 | Khosla Responds: "Imagining the Future of Gasoline: Reality or Blue-sky Dreaming?" | The Oil Drum | Is a Wall of Oil Heading for the Market? |  |
DrumBeat: August 10, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 10, 2006 - 9:10am
Gas Prices Alter Habits of Many, but Far From All
Car owners across the country braced themselves on Tuesday for another smack in the face at the gasoline pump, as the shutdown of the giant Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska rippled through energy markets and consumer psyches.But Justin Ogle, a newly minted light-rail commuter, was calm. Mr. Ogle and his wife, Lauren, bought a new home two months ago, partly to be near the train tracks.
Consumers May Pay as Businesses Feel Pinch at Pump
As oil prices climb, the U.S. economy has become the arena for a tug of war over inflation.
MSU professor quietly creates one of nation's largest databases for wind energy research
BP's Prudhoe Bay a "giant water field"
"Really, we are a giant water field," said Bill Hedges, BP PLC's corrosion expert, explaining that what comes up now during drilling is three-quarters water.
[Update by Leanan on 08/10/06 at 11:24 AM EDT]
Saudi Oil: Far from Twilight
Michael Lynch isn't worried...
With the recent problems in the oil market, renewed attention has been focused on the theories of M. King Hubbert and a new generation of oil supply modelers, who believe that geological resources are scarce and a peak in global oil production is near. In fact, these analysts – usually geologists – are unfamiliar with statistical modeling and don’t recognize that they are engaged in curve fitting, not scientific analysis. The repeated failures of their predictions and their refusal to address substantive criticisms of their theories and methods are damning indictments of their claim to be scientific.
Meanwhile, Matt Simmons is proselytizing even on summer vacation in Maine: Energy Expert Warns Of Tough Times Ahead.
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.
Which countries are in the top 10 exporting countries?
Thanks in advance,
Rick
http://www.energybulletin.net/18475.html
Rick
Of course, listening to Canadian leaders lately, one could be excused if they were led to think otherwise.
Our prime minister recently talked up the nation as a new "emerging enery superpower".
Who knows, someday we may overtake tiny Qatar!
Do oil sands not count?
BP's 2005 numbers for Canadian production and consumption basically match these. BP gives 1.6 mmbpd exports in 2005 - matching that figure you found of 1.8 mmbpd in 2006.
Houston, we have a problem. The only explanation I can come up with is that they are receiving imports of approximately 800,000 bpd from the US. Didn't Westexas say that was the case above somewhere?
Anybody know?
Production - 3.047
Consumption - 2.241
Difference is 806, not far off the 841 figure.
But Canada imports 934 mmbpd (not counting product imports), mainly from Europe. Added to the 806, that gives 1.74 mmbpd as exports. This is intermediate between the two figures above.
Now for extra credit, can you explain why? When you say Europe, I'm guessing that's mainly the North Sea? or Russia?
Refining ability? To send the product to the States?
Product exports Canada->US in 2005 were 558 mbpd on top of the 1643 mbpd crude exports, according to BP. Sorry about the units mixup above.
What are you, crazy:) How was I supposed to remember that? I didn't even know it to remember it. Seriously. You should post more often here. We really, really like this kind of information. At least I do. Screw up the units all you want, we'll fix'em later.
Why can't Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces get their stuff via pipeline from Western Canada? That's the part I'm unclear about. It really makes more sense to ship crude from Europe rather than pipe it from next door?
Is it possible to make this equation more efficient?
New Orleans would like to barge more oil products up-river instead though.
We complain about transparency. It is time to clean up our own back yard.
Canada - (and my beef is not with Canada, it is with us) - Canada exports 840,000 bpd, not 1,840,000. Or, conversely, it does both. But we need a standard for reporting these numbers. Else the manipulators will run circles around us. They will use any number they want, whenever it suits their purposes.
Are we on the same team?
http://energikrise.blogspot.com/2006/07/produsenter-og-eksportrer-av.html
leads to a Norwegian blog that recently posted some diagrams (in English) that shows the worlds 10 biggest producers of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) as of 2005 baseed upon BP Statistical Review 2006.
the second diagram shows the world 7 top net exporters of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas)
Hope it can be of some help.
Breakdown by US destination also available:
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/Statistics/CrudeOil_PetroleumProducts/index_e.htm#Year2005
I stacked the countries to make the graph readable, obviously they are not in order, but you should be able to figure out the top 14. I have to update this for 2004 numbers(maybe 2005, I forget what is currently available). I might actually get around to this today, in which case, I'll list the actual numbers.
still rising if I'm reading your
graph correctly ??
Triffin ..
The percentages for the last 6 years on record:
1998- 54.1%
1999- 53.4%
2000- 54.1%
2001- 53.6%
2002- 52.3%
2003- 53.5%
2004- 54.4%
So it looks like net export capacity is currently on a plateau if you look at last 6 years, rising if you use last 3.
Keep in mind the last data is for 2004, 20 months old. If it has been falling since that point, it is unlikely that it is lower than 52%.
How many of those lines cross? Hence no exports.
JC
See?
Most people are not aware that countries that produce oil actually use it themselves. (As stupid as that sounds, I believe it to be true).
John
The top 17 exporters ratios are relatively stable. The remaining 20 have changed over the last twenty years, but mostly in order. If I did a line-graph like this I think it would just look like spaghetti.
I'll play with the numbers later and see if I can come up with something.
http://energikrise.blogspot.com/2006/06/utvikling-i-global-netto-oljeeksport.html
illustrating (diagram clickable for larger view) the development in net oil exports, by country, for the years 1985 - 2005 based upon BP Statistical Review 2006. Seems like net oil exports has seen little growth since 2003.
Hope it is useful.
How feasible is second generation Biomass production of Ethanol ? I am interested because apparently Iogen uses ANY source of cellulose to produce ethanol. This would remove a lot of the energy sinks from the production process. The process itself appears to run on heat generated from burning what's left over after extracting the cellulose from biomass.
This would make the EROEI equation very possitive. Do you think they have a posible solution, is enough usable biomass available (near potential factories) to produce a significant amount of ethanol?
This is about diesel, though, but it should give you an idea.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad/imagery_archive/highlights/2005/01/btl0104/syntheticdiesel.htm
I had a look at Choren's homepage, they say they need 4 tons of biomass to make 1 ton of sundiesel, and that one hectare can produce 3-6 tons of sundiesel. So, a 13.000t plant needs 50.000t of biomass, not 50.000ha.
I'm wondering if anyone can find information on storage costs for ethanol in Brazil the numbers seem hard to find since Petrobas seems to underwrite the storage costs. Running the number shows that we would need millions if not billions of gallons of storage if we use significant quantities of ethanol.
I know that storage or tank farm can be expensive for oil I don't expect the costs to be cheap for ethanol and the numbers are mind numbing they make the SPR look little.
Mike
In answer to your second question... Yes, there is more than enough biomass and renewable waste resources to make a considerable dent in daily gasoline consumption.
Are Californians are going to have to have their dead fingers pried off their SUV's steering wheel? Good Article!
------------------------------------------------------
"People haven't paid for the gas they bought two years ago," he said. Hamilton says that when, not if, an oil refinery catches fire in the West and crimps already tight gas supplies, California could see per-gallon prices jump to between $4 and $5 a gallon in a matter of weeks.
"If there is a problem at a big refinery, there is no limit to the price at the pump," Hamilton said. "The question is at what stage in the game does the nozzle get so hot that people drop it?"
---------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx, Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Besides, who wants to deal with car salesmen if you don't have to!?
Besides, I don't want to trade in my 17mpg vehicle for a 25mpg vehicle. I'm waiting for the whole industry to ramp up towards 40mpg. I want something sleek and sporty that still gets great mileage.
http://odograph.com/?p=332
Unfortunately, for the weight and cargo capacity of an American "midsize" I think things like the Prius are already pretty close to the edge. I don't think there is that much more recoverable energy in the liquid fuel. That's why the big trend is in plug-in hybrids and pulling energy from another source.
=======4 seconds
(Time from 0 to 60 mph)
Tesla Roadster: $89,000
4 seconds
Ferrari F430 Spider: $188,000
Under 5 seconds*
Subaru Impreza WRX STi: $32,995
5.4 seconds
Mercedes-Benz SL550: $94,800
5.4 seconds
BMW 750i sedan: $75,800
Under 9 seconds
Toyota Camry hybrid: $26,480
* Actual specification was 0 to 62 mph in 4.8 seconds
Sources: Tesla Motors;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/09/MNGSSKDMBT1.DTL&hw=tesla&sn=001& amp;sc=1000
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/tesla_motors_ev.php
Very sharp looking. That's exactly what I'm looking for. Even 50 or 60mpg would be great. I take the train to work, so I'm just looking for something fun for the weekends.
Someone needs to come out with something that's US Street legal.
http://www.uscaterham.com/
There are engine and suspension options. It might be interesting to try for a fuel-sipping option.
Here in California a very limited number of custom cars are allowed licenses each year. IMO it a fool's risk to buy the car and then hope for the license. On the other hand, there are some cars on the market with licenses. There are even some of the old original Lotus Super Sevens out there.
1988 Honda CRX Si, 105 horsepower, 5 speed, generally get 37mpg mixed usage 40+ extended highway...known to put cars with 3 times the horsepower to shame (tire smoke does not equal acceleration). Acceleration in 1st and 2nd gears excellent, large dropoff into 3rd...handling excellent and predictable. Fun factor 10.
They existed. You may have to wait a while (if not forever) for something new.
Think about it. Keeping a paid off vehicle, even if it consumes more gasoline, is a better deal than paying for a newer, higher mileage vehicle. We save the up-front expenses, keep a vehicle out of the scrap yard, reduce demand for more vehicles including all the resources consumed in making that new vehicle, and keep human mechanics in demand. Not bad really.
Combined with a little conservation keeping the paid for vehicle is better for us and the environment.
What do you think?
Or something cool like an old BMW - the old 3's get good mileage, and while they are a bit high maintenance, the user group around BMWs is amazing, I don't know of a better "support group" of users for any other car.
Any car will get better mileage if you featherfoot it, think in terms of "flow" like everyone used to before the automatic transmission.
I'm glad I get 25mpg despite using A/C and driving like the latter. (as much as the little engine allows) An mpg gauge would be great driver feedback to reduce those "fighter jock" tendencies that lots of people have. One change I'm doing is to move 5 miles closer to work, so I'll burn a fifth of gas less each way. I burn 3 fifth each way now, so I'll use only 2/3 of the fuel now.
