesting the hard cold facts. How in the world can you predict rising oil production when the four largest producing oil fields are all past their peak production? I suspect that Ghawar and Cantarell are both on the verge of catastrophic declines.
What falling imports? Total Net Imports are UP 2.9% year-on-year (YTD = 187 days).
We measure declines from the peak. Oil production peaked in Texas in 1972, but 1973 produduction was 6.3% higher than 1971. Based on your reasoning, this means that Texas didn't peak.
In 2006 so far, we have 27 weeks of US import data. On a four week running average, 21 of the 27 weeks show lower petroluem imports that what we showed at the end of 2005. The most recent four week running average number, for 7/7/06, is once again below the 12/30/05 running average number. Oil prices are up 25% since December.
But fundamentally world crude + condensate production is down since December and the four largest producing fields in the world are all past their peaks. I'm not building my Export Land model based on a few weeks of export/import data, I'm building it based on an analysis of the HL data and the fact that the world's top exporters are more depleted than the world is overall. This is why I predicted--in January--that we would face a net oil export crisis this year.
It probably makes more sense to look at a longer period than 4 weeks anyway, either months or quarters. How does 1q06 compare with 4q05? BUt, even this may be misleading. SPring is when refiners shut down for maintenance, and some opec countries have, at least in the past, reduced output in this season to support price, and this could in theory explain SA reduced output. So, it is reasonable to compare yoy quarters, eg 1q06 vs 1q05, or years, but can't yet compare 06 vs. 05. (in your example, you compared texas 73 vs 72).
The future may be dark, but premature to declare Deffeyes won the pool, and this is true even if mex/sa continuously reduce output going forward; Chris (and, apparently, aspo too) is expecting substantial non-opec increases in 07, plus the ng/ethanol conversion is surging. So, 07 could easily be peak year even if he has underpredicted field declines.
Of course, we may well see higher prices even as total production edges up or maintains stuart's bumpy plateau. The world wants at least 2% more/year, might not get it.
Depends. Not if the imports graph looks like this:
Please look at my graph again. Isn't that what it shows? All 2006 numbers are less than December 2005! (The horizontal axis being conventionally time).
Robert and I traded about 20 postings on this subject. He kept getting hung up on weekly import numbers. My point was that I could not reconcile rising oil prices and falling imports this spring--unless the falling imports were due to a bidding war. If the refiners did not need the oil, why were they paying more for it?
But the primary point is that I am not building my Export Land model based on the weekly export/import data. I made the prediction, in January, that we would see falling export capacity this year based on the observation that the leading exporters are more depleted than the world is overall.
Since I made the January prediction, oil prices are up by 15% to 25%, world oil production is down, Saudi production is down and on balance US imports are down (21 out of 27 weeks), relative to late December.
US imports in 2006, relative to the first half of 2005, are not the issue, no more than Texas oil production in 1973, relative to 1971, was the issue as Texas started its long term decline.
To answer your question directly. Yes. But your plot suggests continuously rising imports in 2006, which is not the case. 21 out of 27 weeks were down relative to late December, with only 6 up (all four week running averages).
The two downward trends on the import graph in 2006 correspond to price increases. IMO, this is simply evidence of declining net export capacity--as I predicted in January--being allocated to the high bidders.
I suggest to you to try to find real import graph to take a good look at. Graphoilogy is loaded with real graphical data from real production, import and export numbers. The simple assumption you made are too much simple and far from reality.
Oil is a real material, not a mathematical concept you can work to fit your desired curve or equations.
Before arguing on something you have just a bit of knowledge of, try to learn more about it. Your arguments will then be very much more interresting.
I never denied this fact, but as I said it is no more relevant to Peak Oil considerations than is the fact that Texas oil production in 1973 was down relative to 1972, but up 6.3% relative to 1971. Does that mean that Texas did not peak? No.
That was the point that I made when US imports started rising, following the spring price increase, Just because US imports were rising--following a bidding war--didn't mean that imports everywhere were rising.
This is sort of what I mean when I say you have set yourself up an unfalsifiable position. I could take the opposite position: When imports in the U.S. were falling, that doesn't mean imports elsewhere were falling.
Your argument is highly dependent upon the specific time period under consideration. There are times that we see rising imports and falling prices. That does not fit your model, but you always say something like "well, maybe imports elsewhere were falling". There are two problems with that argument. First, prices fell slightly during the period of rising imports. Second, there is no direct evidence that imports for other countries were falling; it's all anecdotal evidence.
I really think what you have here is just too little data upon which to base a conclusion. I don't intend to get into another huge back and forth, but I thought I would weigh in since my name was invoked. :)
Cheers,
RR
I look more at finished gasoline stocks than total gasoline stocks which are blending components+finished. At the end of last week the finished gasoline stock should be somewhere around 120.6 million barrels which is below the lower half of the average range for the same period of the year (mean 155 mb, lower limit at 129 mb). The historic low since 1990 was on 2006/04/26 at 113.922 mb.
In the same manner, finished gasoline imports are below the lower limit of the average range of the same period of the year (computed over the last 5 years, mean 533mb/d, lower limit 423 mb/d, last 4-week average 408 mb/d, last week ending at 380 mb/d).
At actual rate of consumption, the stocks represent err ... 12 days in reserve.
We do not know what percentage of crude oil stocks consists of heavy, sour crude versus light, sweet crude. IMO, flat to declining invnetories of light, sweet are being obscured by rising inventories of heavy, sour. As Cantarell crashes, this will probably result in more of a total crude oil shortage.
BTW, I've been thinking of your definition of Yergin's day. IMHO it should be the first day when the nearest future of WTI (or Brent ?) closes above 76$. Waiting for a second crossing day implies that the futures drop below that level. But what if a sudden event drives futures well above that price ? In such an unlikely but not impossible case, we would have to wait too long before a new crossing occurs.
If there is a shift toward Heavy Sour does that push the products from gasoline to distillates?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/12/markets/oil_eia/index.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/blackm/plunge.htm