Like the cover story, I switched to driving after being fed up with shoddy suburban transit. What'll be fun to watch is how long range commuters try to adapt. I already saw early signs of that demand destruction in my workplace.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/8426/
I own a 1999 4 cylinder Mazda 626 (referred to by the dealer as a legacy car). It gets a solid 30 miles to the gallon. On the Interstate at 60 I average 35. I am ready for peak oil; bring it on.
Maybe those folks are passing on 3 mile runs to the market, but unable to change the big work (and social) commitments.
A tentative explanation :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons
Call me picky.
Call me pickier.
http://www.englishrules.com/writing/2005/possessive-form-of-singular-nouns-ending-with-s.php
8/10/06 WSJ Article: "Feeling the Pain of Rising Rates"
Excerpt:
Some California brokers say they are beginning to see a return of "short sales"--transactons in which the sales price isn't large enough to cover outstanding loans. Patti Vaughan, an agent with Assist 2 Sell in Temecula, California, says in recent months she has begun to get calls from borrowers looking to unload houses they can no longer afford. "They've upgraded their houses, put in a pool and bought themselves Hummers and BMW's," she says. "Now they can't get it refinanced and they can't sell."
Glad I checked the "30 year fixed" box when I bought in '03
Yeah me too. 30 year fixed is a mortgage that lets you sleep at night.
As it was I got hit with increases in my escrow account which amounted to a significant jump in my monthly payment this year. I can't imagine if my payments were going up too.
What I really admire, if you walk around the streets of coastal Newport Beach, on the bluffs and on "the Pen", you'll see these older BMWs that were bought years and years ago and taken care of lovingly since. 2nd car that's very popular is an OLD Toyota van, the one that looks like a gerbil on wheels. You can buy 'em cheap, carry a lot, great for taking a bunch of kids to the beach or doing a nursery or hardware store run. I went and visited a house one of my sisters and I spent a winter in on Balboa Island, and the guy who lives across the street was lovingly washing his old station wagon, from about 1970 or so, old boat but it was paid for. Frankly a lot of the "Old Rich" around there never expected to become rich, they just had the old values that got them there - that and 50 years of Oil Parrrrrty!
In the article they write:
Let's see, that might be one piece of the puzzle figured out, only 99 more to go... (Though I have to say that I like Westexas version that they haven't paid for their toilet paper better.
)
Just saw two stations in Portland, ME at $3.07 (Regular, HiTest was around $3.30). Still was able to fill up for $2.99, got home and called the AltEnergy store about inventory for 110-130w panels. Looking at Treadmill motors on my other browser window for a DIY Windmill project. Made a 'Bike Garage' for us and our tenants, to 'incentivize' use of ZEV's and save some of the paint/plaster in the hallways.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm
Still dunno why the guy didn't keep it though, just get a motorcycle to commute, you can legally split traffic in S. California, and use the carpool lanes.
As a new member here, I've spent the past few weeks working out the truth from BS about peak oil, and thanks to many of the postings here I feel i have a pretty good idea of what we face. Now, my question is how does one go about telling those he cares for about this problem. My family and friends are typical "consume and burn" Americans, up to their eyeballs in debt, and are generally clueless about the impending energy crisis. My parents especially seem to convinced that this is just the 70s over again with big government and big oil conspiring to screw us over.(some truth in that, just not in the way their thinking) I know you've all done this dozens of times now, but I was looking for some advice to help friends and family see the light, or "peak" if you will.
Thanks
I basically think that most people have to go through the five stages thing, and most Americans are between Stages One and Two--Anger & Denial.
I recommend ELP--Economize; Localize & Produce.
Assuming that people implement ELP:
Case #1: Yergin is wrong. At least you will be better prepard.
Case #2: The Peak Oilers are wrong. You will have a lower stress way of life, less (or no) debt and more money in the bank.
There is also a sequel on the way; basically about ELP...
The New Frontier
by Natylie Baldwin
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 7, 2006
=As Gregory Greene, director of the mobilizing classic, End of Suburbia, observed, it may be too late for such "top-down remedies" to work anyhow: The U.S. dollar and economy are dependent on a reliable source of energy and there is not enough time to build nuclear power plants or implement other fuel alternatives on a large scale. Even if we could quickly build nuclear power plants, the recent heat wave and subsequent demand for electricity in France showed the ecological weaknesses of relying too much on nuclear power. So what are the alternatives? (1)
Greene is currently finishing a follow-up film called Escape from Suburbia. This new film looks at communities that have taken the initiative and are "re-localizing" -- preparing for a future with little fossil fuel by scaling down and redirecting focus and resources toward local self-sufficiency. Communities from the U.S., Canada, Europe, Cuba and the Middle East appear in the film, but it is the town of Willits, California that provides the most intriguing and advanced study of the effort to re-localize and form a sustainable and vitally democratic town in the U.S. "It was evident about five or six months ago that Willits was really serious [about localizing the economy] and a lot of people look to Willits for leadership." (2)
The Willits Model
Jason Bradford, an academic with a Ph.D. in botany founded the Willits Economic Localization project, otherwise known as WELL. Brian Weller, who showed up at the first screening that Bradford hosted of The End of Suburbia, eventually became an instrumental participant in WELL. In the two years since then, Bradford and Weller have learned some interesting lessons about mobilizing a community to prepare for the inevitable changes ahead.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Baldwin07.htm
- WELL has no defined scenario as to what they are preparing for. I recognize that the people involved are sincere in their efforts but, ultimately, survival of the community will depend upon whether the proper scenario was used. What I fear is that people will be lulled into a sense that things will go on as they have because of token actions.
- Willits, where WELL is located, is grossly populated beyond the area's carrying capacity. Regardless of proactive actions, it would be impossible to feed and provide heat and water for the population including the outlying areas. Now, if the arguement is that the purpose is to provide some local veggies when the chain stores have few and make sure there are emergency services, fine. But, that's not going to save the people.
Population reduction should be a major issue but, understandably, no one touches it.- Relocalizers do not look beyond their own areas. What I'm thinking of here is the "90 mile dinner" where the food comes from within that radius of the town as an example. In Willits' case, 90 miles runs into Sonoma County with a huge population. It seems to me that Somoma will keep whatever food falls within their 90 miles and exclude small towns like Willits.
- Building commuinity is a prime directive of relocalization efforts but few people outside of the group care. There is no doubt that community is important in the long run. Unfortunately, as country people know, it is hard just to get people to pay road association dues muchless organize for survival due to peak energy, peak water and peak grain or...a depression.
I would like to believe that as impotent as these programs are, that they will at least lay the ground work for when they become necessary. But, I just don't see it happening in reality. It's like the trite saying, "All hat and no cows."I did have a lot of disagreements about how things were preceeding. Seemed too much time was spent in talking about talking about. I know there has been some progress made, especially with their community garden, and the plans for the green hospital.
http://www.egreenideas.com/news.php?view=382
But what has really been done? How many people in Willits have gone alt-en in the last 2 years? I can think of 4 or 5 here, and I don't know how many more new systems are out there, but, in driving round, it is pretty rare.
I mean,what has really been accomplished, besides promoting awareness? If it hits the fan tomorrow, are we any better prepared as communities to survive? Has anybody taken a PO/GW stand against the new freeway bypass? Have we restored an operating rail link along the north coast? Have any local industries fired up? Are the vacant lumber mills being converted to alt-en manufacturing plants? (Or will we build 20 thousand million new houses at Masonite?) At least a lot more people are thinking about issues than were a few years ago.
"Building commuinity is a prime directive of relocalization efforts but few people outside of the group care. "
That bothers me. I came away from the first few meetings thinking this was gonna be a catch-all for every hippie- vegan-new age-utopian-Mother Earth News scheme ever proposed; that there was an agenda for some. Either the problem is urgent, and needs immediate responses, or it isn't, so why worry. If we are all gonna go off a cliff, it seems frivilous to be singing songs about the power of the sun. This is real life, not third grade.(Not to mention, if the Hog Farmers and you and I get pissed off with this, what about the effect on business people, loggers, cowboys? What about the people who love to hate hippies? There are a lot more traditional folks in the community you need to reach.) That's not the way. You don't need to "build community", you need to prepare the community. Struck me as ironic that some folks talkin' community are also talkin' 'bout unplugging from the grid. How does that help the community?
There is still no gut understanding of the seriousness. of this. Talk hemp around here, and I get "It will seed my crop. I can grow flax for fiber." Come on, folks, get real. Still trying to cure cancer by meditation and wheat grass tea.
OTH, I am much more Pollyanna than you, cuz I still have hope, not to mention a 6 month old granddaughter.
M
You're no Pollyanna - just realistic. But, you really nailed it more explicitly than I did.
I don't know if you were around when most of the county co-ops started a food trucking company (semi, reefer all that stuff). I ended up being the VP of the corporation but I eventually quit because all the warm and fuzzy people on the board couldn't graps that a company has to be run as a company and it eventually went broke. It's the same deal with all of this stuff.
Todd
yes, yes, a thousand times yes. We are tribal primates, and visceral reactions are hugely important; if newcomers come away from the peak oil meeting thinking "these are not my people", it ain't gonna fly.
> "Has anybody taken a PO/GW stand against the new freeway bypass?"
I was talking to a town mover-and-shaker yesterday, who's heard it all before and so doesn't take the predictions-of-doom seriously and so is still working to get that new freeway interchange built. How do you convince people like him, that this time it's not a false alarm?
(and for that matter, I find myself acting and thinking and planning as if tomorrow's world will be like yesterday's. Reprogramming the gray matter is not an easy task.)
the person you describe is in the category of people that you should just let them to run off the cliff.
His thinking is representative of the business community. I know him. He is a reasonable person.
How do we convince reasonable members of the business community?
"they can just jump off a cliff" isn't going to fly either. ;-}
My favorite first articles are...
The Rainwater Prophecy
http://www.energybulletin.net/11695.html
(Rich Guy that is REALLY SCARED)
A few from Congress(aka Barlettt speaks)
Transcript: Third Peak Oil Presentation by Congressman Bartlett
http://www.energybulletin.net/5948.html
Transcript: Fourth Peak Oil Presentation by US Congressman Bartlett, collegues.
http://www.energybulletin.net/6082.html
Then, I would send them to www.dieoff.com
(just kidding, they'll have a heart attack)
JC
Peak oil in the U.S. Congress
http://www.energybulletin.net/12751.html
Congressman Bartlett discusses peak oil with President Bush
http://www.energybulletin.net/7024.html
You could also discuss simple economics with them. The housing bubble is deflating; gas prices just aren't coming down anytime soon; maybe it's time to think about doing things differently. *Then* talk about *why* gas prices aren't going to go down.
Compare it to people who buy into GW in heatwaves, or after seeing melting glaciers. They've had the GW idea (and science) in the back of their head, but they needed a real-world trigger.
This path creates many of the benefits while minimizing many of the disbenefits.
Westexas' ELP recommendation (or HELP as some have said) is the best high-level organizing principle that I've found to help decide your own particular responses and courses of action. Each situation is unique so specific courses of action that some may deem best may not work for you.
Benefit 1. Gets you started within your own sphere of influence.
Benefit 2. Credibility. As bizarre as it seems sometimes, I have had numerous people dismiss my entire PO discussion by pointing out that I personally am taking, or not taking, some action that is somehow inconsistent with a PO belief. Even when their logic is convulted to the n-th degree, it gives them a too convenient counterargument.
Benefit 3. Conversation starter. Your actions will be noticed. And the curious and reasonably open minded will inquire. This creates a benificial form of self-selection. Those who would tend to be most prone to accept the new reality will be most likely to start asking questions.
Avoided disbenefit 1. Marital discord. I would love a psychologist's opinion on this, but you may be perceived as attacking your loved one's very essence. The whole PO, depletion, GW, species extinction, etc. thing boils down in my head to one word...less. Less stuff. Less people. Less consumption. Less driving. Less, less, less. And that is so completely taboo to most people. It's reflected in a number of ways, but often it's perceived as a reduction of standard of living. And them's fightin' words.
Any psychos (oops, psychologists :>) care to elaborate on the perceived threat to standard of living that PO discussions entail? I could use some help here.
Avoided disbenefit 2. Tin foil hat-itis. Folks WILL look at you as if you have a 3rd eye in the middle of your forehead if/when you argue that there is a fundamental disconnect between infinte growth and a finite system. And even if they get that, heaven forbid we should actually BE at the points of dynamic instability. I recently traded in the lawn service for push reel-type lawnmower. By avoiding the lawn service cost the new mower is already paid for, I get modest exercise, I ain't putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, and have a conversation starter. But the looks I get as people drive by...
GO SLOW! My own coffee-spitting moment was last August when I read the Hirsch report. Rudder hard to port, port engine full reverse, starboard engine full ahead, Ensign..make your new course 1 - 8 - zero. If you are married and/or with kids, they might not like the new you. So ease into it.
So yeah, go slow.
People go through three stages when accepting something revolutionary. Not in any particular order they are: denial, anger, and fear. They can go back and forth between all of these multiple times.
Fear is the most troubling of these. When you start talking about societal collapse, GW, die-offs, and the rest, people get scared. You don't even have to talk about these things -get them to believe in PO and/or GW, and they can connect the dots. To be brutally frank, this is scary sh**.
People also have an ingrained need to think that things will be better for their children than for them. To think they might be worst is utterly alien to human nature. We are also by nature utterly resistant to change. And yes, people will fight will definitely fight to maintain the life to which they feel they are entitled.
I wrote out my advice earlier, but it bears repeating: Go slow, don't scare the hell out of people, and don't present problems without solutions. I would also recommend not trying to convince older adults; they are in their twilight years and why burden them? Secondly, don't let your children know. Impress upon them the need for a healthy, earth-friendly, sustainable lifestyle, but don't tell them about potential disasters or end of civilization scenarios. Don't even let them see your preparations. Children are very easily traumatized, and you don't want to do that to them.
Nooooo, it's our own "Western" culture that has this emphasis on Growth and Progress. Humans in other cultures tend to think things will always be about the same, and many think things were better in the past, and the present is just a matter of trying to hang onto the values of the (better) past.
That is a very good question indeed. I talked about this with quite a few people at Aspo-5 in Pisa, and I think most people who had tried hard to convince people had eventually concluded it was pretty pointless. I haven't personally managed to convince any of my friends or family members to take PO seriously and have largely given up trying. And the funny thing is, I write articles about the issue for a fairly well known magazine! (And no, I haven't received any feedback whatsoever...)
It appears most people won't buy into something unless the MSM go on about it for ages. Telling them to "look at the numbers" will have no effect in most cases; after all, if things were getting bad, surely more than just a few people would be worried!
OTOH, I'm not entirely sure it's necessary for people to learn about this. I think I would be a happier person if I believed economic growth will go on forever, meaning my children will be even better off than I, and my generation, have been. Many peakniks do become pretty obsessed with the issue, spending hours every day at TOD for instance ;), and find it increasingly difficult to communicate with those not "in the know". I myself never talk about PO when I go out with friends and acquaintances: if you're gonna have fun, it's not a great idea to bring up "the inevitable die-off" or something similar.
I think more people are slowly becoming PO-aware, as things become more obvious (unless there is a major war in the Middle East to blame for the fuel shortages etc), but unfortunately the process of adapting to the new reality will be slow and, for most people, extremely painful. Knowing about PO and being a doomer, for instance, will not necessarily even be helpful; when you know things are gonna get worse, you may not have the energy (pun half intended) to do anything to try to mitigate the decline. Or perhaps that's just me on a bad day... :)
Maybe the second book also encouraged me to slow down and think of this as a decades-long transition. Those supply chains are huge. That makes them very hard to replace, but it also makes them unlikely to crash in a month or a year.
I think the thing to mention to friends and family (and hope it clicks) is that current prices and shortages might not be passing events. They might be part of a real trend, and it might be a good idea to get on the right side of that trend.
It might be a good idea to be prepared for the mini "gas crisses" that will be part of each year's news.
Either of Deffeyes' books are great starting points. Actually, I can't think of anything better. They're short, interesting, easy reads. He also sounds quite credible from the get-go.
Like ethanol and other things, it's a question of perspective. When someone says "X is great!" are they speaking as a producer, or as some average guy trying to buy gas?
Yet I still like this book as a recommendation to introduce people to overall concepts. They then can go out on their own and find out more of the limitations on tar sands, etc., as you said, and hopefully be slightly more bullish on solar, as I am.
(I think that is the way he is looking at these things, not what is "good" but what can replace the "global supply chains.")
Any time I bring up the oil peak, I'll usually use oil news (Prudhoe Bay for example) or the climbing prices as the lead-in. I make jokes about it too, despite the seriousness of the topic.
I just worked in LV this summer on World Series of Poker, tho' I never took my rental car option, either carpooled with other crew, walked and bussed around the town. (The Titanic and Bodies shows at the Trop are well worth it, as is the "Magnificent Desolation" Imax film about the Apollo missions. What a glorious sacrifice of massive amounts of Fossil Fuel!)
The locals I know are in trucks, and the LA guys, too.. all have other concerns upstaging their view of this elephant in the room. I think they know this could hit us, like they know a terrorist could strike, a meteor could fall, the water supply could get 'worse' (vaguely 'dangerous', but not anything for them to tip the applecart of life over for)
I would say to my closest pals at the start of some days.. "You know we're F-d, right?" and I'd smile and joke about it a little, but they have no doubt that I'm serious about this, and yet I'm willing to talk soberly about it. I would keep the opening 'Doomerism' of that catchphrase in balance by following up that it's simply 'a problem', and that it's likely to blindside most of this culture, badly. I'd really leave it about there. Not offer solutions, not get wild-eyed and evangelical or critical of 'their user- lifestyles'.. just setting up a voice in their heads that says this seems to be actually happening, that someone I can listen to (Bob) is keeping HIS eyes on it, even if I can't do that yet. I think one of the most persuasive ways to affect someone else's attitudes is just to let them know what YOU truly believe. I think that people who really know you are hungry to find out what is real and vital to you, or at least are soon affected when they discover that you have deep concerns.
It's like driving on snow.. To get traction, you have to be consistent and careful, you have to listen as much as you talk, and you have to start slow. If you are slipping, you take your feet off the Gas and the Brakes and let the wheels find the groundspeed/direction again, and then carefully reapply the controls.. Ahh! I went right into a driving analogy!
'Dat iz vat dey mean ven dey say Po-ettic Jahs-tice!'
Ahnold, 'Raw Deal'
Pure AC+Driving towns like Vegas, & LA have to be in such deep denial, I almost think you have to Shade part of your roof with PV's that look like an American Flag, and play it as 'Pure Patriotic Pragmatism' to show them that there is something 'The little guy' can actually do. If they catch a whiff of Granola on you, though, the message gets twisted and lost again.. skid, skid, screech!
Bob Fiske
The PPP, Pure Patriotic Pragmatism approach is about the only way anyone will listen, and even that has to be in teeny bites.
Now, what I mean by walk the walk is, you won't convince people to change if you talk about changing but are driving around a huge SUV and/or making 3 mile trips to the supermarket everyday. The same for recycling, not consuming etc. People are more apt to listen to someone who follows their own advice. (Case in point: people are less likely to listen to a doctor who tells them to stop smoking and lose weight if said doctor also smokes and is overweight.)
Also, don't get shrill or condescending. Don't preach. Find ways to work it into everyday conversations in minor ways. The first step is to get people to think. Once that happens, its much easier to get the point across.
Avoid apocalypse, die-off, and collaspe scenarios. You scare the hell out of people and they stop listening.
Above all, take it slow. As Carl Jung said, people can only handle so much reality at once.
I think I read once that it takes humans 3 years to change their minds about something big.
That's probably a junk number and idea ... but in a way it seems real.
I consider myself an upstanding member of the reality based community, so perhaps that made it easier since I already was regularly thinking "realisticly" about the future.
It still isn't but I think I can make some solid arguments, but academic weenie men seem to bury their heads in the grounds since they've got tenure. I find it ironic when an econ professor is preaching competition but sits on his pulpit of tenure to avoid reality.
My dad is a believer that the future will not be easy. But he has always planned for a future that would not be easy. He worked in Oil feilds as a teenager, he turned 70 this year. The only thing my dad owes are some small credit card bills. He still works about 40 hours a week, my mom would drive him nuts in a few days if he stayed home. The people I talk to know something it up I tell them the truth, they can deny it and call me crazy, HAha, like that is something new. I don't care if they do or don't I just tell them what I know and where if they want to look to find it.
Hedging the bet of not losing your friends now just means when the bad things hit, and they turn to you who are prepared and ask. "Why did you not tell me the facts?" It will be to late for them, and you might loss them to death and loss anyway.
Hirsch and Campbell, Laherrère were completely adequate to 'get it'. Everything after that is just details.
In short, neutral.
I'm an engineer from a technically-oriented family. I've subscribed to SciAm since 1981 and remember the 1998 article, The End of Cheap Oil. My brother's a geologist helping to punch holes in WY for coal-bed methane, and I was professionally all about pipes, pumps, and tanks for about 7 years. So I have a modest familiarity with the petro business, and if you make a convincing enough technical argument (the truth) I am willing to accept that you are right and to change any of my thoughts, beliefs, and prejudices that are inconsistent with the truth.
There has always been a vague sense that something was just not right with this (Life's) picture: Limits To Growth, End of Oil, that sort of knowledge. I'm guilty of not ever taking the time to really think through the whole trajectory thing.
Reading Hirsch, et. al. was profund. It just made too much sense. The daily drive provided opportunity to see how much is predicated on cheap energy....which is just about everything.
Now, if I could just break this TOD addiciton I could get back to work! I really have other things to do :)
So the messages in The Long Emergency just made a lot of sense to me (infinite growth is not possible, there are limits).
I remember finishing the book while on a business trip and I needed to get out of my hotel room, so I went across the street to walk around Gander Mountain (outdoors store in the Midwest) and I had this smug grin on my face the whole time. My mind was saying "We're all fools! Look at all of this crap that doesn't even matter. It's so clear that this is impossible without cheap oil." It was a memorable experience and one that I think will stick in my mind forever. I can just imagine telling my grandkids someday... "You wouldn't believe all of the options we had. hundreds of different fishing poles, some costing $250!"
A great ah ha moment was reading Heinberg's "The Petroleum Plateau" (still one of the best for a new person I think).
Just looking around and saying "I knew this couldn't go on forever, Now I know exactly why it won't"
I worked for a Plastic company making plastic film. We bought millions of pounds of Polyethene a year. After I "Awakened" I started talking to the Purchasing Manager who bought all the plastic resin. Told him about it.
Awhile later he said, "Last night I layed in bed thinking of all this, and his wife said, What's wrong? He said, You don't want to know"
I have "Awakened maybe 10 - 30 people I know about since 2001. And Yes, about only 2-3 are actually doing any prep work.
Also, Reading "Eating Fossil Fuel" (also published at FTW), I REALLY knew we were F$#@ed.
Sold my house 2 years ago at the peak in our area, Still renting paying bills, Going to do the "Farm" thing.
The most amazing thing these last 5 or so years has been watching people you tell go thru the stages of denial. It has been a very eye opening experience.
Perfectly intelligent people Refusing to look at facts.
I now hold little hope for the masses. The inertia of their beliefs will kill most of them. Like the scene in one of the Raiders of the lost ark, when the girl had a hold of the piece of gold, and him yelling "Let it go let it go" she did not and fell and died.
That same firm grip is around 98% of the peoples belief systems. I am very optimistic about individuals and individual communities, by on the 6 billion? A VERY large number of them are going to die I sincerely believe.
Watching the unfolding of world events the last 5 years... Every day just reenforces that belief....
Sad, very sad.
JC
I grew up in a family where the encyclopedias, yes there was more than one set, took the place of a Bible. In fact the first time ppl came to our door talking about "cheesis" I had no idea of what they were talking about lol!
Grandfathers in my family were well established techie types, a good background in Firm Hard Science. We had TONS of books, the Life Nature Library, The World We Live In, tons and tons of Science For Kids stuff. When I was 11 or so, my two most beloved toys were a chemistry set (did all the experiments I could and then some others I cam up with) and a microscope. Earlier, I used to wish and wish and dream and dream to "someday see cells".
So, how did my family's fortunes go in this Big Oil Party? The generations worked out just right to not serve in WWII, but the techie grandfathers did scientific work for the War, one did work with ores for The Bomb. When my mom was a kid, her father died so they ended up a mom and kids family trying to hang onto their erstwhile upper middle class lifestyle and I don't think they had to live in any rooming houses, they did OK. Of course my Dad grew up a spoiled kid and went to an Ivy. Score: Good starts, so far Mom not doing as well as parents, Dad inconclusive. So, they marry. Have a bunch of kids (us) and from the sound of it, Dad already rather repelled by the regimented IBM type culture but is still able to find plenty of work as a programmer. Loving Thurber and Seuss and Ogden Nash helps more than a lot of math for programming! Mid-70s find my partents being on the edge of foreclosure out of the one large, middle-class house with a big yard we have. They are on the edge of divorce. They sell that house just before we're booted out, and buy a "prefad" out in an exurb. It's 30 miles to town and one hell of a long drive - an hour, and Dad buys a 2nd, thrifty car because even back then, gas is expensive for a big station wagon. Dad is progressively settling for less and less pay though, and tries everything under the sun. He ends up programming as an independent contractor, so it's boom or bust. Just after the mid-70s finds my parents divorced although since they never did it officially, I guess it's seperated. They never rejoin. We are foreclosed out of this exurb house...... Score: Both parents worse off than their parents, in fact at this rate, Mom and us worse off than she was back in the 40s/50s living with her widowed mom. Mom works out how to get Welfare, and the next several years are a matter of us growing up, dodging school (when you're on welfare you go to horrible schools) scrimping and scrounging. No telephone most often and at times no electricity. If it weren't for Welfare we'd have been in a homebuilt shack and digging in trash cans for sure. As we're getting old enough to take off on our own, we are, ASAP. My oldest sister has by now, my older brother doesn't come home any more (he seems angry and disgusted with how "beaten down" we are when he does, he's doing better on his own). My dad has gone to work in Iran, and sends some money, which is most often used to try to fix up this or that @#%$#$ old car we have, that sits on the lawn. The Iranian Revolution kicks him out, and not too long after that, he's in town and myself and the two younger ones decide to take off, essentially run away, from home and go live with him. He does his best, but is just not able to support us. It ends up a sort of "commune" situation, with us, my oldest sister, and him, each one kicking in what money they can. At least we're not on welfare. By the mid-80s, friends and in my mom's case, a care home, are all that keep them off of the streets. The military provides a way out of poverty for some of us, but none of us are smart enough to become "lifers", we all have these insane dreams of Progress, not realizing that the lowest-common-denominator military is still a better career path than anything practiceable "outside".
Score: Well, we may live longer than our partents, who died in their early 60s both, utterly beaten down. And maybe not - time will tell. I'd have to say we've done better than our parents, simply because we've never reached the heights they did, so no "crash and burn". None of us have had kids, I think we've all been horrified at the thought. So, in a very essential way, our parents did get to procreate, and provide a decent life for their kids for several years. They got to pass on their genes. None of us have done that, like the various Aborigines who've just sat down and decided to not live, or often live but not have kids, as a reaction to the onslaught of "Western Civilization". In that way we of course are infinately less well-off than our parents.
So, it's been a case of constant decline, and these during times that most people are convinced were good. But, and this is a big BUTT...... this real-life experience is not supposed to happen in America, not in Amurrika, to say this may be the norm only more so, strikes right at people's basic Reason For Being.
I tried to make a similar point in an answer to another post: The vast majority of peakers who understand what is coming down are still cornucopians at heart. They appear to believe that life can go on pretty much as it is by tweaking the energy system. I admit I'm a doomer and part of the reason is that I haven't seen squat (realistic squat anyway)as to how we are going to live in a no-growth, stable state society.
Todd
BTW I like your posts on Downstreamer's forum. I used to post there until you had to "sign up" with ezboard. That's a long time ago. Good luck on the "Farm."
I beg to differ. I would say that all previous predictions about running out of oil were made when were still on the left upward side of the curve. Only recently have we peaked (or are in that vicinity). This is indeed the first time the world is facing future declining conventional oil supply. No, we are not running out of oil. This is a straw man argument. Therefore, lessons learned from historical experience (false predictions) do not count for much in the present, there's a new reality for people to handle. That takes awhile.
Perhaps big new concepts like peak oil or climate change are like that to our mental/emotional taste buds? If so the increasing frequency of news stories should be whittling away at those 10 tastes.
Hope so...
Greg in MO
Eventually, however, when we're living in a verdant permaculture garden that is beautiful and sustains us, people will want to live like us for positive reasons. And in fact, any lifestyle change works far better if made for positive rather than negative reasons.
The way to deal with Peak Oil/Greenhouse Warming is through changing lifestyles. Ideally, people will change to be healthier and happier, but it is evident that it will also require the push of very high prices and declining levels in their present lifestyle.
Really, I liked that presentation as a reminder to folks that it's important to do the (sometimes exponential) math, but it's a sad misuse of the same presentation when people take away an innumeric message that all "exponential is bad."
Do the freaking math, and find out where on the exponential you want to run, and where you want to get off.
Interesting reaction.
I had an Irish girlfriend who cringed at the word 'Mate'.. (used as a noun, I mean. I don't know if she'd ever heard it used as a verb.)
I'd hardly credit Bush for introducing it, but he sure does abuse it, as the 3rd Generation Yalie/ War Profiteer/ Teetotaler 'Who you could have a beer with'.. aww, shucks!
I looked up 'Vulgar' some months ago, and it too is rooted together with the word 'Volk' or Common People. Pagan and Heathen aren't far behind. The demonization of the 'untouchables' I think is a form of self-loathing that shows how closely we still identify and define ourselves with the Aristocratic models of society. Everytime I look at a new 'Domestic Robot' coming onto the market to Vacuum, Serve Drinks and perform other 'menial tasks', I have to wonder if we still have a deepseated desire to have slaves.
Just started reading Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States".. Watch out, I'm going to get a little wild-eyed before long!
Bob
I mean, why make them Humanoid, if the goal is to Own them and have them 'Work for you'? -Ask Asimov, on your next seance..
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=TILL/USA/2006/200605/OilShortagesQ2523.pdf
That is an excellent introduction to Peak Oil indeed.
Very basic, and accessible. Easy to read. I think it being addressed to insurers may raise some eyebrows in general.
People, pieces like this are extremely important because everyone understands that insurance premiums depend on risk. So even if someone is blaming high fuel costs to Big Oil profeteers, you may be able to show him/her that in the insurance industry PO is being taken seriously, and is going to show up in insurance bills.
Additioanlly, this is understandable for the youger generation.
Thank you very much Gail!
Since the audience were people in the insurance industry you might have added that coal, tar sands and shale add to the risk of GW. And that the nuclear industry insists on being insured by the US taxpayer rather than by private industry.
I just got on board the Peak Oil train in May '06 and my life has changed in several ways. What spurred me was the article in Outside Magazine about Jim Kunstler. After reading that I checked out "The Long Emergency" and read it while on a business trip. When I got home I told my wife that the world is going to come crashing down and we're going with it. There was some real tension between us for a while. She didn't want to hear what I had to say, but I had no other outlet to discuss my fears.
I checked out the DVD "The End of Suburbia" and watched it with her. She was a bit more convinced about it, but at the same time she took the attitude of "OK, so we're all screwed and there's really nothing we can do." The real turning point was that we went to see her therapist together because my wife was tired of me coming up with impetuous plans to save our family (like move to the middle of the woods and build a cabin by hand and live off the land). It was scaring the snot out of her. So the therapist told us that we need to set aside 15 minutes each day as "Peak Oil" time, dedicated to discussing Peak Oil.
We started discussing Peak Oil from both sides, instead of me just spewing out all of my fears and plans. She told me about her fears and challenged some of the claims of PO, but we came to a middle ground on how we would handle it as a family.
We had two cars, so I sold mine and now bike to work (or bus). We have sold our house in the suburbs and are moving to an old neighborhood downtown (Madison, WI). We've changed some of our investment allocations and strategies (like actually having a savings account and no credit card debt). We've joined a CSA and get as much of our food as possible at the farmer's market. We're basically just trying to have less stuff, and when we do need stuff we try to buy it locally. Not only does it feel good, it's fun. Mostly we're not as scared as we were. We even joke about being warlords and reigning over the park in the neighborhood "after the apocalypse".
Most of the people I've shared the PO story with either buy it immediately, refute it completely, or just politely accept my views but never discuss it again. My parents can only wrap their heads around talking about using less energy, but aren't interested in talking about what happens to society on the downslope of Peak Oil.
My advice to you is to take actions that help you prepare for the future (or deal with the present), and when people ask you about something you're doing, explain your rationale as much or as little as you'd like. Be prepared to "take some arrows" from most people, but also be delighted when others engage you on the topic.
The truth is, no one knows exactly what will happen, and everyone comes from a different paradigm when describing what they think will happen. That's what makes this whole topic so fascinating.
Good luck!
Tom
My entire family is riding mid-80's high end Trek sport-touring machines. All are used, all are fast and all set up to carry the groceries and school books. Nobody misses the cars <g>. Welcome to downtown.
I'm always interested in meeting like-minded people. If you ever want to talk PO, Madison, biking, whatever, email me.
tandersonbrown <at> yahoo <dot> com
There are books on becoming self sufficient published all through the Oil Party Era, even in the go-go 50s and 60s, there were people tired of the rat race and looking at how to drop out. I think the book "Your Money Or Your Life" was originally published in the go-go 80s.
I shared my voyage of discovery with my partner until she finally sat me down and told me she wasn't sleeping any more, and when she did, she was having nightmares. I was forbidden to talk about problems any more, only solutions. That is kind of tough when you have come to the conclusion that there really aren't any...
My partner is very environmentally and ecologically aware, and had a handle on the realities of climate change well before I'd left the Bjorn Lomborg School of Don't Worry Be Happy. As a result the dangers we face are very clear to her, and she's very supportive of our powerdown actions. We are still mulling over whether to move from our small urban bungalow in a walkable neighborhood to my parents' inactive 50-acre farm near a small village and just outside a medium sized city. There are plusses and minuses to either location, so we're just keeping an eye on the situation for now.
In terms of talking to people about it, I guess I've been luckier than most. My family all "get it", and I've had positive conversations with half a dozen or more co-workers, all of whom grasped the issue and the possible consequences right away.
In fact I just had a remarkable experience. A new contractor moved into the cubicle next to mine an hour ago. The manager he was working for introduced us, and pointed out the mounted "Oil Age" poster on my cube wall. I said that oil depletion was a big personal interest of mine, and the new fellow responded with, "Oh, you mean the oil peak in 2010? Let's talk over lunch." So the ground is being plowed here and there.
I first heard about Peak Oil in Campbell and Laherrere's article in Scientific American in 1998, then in Newman and Kenworthy's excellent book "Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence" back in 2000. A friend pointed out EnergyBulletin a few years ago and I discovered the Peak Oil blog community and the usual stream of books, starting with Goodstein's "The End of the Age of Oil", another excellent book that delves into the thermodynamics problems. I think I got it the day it hit our library.
So, I would say that I never felt like I fit in the 80s and 90s, but I feel at home in the 00s so far. I'm not a doomer, but I do think things are going to be miserable for a while, particularly for people who think we're still in the 80s/90s.
Why do you assume your life after the peak will be worse than it is now?
Is it because you will no longer be able to drive a combat vehicle to a box store to buy stuff made in China?
Is it because of the likely loss of stuff like reality TV, political correctness, chain stores and easy motoring?
Is it because you will have to work to optaing stuff rather than taking on more debt?
OK, if your only skills are a bullshit degree in arts or literature, you're in debt and you live in a desert only made habitable by cheap energy, then you may indeed be f@@@ed.
But if you live in an aerea with relative food security, know a practical skill, have almost no debt and is prepared to work hard. Who is to say your life in 10 or 20 years won't be both richer and more fulfilling than today.
The "world problematique" is a lot bigger than just Peak Oil, and the walls of the ecological box we're in are closing in from many other directions as well. PO is merely the pointy end of the stick, and its effect on American consumer culture is arguably the least important of its possible outcomes.
The answer to that is simple. I don't live there, and I couldn't really care any less what happens to those people.
The fact that someone would care if people 10000 miles away gets to live or die, is just another symptom of the way cheap energy has perverted our morals.
Post peak I will do my best to help people close to, or near me.
No doubt people like you who consider yourself morally superiour to the rest of us, will waste your time and energy trying to help the unhelpable and prevent the unpreventable, and feel better doing so even if you're no different from a clown in a circus.
My sole point is that the scale of the problem is enormous, and will affect everyone on the planet. The fact that we live in a global economy means that events that influence people in far-off places will inevitably have reverberations closer to home. I agree that the best most of us will be able to do is help those closest to us - our families, our friends, our neighbours, perhaps our communities. But that limited horizon of action shouldn't prevent us from understanding that if there is a calamity it will be global in scale. And I maintain that the demise of the american consumer culture will be the lest significant event we will experience.
Oh, and who are the "people like me" exactly, and how do you know I'm one of them?
This is a false problem. We only live in a global economy because of cheap energy. Farewell cheap energy, farewell global economy.
"Oh, and who are the "people like me" exactly, and how do you know I'm one of them?"
I have a deep hatred against anyone trying to lecture me about right and wrong. Beeing a gen-X'er and a white male I have had to listen to this sort of crap all my life, and am past the point where I'll take it anymore. If I was wrong I apologise.
That's the most lecture you'll ever get from me.
I think people do not fully consider the effects of Peak Oil in a really scientific way.
The fact is that the petroleum efficiency of large cargo container ships for the economic value delivered is very high.
The real expenses in transportation are local delivery.
Given that China is not stupid, they will probably have feeder rail direct to the ports. Transportation from Shanghai factor to San Pedro will be cheaper than delivery to Riverside per unit value. We will still be in a very globalized economy and with the poverty which will come getting the very cheapest stuff will be paramount on most people's mind.
Also, the notion that we'll all be better off in rural areas is probably not true either. Rural living uses a whole lot more petroleum per economic output. If you are rural, and you don't have cheap oil, you will be very deprived and poor.
A few people owning the farms of energy crops will be very rich, but the products will go to concentrated delivery points where customers with the most money will be around, and that probably means cities. Maybe if you are near a rail line---and the rail system is heavily upgraded, and they go back to very dirty coal-based locomotives---you might be able to do OK like people did in the Midwest in the mid to late 1800's.
Sometimes I think that the "relocalization" meme is more of a wishful thinking than clear analysis, that we can become a world of shining happy socialist kibbutzes.
Given the specific economic facts of increased petroleum cost, I think the future will probably be very crowded cities with teeming masses of shanty towns.
Look at poor countries. The effect of too-expensive petroleum has already hit them. Most people can't afford cars or fuel to run them. Extrapolate that. There, the pattern is that the wealthiest elite live in the center cities where there are better provisions for public transport and infrastructure. With Peak Oil, these will become more desirable and the wealthier people will bid out the poor people.
These cities are surrounded by teeming masses of poor people in shantytowns with little transportation and few economic prospects as a result.
They move there to escape the even worse poverty of being isolated, without transportation or economic opportunity, in the countryside and stuck with non-mechanized agriculture.
This reminds me of a cartoon someone posted on TOD awhile back. The General is looking at a new rocket and addressing the Major...
General: And what do you use for fuel?
Major: We use babies sir, we grind them up into a fine paste...
General: What! That's disgusitng!
Major: But sir, they are not American babies.
General: Oh...okay then.
But Darwinian, isn't Hurin's comment Darwinian? (ie consistent with the survival of the fittest ethos)
Of course. And your point is?
But on the other hand one might agree with Kathren Hepburn's character in "The African Queen":
"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we were put in this world to rise above,"
My position; I am not saying.
Or is it survival of the luckiest?
Which is worse with respect to Political Correctness?
I'm not panicking. I'm sort of excited to see what happens. I think we're living in an incredible era and I count myself lucky to be on the cusp of a potentially huge change in the course of the human trajectory. I think the events of my lifetime have the potential to be exponentially more eventful than the lives of my recent ancestors.
My overriding desire is for Earth to win, regardless of what happens to humans. At some level you just have to remember to enjoy each day as much as possible and make the most of life. I plan to laugh and smile even if I'm a peasant working under the thumb of some Post Carbon Warlord. Perhaps you'll be next to me exchanging jokes while we hoe the fields...
I hope I will not come to this. I believe in human ingenuity. The difference between me an the flat earthers is that I don't expect human ingenuity to yield the impossible.
I expect us to create an advanced culture based on electricity rather than human labour. We have the power to persevere in the face of enormous odds, but cheap energy has reduced ud to charicatures of our former selfs.
Unfortunately electricity is not a good replacement for oil and natural gas when it comes to create stuff like fertilicer and pesticides.
In a way (and I say this with complete irony), all those dictators hoarding the oil money in many places is a good thing, because they have left traditional lifestyles and values more or less intact.
So, despite having a severe overpopulation problem, most of the third world countries will be better off than us. Exceptions would include China and Bangladesh, as well as other places that have become both extremely overpopulated and environmentally devastated.
This statement is very dubious for the following reasons:
(1) The third world lives much closer to the edge of starvation than we do. In the first world, it takes only a tiny fraction of one's income to provide an adequate diet. As an experiment last winter I lived on $2 of food per day for 6 weeks (and gained weight!). According to online resources that allow you to analyse your diet, it was nutritionally sound. (grains and beans purchased in bulk, fruit and vegetables as side dishes. A can of fish once in a while).
So, if PO effects were large, we in the first world would shift more resources (especially remaining oil) to food acquisition and abandon meat consumption. It's possible that food could increase 50x in price without threat of starvation.
Currently I can feed myself on less than 1% of my income. That's the kind of cushion we have. The third world has almost no cushion at all.
(2) Also, the third world population explosion did not come out of reliance on a pristine traditional way of life. It is sustained by western technology and medicine and grain imports that coult be far too expensive in a PO situation. So, starvation stalks them far more than it stalks us.
May be, may be not, but I don't think the "absolute" death ratio from starvation or other causes (diseases, riots, etc...) is the most important factor.
The resilience of the established local social and economic practices seems far more important.
Third world countries would probably withstand much more INITIAL damages than developed countries before the social fabric starts to crumble.
In "developed" countries the supply chains are much more brittle (BECAUSE of their higher performance, JIT etc...) and the expectations of the citizens much higher so that in spite of more available ressources and much minor initial life loss trouble like strikes, survivalist wackos running amok and so on will more easily cripple the remaining functionalities.
A collapse could ensue which will precipitate much higher devastation than in third world countries.
The supply chains are long, but I can't see how they are brittle. They are in fact quite flexible as there are often several ways of getting what you need at every point along the way. (For a current example: Prudhoe so far has been a yawn)
As far as food and fuel, are concerned, in difficult times those supply chains would be the responsibility of the military. When it comes to logistics and supply lines, nobody tops the US military. (I'm a Canadian, by the way. There is no rah rah patriotism in that statement!)
There are plenty of examples in the last century of advanced urban societies suffering from the sudden onset of crippling conditions that turned out to last for years. Ration systems were implemented and enforced. The vast majority submitted peacefully.
Are you saying that the US is uniquely unable to handle such things without disintegration?
What about the Great Depression? WWII? As an outside observer quite familiar with US history, I would say that many Americans are capable of enormous sacrifice on behalf of the collective.
They are currently capable of dying in large numbers in distant lands to secure those energy supply chains. Is there any reason to believe they would not be even more ready to risk their lives when the armed forces are tasked with securing vital supply chains for their home towns and cities?
Note: I'm not saying the country would not be stressed after the oil peak. I'm just not buy the "House of Cards" theory of the american state. The best cure for that is to read history in detail. There were all kinds of nasty uncooperative people back then too. But the modern state is not a fragile entity.
Historically yes, of course, we have seen it.
Is it still true today?
For people (not just Americans) to endure lasting hardships they have to have an understanding of WHAT they are suffering for.
BTW, I was not talking just about the US but all developed countries.
But the modern state is not a fragile entity.
"modern" ?
How is the "modern state" more resilient than Rome, or, recently the Ottoman or British empires?
A decay of the capabilities of the modern state occuring in a context of dwindling ressources base is certainly to be taken seriously.
When the British empire failed there were no extra global handicaps.
For people (not just Americans) to endure lasting hardships they have to have an understanding of WHAT they are suffering for.
Indeed. But, if the peak passes and the worldwide effects appear on their TVs every night for years on end, my guess is that, say, 80% would clue in and resign themselves to hardship albeit with a lot of grumbling. That new consensus could get pretty pushy on the holdouts who threaten to make hard times even worse.
BTW even global warming is becoming easier to sell these days.
But you and I are agreed that the social fabric must hold in order to prevent mass death.
Americans are not known for their stoicism. But they are known for eventually undergoing rapid transformations in the face of threats that are "clear and present". When you guys finally get it, you really get it!
Asebius
It's been known for a while:
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Winston Churchill
But THAT may be the problem : "after they have exhausted all other possibilities" ...
Michael
-Gary near the Arboretum.
If you see a book mentioned here, you can have delivered to your local branch, usually within days. Catalog is here:
http://www.linkcat.info/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=dial
and its scenarios with the same enthusiasm as
pondering whether they will catch a terminal disease
today. It scares the literal hell out of them and
they don't want to think about it anymore. I have
learned (the hard way) to keep my opinions to myself around my house. I keep a low profile and prepare
quietly to protect myself and those near who will
depend on me.
I bought the "Oil Age" poster, and it's hanging on the wall in our apartment, in between some furniture, where someone can walk up to it and read it in its entirety.
Absolutely everyone that comes over to our place walks up to it and asks about it.
It's a great way to kick start a discussion with someone not peak oil aware. That way, that person is the one who is curious, rather than you/I bringing up the topic ourselves. I will usually discuss the issue to the level of detail that the person seems interested, based upon their questions about what I think about peak oil, etc.
I also bought the poster for my wife to take to school and hang in her classroom. (She teaches high school French!)
Its great how quickly many of the kids grasp the implication of peak and its many potential consequences. The kids seem to get it a lot better than the adults. They haven't solidified their world view and closed their minds to both the voluntary and involuntary change that may result from the more pessimistic scenarios of oil depletion.
That poster is the best conversation-starter you could ask for.
Thanks
ADVISE: Don't do it. Not with your friends and family that is. Practice on strangers if you must.
Just because you have become "enlightened" doesn't mean others around you are ready for equal enlightenment
(Right click and "View Image")
Be patient.
In my experience, the best way to deal with Peak Oil is indirectly. You cannot beat something with nothing, and you cannot convince people to (in their own eyes) be less than they can be.
Therefore what?
Be honestly cheerful. Hey, let's go fly a kite, . . . go for a bike ride, . . . go sailing, have GAS (Great Aerobic Sex) all night long!
The problem is not just with oil or energy consumption. The problem is that too many people believe that Happiness is Buying Things--the big lie of advertising. Until we can convince people that happiness comes from reading aloud to one another as adults, from singing and drawing pictures and listening to one another's stories, from having meaningful and purposeful work, from a network of friends, from good habits, from volunteering and helping others when and how we can, from grassroots participation in local politics, from playing softball and pitching horse shoes, and so on, there isn't much point in scaring them with the hard facts of peak oil.
Consumerism isn't wrong mainly because of peak oil. Consumerism is wrong because it leads to neurosis and misery and shrivelled personalities--and possibly ecocatastrophe or economic collapse as side effects.
Nicely said, tho' I'd add "growing healthy, bug-free cabbages" to that list.
1) This was announced over the weekend and its now Thursday. Gasoline futures have traded down 4 days in a row since this news was announced. Not just for September but for the out months as well. Sep basis they have traded down over 10% from 2.35 to 2.13 in 3 days...Something doesnt make sense.
2)If I were a political leader in a stealth plutocracy, and I understood Peak Oil, I would entertain scenarios of 'false crises' to increase price and keep some oil in the ground domestically for a rainy day. It works out the same as a gas tax without the re-distribution (in theory). Of course so far its resulted in lower prices across the board.
I have no insight or knowledge to support this opinion, but events like this (now or in the future) seem plausible to me.
This could be a classic case of a point where the price is supposed to go up but does not forming a short- or medium-term price top for oil. I suspect that by the end of the day tomorrow oil will be lower than it was when this news broke.
Just looking at this as any asset, when you get news that should drive prices higher, but the effect is weak and short-lived, that's generally pretty bearish.
I know most folks here are convinced that we're past peak. I'm open to possibility, but very much on the fence. The Ghawar data seem preliminary, for example.
It will be interesting to see where crude goes in the next few months. The slowdown in the USA is getting more and more apparent. Domestic demand (at least) ought to slacken a bit.
I will add that westexas' idea of oil available for export is a powerful one though, and it's hard to see how that can be reversed anytime soon, if ever. Titanic battle going on now over oil prices...
I agree with your sentinment, although I many traders probably already knew about the possibility of the Prudhoe disruption before the news broke. In other words, I think that when the news came out and crude prices went up 2% or so, this was just the last push of traders, many of whom had already "priced this in" to a barrel. So the real effect on prices of any one event like this is probably impossible to determine, but it may have been more than meets the eye, if one believes that this type of market information is diffused before the media picks up on it.
So even if crude trades lower than when the news broke, that does not necessarily mean that this disruption has had, or is having, no upward effect on prices. Who knows one way or the other . . .
We are "all good" in the short run. George Ure, at Urban Survival, asked me about this (will see $10/gallon on the West Coast?), and I told him I expected to see West Coast increases of cents per gallon, and not dollars per gallon. I also said that the Ghawar/Cantarell stories are vastly more important stories than Prudhoe Bay.
The problem is that the new "swing producer" is the release of oil from emergency reserves. We have not fully replaced the reserve release from last fall, and they are talking about another release.
When a similar supply disruption occurs and the government says "Damn, the SPR's empty",,that will be a good time to buy gas futures.
The fact that Prudhoe Bay / SPR combination results in lower prices should give evidence to the danger of just-in-time economic theory.
I think all it can do is smooth the smallest, sharpest, bumps. It can average prices, but it can't change the trend. To change the trend, the SPR would need more oil than Sauidi Arabia ;-)
The trading community realized that BP had plenty of time to get their ducks in a row before closing the field. Ergo...BP has already bought oil and was/is prepared to supply the refineries. It is obviously good business practice to protect your downstream operations and major refining partners.
Just-in-time economics gets trumped by the unforeseen. Not the case here. These guys covered a bad situation well.
I don't buy the idea that BP knew about this a month ago. The risk of getting found out is just to great. Just think of all the people who would hve to be able to keep a secret, workers, engineers, staff, management.
We've seen posts here indicating employees communicated these issues. They had a big spill earlier this spring, etc... This is a billion dollar asset, should one believe their insurers and bankers were kept in the dark as well?
Finally, who believes they shut-in the field without explicit permission and collaboration from the government? Would you surprise the President and governor of Alaska like that? I don't think so. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's common sense.
The fact that the domestic oil market hasn't moved tells us the people who needed to be in the loop were in the loop.
Hurin, you got it all wrong. The workers were telling everyone. They told their workers representive, (a kind of union boss for people who do not have a union.) He took these complaints to BP management. All they did was try to find out who was talking to him.
No one had to keep a secret. Management just denied ever hearing about any problems. No conspiracy, just arrogant management who put profit above everything else.
Just because someone leaks something does not mean they are going to be believed, especially if management denies it. The press will, more often than not, take the management's word for it.
All right. To all you people who say that "conspiracies," "lies," Mortal Sins cannot be kept a secret, a challenge:
Post all you sexual indiscretions on the web now.
Many BP workers knew that the corrosion was getting very bad but management didn't want to lose money by maintenance.
It will be interesting to see how long they are off line. If they get back quickly, which the EIA and the market seem to expect, it will be a sure sign that the "surprise" was a lie - they knew all along. The reason I say that is that to replace 16 miles of pipe "unexpectedly" would take two plus years - you don't just wander into your local hardware store and say "Could I please have 16 miles of 34" corrosion resistant steel pipe. Oh, and could you please deliver this to Prudhoe Bay."
Home Depot. You can do it, we can help.*
* unless it's for oil infrastructure!
Anyone know a good viscosity figure for Alaskan Slope crude? I'm interested to see what the Reynolds Number is.
I would speculate that the 18" pipe was chosen partly on availability. First on hydraulics, but I hope they made a few phone calls first to see how much they could get.
Platts also says that corrosion loss was 85% - 90% of wall thickness in spots. The worst spot I ever saw during our smart pig runs was 80%, and that looked like a crater!
The Bellingham (WA) Herald reports on BP deals to get the pipe, although no mention of delivery. Interestingly:
So the distance of pipe to buy may not be as big a deal as it would seem. At 40 ft per stick, there's over 2,000 sticks to get. And ship. And coat, and....
Also:
Seems to be a lot of force majeurin' goin' on this year and last.
MSN has an interesting article, too. It's got good fodder for MikeA (microbes) and Westexas (reservoir dynamics). Maybe I'll give BP a call and see if they need any engineering/project mgt help. LOL.
Excerpts below:
"PRUDHOE BAY, Alaska (AP) -- The nation's largest oil field got a reprieve of sorts as BP announced it will try to keep part of its North Slope production running while replacing corroded pipes that have caused two spills this year.
Federal regulators late Thursday gave BP permission to keep the field's Western line operating, but ordered it to conduct more rigorous pipeline inspections."
"On Thursday, it said it was moving forward to replace the eastern transit lines that leaked, signing contracts with United States Steel Corp. and Nippon Steel Corp. to supply 10 miles of pipeline. Sixteen miles will be replaced. BP is working to win contracts for the remaining materials."
"BP planned to keep oil flowing from its western side, buoyed by signs that those pipes are in better shape following thousands of tests conducted after a massive spill of up to 267,000 gallons in March, said Craig Wiggs, an oil field manager."
"BP, which operates the oil field, has not yet said exactly how much the project will cost and whether it will divide costs with ConocoPhillips Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp., which share ownership of the field.
For refineries that normally get supplies from Prudhoe Bay, analysts say the shutdown is unlikely to cause short-term problems because most have a stockpile that stretches 30 to 45 days.
If the shutdown lasts several months, it could create further difficulties as refineries turn to other parts of the world for crude oil, said analyst John Thieroff with Standard & Poor's."
Article here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OIL_FIELD_SHUTDOWN?SITE=SDSIO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=D EFAULT
Oil Field Shutdown Raises More Questions
By ALLISON LINN
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - The shutdown of a large Alaskan oil field because of a small leak in one of the pipes is raising questions about whether there are more widespread problems in other pipelines used to transport oil throughout the United States.
For decades, some critics charge, lax government regulation combined with corporate unwillingness to make costly repairs has allowed corrosion and other wear-and-tear issues to fester.
''I think all the pipelines are in trouble regardless of who operates or who owns them,'' said Dan Lawn, who previously worked for the Alaska Department of Environment Conservation and is now with the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog group.
BP has approached the Japanese firm JFE Holdings Inc. and other steel producers about buying 18-inch pipe to replace the corroded sections at Prudhoe Bay, said David Belvin, senior technology manager of sales and service at JFE's Houston office.
Belvin said the company is asking for deliveries in September, which will be a challenge.
Although pipeline work in Alaska is generally done in winter, when the frozen ground makes surface transpiration easier, sections of pipe measuring at least 40 feet could be flown in and welded together sooner, he said.
``Can they work there now? Yes, they can,'' Belvin said.
Like other steel industry players, JFE is currently very busy, ``but can we make some exceptions? I think we're going to,'' he said, adding that Nippon Steel Corp.'s land pipe operation is booked until September of next year.
``I think BP will have to pay a premium to get it sooner,'' he said. ``They're going to have to break into someone's production ... they're going to have to pay a penalty.''
http://channels.isp.netscape.com/pf/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1333&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20060809%2F1 742048922.htm&sc=1333
2.17 nymex-unleaded right now. I have a little bottle on the shelf of gasoline I just bought at $2.999, I thought it might be the last time one would see that. Guess not. Perhaps if the price keeps going down, that would allow for something else will have to break/shut-down/blow up/sink. Or maybe the price won't go down at the pump. Gamed, yes. ENRON'R'US
cfm
Re: Something doesnt make sense.
While I believe prices are high based on the fundamentals, wouldn't we expect some price rise due to the Israel & Hezbollah war and the BP shut-ins? Say about 5 bucks, around $80/barrel. Gasoline trading down! This is quite amazing -- to us.
The summer driving season will end on Labor Day weekend. Demand always drops. Is it that simple? And today
Perhaps we should take all this literally without reading anything into it. Anticipated dampened demand are driving price, or at least holding it fairly flat. These traders are the ones who will take a bath if some oil shock occurs beyond what we've already seen. As usual, it is a groupthink phenomenon.Something is very fishy in my opinion - with all the bad news lately - along with BP in Alaska - but crude has not gone thru the roof - and unleaded gas on Nymex is down again today - even with a bigger than expected draw reported yesterday?
Folks those guys in the pits are not dummies and they were not born yesterday - I am beginning to think this looks a lot like the 70's (I was born in 54) when all of a sudden the truth came out and markets collapsed.
gasoline down another 8c today which makes 26c for the week so far. You might be right Dave - the british terror warning might reduce demand for jet fuel, so they can refine more gasoline....
Imagine what the drops will be when UN gets cease fire in ME and Alaska is back on line?
The "Market" sees this as "there will be more oil available than before and more oil available equals lower prices.
Now, if Saudia Arabia does not in fact increase production over the next months while Prudhoe Bay pipelines are being replaced/repaired and the Strategic Reserve starts to run out as a result of no increase in Saudi oil - Then you will see some significant price increases.
At least that is the way I see it at the moment.
At least that is the way I see it at the moment.
That's how I see it as well. If you look at what happened in the wake of Katrina, prices spiked, but then they settled out a bit, and started climbing once the outages were prolonged. That's the potential I see here.
Well, the SPR has 687 million barrels in storage. If we drew the entire amount, 400,000 barrels per day, it would take 4.7 years to draw it down. I don't think we will have to wait that quite that long. And besides the pipeline should be repaired long before then.
Thanks for posting the correct numbers that show the correct relationship.
OK, Realgoods sells a lot of alternative energy stuff and has some good information pages:
http://www.realgoods.com/renew/shop/list.cfm/dp/1100
Here's a USA Today story on backyard wind, but maybe that's what you already know:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-23-windmills-midwest_x.htm
A workshop on homebuilt wind turbines:
http://www.solarenergy.org/workshops/workshop.php?id=9
And a PDF report from Vermont about "Wind Power in Your Backyard":
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/energy-efficiency/ee_files/wind/WindFactsheetFebruary2006.pdf
I know that's not very complete or rounded info, but I hope it helps.
Some are roof-mounted.
www.otherpower.com
Would you mind giving a few details on your system? Location? and Cost of setting it up? I'm very interested in doing something like this on my house, but I'm in New England so I don't know how cost effective it would be.
Thanks.
Are you a master electrician? I have a expandable PV system myself and the power company will not hook up grid tie(here its called "Interconnect") unless the permit is pulled by a master electrician. How did you get around that? I am in South Florida. We have FPL and in a county of 1.2 million people. I will be the only Grid tied system. Its really pathetic here.
FPL(Florida Pukes and Losers) at a regional planning session stated for the record, "Solar is not viable" for Florida. Go figure. It might have something to do with the fact they are covering the skies with their freakin "Persistant Contrails" that stay up and spread out to cover sky.
Good luck all newcomers(ps cut your entries and save them, this thing likes to eat posts,or maybe its just me :)
Here's the alternative I found: buy a a green energy electricity plan or join a green energy cooperative. You get all the advantages of wind/microhydro/solar without having to put it in yourself. You pay the green supplier, they buy power for you from green producers and feed it into the grid. You continue to draw from the grid as usual. The premium you pay ($1/day in my case) goes toward capitalizing renewable generating capacity. For an idea of how it workd, take a look at http://www.bullfrogpower.ca. There are plenty of these companies springing up all over North America.
These guys KNOW Wind power.
http://www.fieldlines.com/
JC
I'm hoping to build one, so as yet can only toss you their accounts of efficacy. There are pix of them in use powering StreetLights in Japan, mounted as a spinning design-element, right around the post.
Bob Fiske
Solar on the rooftops, a windmill in a field or at the top of the town's nearest hill.
Even if they are to some extent, however, neither is infinitely scalable. Implementing either in a big way enables us to continue to avoid looking at the elephant in the room, namely the economic growth vs. finite earth collision.
Perhaps it's too much to expect useful ideas or solutions for this to come from government or venture capital. The former of these seems to exist to grow in power, while the latter exists to grow money. Everybody wants a solution, but switching to something else without a change in thinking (spend! consume! more!!) just postpones the collision date a bit.
TOD Community: Your comment please.
Did BP Purposefully Allow its Alaska Pipeline to Corrode in Order to Shut it Down and Boost Oil Prices?
I never invoke a conspiracy when simple stupidity and lack of foresight will do. As a political liberal in social matters, it is distressing to me to see Amy Goodman always so offbase when discussing energy issues.
It is very expensive to maintain oil production operations on the North Slope, and for it to be profitable a certain daily average production rate must be maintained.
It is no secret that existing Prudhoe Bay production has been in decline for some time now. It is less profitable.
Some time back, BP made a business decision to shut down its Prudhoe Bay operations once production declined past a certain point. It projected that the cut-off point will probably be reached in the not-too-distant future (say 5 or 6 years out).
BP's transfer pipeline is old and has been known to be in poor condition for quite a while.
It is very expensive to replace 22 miles of large-diameter insulated pipe in arctic conditions.
Ergo, BP made a conscious business decision to bet in a race against time, i.e., that the pipeline would hold out until the projected time when the pipeline would be shut down.
BP gambled, and lost its race against time.
Sound plausible?
Now, it is going to be even more expensive, as BP does not have the luxury of going about the pipeline replacement in an orderly manner. The smart and responsible thing to do would have been to have all the pipe procured and staged, have all the construction crews mobilized and at the ready, and then do the relacement in as speedy and painless manner as possible.
In my opinion, if indeed BP made the gamble I described above, it was highly reckless on their part and perhaps even borders on criminal negligence.
Surely a project plan and estimate will be prepared and it will go to the board. The cost my be so high that the ROI will simply be unacceptable. We will be faced with another "shut in".
I wonder what the minimum ROI they will accept is?
Add to that the political nightmares of having to explain to the Alaskan gov't & people their oil checks will be less moving forward...
It's a no brainer, or a way to get into ANWR, which if I was on the board would be something I would seriously consider leveraging...
BTW, I really doubt Yergin is as dumb about PO as he appears. It's his job to appear optimistic. If he came out and said we're at PO, what would happen? An instant economic meltdown and collapse. My guess is he knows the truth but can't admit.
I won't be on for a while after today. I'm not leaving the site, but I am setting sail with Captain Morgan for a week and a half, and won't have internet access. I intend to enjoy the beach while I can. ;-)
That's a pretty neat trick, when you think about it ... getting 20-somethings to say "cool" about a funny looking economy car.
I have a 62 Bug that I drive and a 63 that I am restoring (I hope <BG>).
My current car has only 217,000 miles on it, and I plan to keep it at least until a quarter of a million, so there is no rush. (I drive less than 5,000 miles a year, but I like to plan ahead;-)
The danger is that a lot of my colleages think that is the only way they are effected, the price goes up, somebody in Asia or Appalachia is forced to live without and they go on their merry way. What they often don't see is that when "those other people" cannot afford their tank of gas, it means that they don't go to work. Or they don't renew their cell phone plan, or they default on their mortgage. and ultimately those things undermine the broader economy.
The relatively affluent can shrug off expensive gas. But they are very vulnerable to economic contraction/unemployment/dropping property values.
(That was a rough attempt at satire.)
These people live in a completely different world, I sometimes think. One of my coworkers built a new house not too long ago. Within six months he was complaining that they had outgronw it and they were going to have to move to an even bigger house. His complaint? The master bedroom closet was way too small, and there was no room for his clothes along with his wife's. I asked him how big the closet was and was floored by his respones. 'Only 40 feet by about 20 feet' he replied. That's 800 square feet. My entire house, excluding the garage is only about a 1000 square feet!
At 40 by 20, if it was just 10 feet longer it could hold TWO transit buses. Is their last name Marcos and the wife needs all that room for her shoe collection?
This is a common refrain I hear. Can someone tell me how much it costs to ship a container from China to the US? (I'm talking one of those big steel containers, that they load onto container ships)
I could be wrong, but I bet it's cheaper then you think. They get A LOT of containers on one of those ships. How much oil does a ship like that use crossing the ocean?
Once that cost is divided up by the millions of computers, or tvs or whatever is being shipped, I think it's pretty economical. I'd love to see some numbers though.
40 foot standard container.
So 40' x 8' x 8.5' = 2720 cubic feet of storage.
If I assume $7500 for shipping costs, that works out to $2.75 per cubic ft.
More expensive then I would have thought!
The same thing applies to food, unfortunately. Unless it is organic, it is made with huge inputs of fossil fuels. And most food is transported up to 1400 km from where it was grown to where it is sold.
Maybe the next big thing in affordable housing in California...
12.04M long
2.34M wide (door width)
2.28M high (door height)
I looked at a couple records, and Michigan to Manilla cost $2400 for just the shipment part plus a few hundred in fees etc. That was NOV last year.
39 feet 6 inches long
7 feet 8 inches wide
7 feet 6 inches tall
or 2,271 and 1/4 cubic feet
That should hold Ms Marcos' shoes.
There's nothing attactive about post PO life that is going to motivate people to accept it as something better then our current lifestyles. Only the "survival" angle seems to play well with the few who can forsee the difficulties ahead.
Also, it has been my experience that "evangical Christians" are especially adamantly opposed to PO for two main reasons: one, it goes against their Bibical beliefs of an all providing God, and two, if there was to be a serious "tribulation" they, being worthy Christians, were pre-selected to be "raptured" out of harms way.
I no longer try to convince anyone of PO, I figure current events will make the lights go on, one by one. The real question is if at that point, there is any time left to make any meaningful preparations.
Flavius Aetius
Glad to see you posting here again. You know my answer from my postings on TB2K - hell no, there isn't time. There isn't time for the psychological changes necessary muchless the physical side of it all. I've been doing the food production and alternative energy thing for 30 years. It is not something you can do "right now." But, there are still a lot of cornucopian peakers who think we'll "transition." Good luck.
Todd
Down 12bcf for the week...second down week in the last month. Still way above last year though.
Rick
A great location for tracking historical NG storage data is:
http://americanoilman.homestead.com/GasStorage.html
- Do you spend time at TOD during your workday?
- If so, What percentage of your workday is spent at TOD?
- How is it that you continue to keep your job even though you're only partially working?
The root of these questions is not to make you feel guilty (I already do - my answers to the above embarass me). It is to ponder the state of work. Would the economy change in any way if all workers expended respectable physical and mental effort toward their jobs while at work? Or is the American economy somehow impervious to the efforts of workers. There is no black or white answer, but I'm wondering about this and would enjoy knowing what others think.5-10% on non TOD related sites
If we could have a 90% efficient work force (both applying labor, AND KNOWLEDGE / PROBLEM SOLVING), we would have a 250-300% increase in ultimate productivity.
But a 250% increase in productivity either equates into a 250% increase in energy usage, or equated into 60% decrease in employment, so let's not try to get all efficient like :-)
Other things that are now valuable contributions to society:
Very classic!
I've had several interesting events this week. My principal joint venture partner just informed me that we are going to have not one, but two rigs solely devoted to drilling my deals, and on consecutive days I awoke to find my countenance prominently displayed on my two favorite energy websites. My wife called to say that if anyone in the family is going to retire, it is definitely not going to be me (regarding my status as a "former oilman"). I also received the DVD copy of my debut on TV as Peak Oiler (I suspect that our debate may have had some effect on Michael Lynch's article above).
On balance, definitely time for me to scale back my TOD commentaries I'll try. . .
Jeffrey J. Brown
FYI--copy of my e-mail to the editors at the Energy Bulletin:
Two clarifications (and an apology) regarding the (Energy Bulletin) article:
(1) As much as some of my joint venture partners may wish that I had retired from the oil and gas business, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of my retirement are greatly exaggerated.
(2) In regard to the East Texas Field, worldwide we use--from fossil fuel + nuclear sources (not just petroleum sources)--the energy equivalent of the entire East Texas Oil Field every 30 days. We use the energy equivalent of all of ExxonMobil's proven oil and gas reserves in less than four months. In my opinion, this is why it is imperative that we kill consumption, before consumption kills us. I recommend an energy consumption tax, offset by cutting or eliminating the highly regressive Payroll Tax, combined with an aggressive wind and (probably) nuclear power program and an electrification of transportation program (see Alan Drake's articles on the Energy Bulletin).
An apology. On consecutive days, I checked my two favorite energy websites, only to find my countenance prominently displayed. To paraphrase Richard Dreyfuss, in "Mr. Holland's Opus," this may be an occasion where those of you who are vision impaired may be glad of it; for those of you who are not vision impaired, I can only offer my profound apologies.
Jeffrey J. Brown
It's clear enough that the Perfect Storm is nearly upon us. Still, we cannot know what will happen; we can only guess. Here's a humorous reminder to myself and other so-called "doomers" who think they know what will happen.
Another one that comes to mind is "Nuclear energy will be too cheap to meter." The chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission couldn't have been more wrong about that one.
What will the future bring? How will we respond to this confluence of crises? Only time will tell...but we don't have long to wait.
http://canada.theoildrum.com
So, what does a Canadian say when he likes something? He says, "Not bad." What does he say when he is totally, completely thrilled? He says, "Not bad. Not bad at all!"
Not bad. Not bad at all.
Email me at Stoneleigh2006(at)msn.com to discuss.
A Canadian TOD is a great idea. Although our consumption patterns are similar to those in the US, the energy sources are very different. Hydro-electric and nuclear play a much bigger role. And, of course, we have those gooey inland beaches.
Could Canada produce an AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom?
No. But we might manage a DeltaAndrogWorrierOfLengthyDownturn.
Fire away
One Wolf
The piece of the whole jigsaw puzzle that continues to elude me is the continuing inaction of the Bush/Cheney administration on the energy front. Sure Halliburton and their oil pals are making money during this whole period. While I'm open to conspiracy theories, in general I don't buy them for reasons already known (too many people have to keep quiet, bureaucratic ineptitude and inertia, too complex and noisy an environment to manage, etc.) And I just don't think what we're seeing is only kleptocratic profit-taking while the whole ship goes down - too great a loss of political capital/legacy, which is more valuable than $$.
We know they have long known about PO. PO awareness surely has factored into the administration's decision making about taking down the Taliban, 2003 Iraq invasion, southern Lebanon, looming showdown over Iran nukes, etc. But why aren't they setting off more alarms to prepare people for energy tightening? Why is it all so eerily quiet now? We also have to presume that the administration knows what the Saudis know about the size of their reserves. Hiding the size of Saudi reserves is obviously intentional.
So I find myself concluding, provisionally, that deals with the Saudis have been made to get us through some envisioned downslope and much will be made more public after this election cycle. For 2007/8 I'm expecting a Bush-led "national emergency" campaign - energy independence (nukes, ethanol) for "national security".
I would suggest that part of the reason is the new thread that just started.
"Congressman Bartlett declined to discuss or characterize any of his private conversation with the President, but said that he was very happy about the meeting."
http://www.energybulletin.net/7024.html
Has Matt Simmons revealed anything about his conversation(s) with Pres. Bush or VP Cheney?
In other words, is there any firsthand evidence of what this administration thinks about PO?
This is doubly weird because there are certainly "folks" at DOE and elsewhere in the Executive Branch who read TOD and related sites, and know the whole PO story. Why do we have no/few signals, direct or indirect, from this administration? The idea that "they don't want to rock markets or stoke public concern/panic" is valid, but still inadequate IMHO.
"What do you mean, do we know about peak oil? Did you not notice that this administration is stocked with oil interests?
Now shut up and go away."
That's the simplest answer. People in government suffer from listening to (conveient) experts at least as much as anyone else.
Personally, I think the "addicted to oil" speech came when it started to dawn that the timelines would not be that convenient (from SUVs now to hydrogen cars later).
The political catch-22 now is that they can't do anything to move the bulk of the US off those SUVs without killing Ford and GM. No American politician is ready to do that ... so inaction rules the day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14285915/
Hmm, how much is the oil left in the ground there worth anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay
You do the math. Seems like a good investment to me.
Never gave it much thought I guess..
All Your Blogs Are Belong To Ford: FoMoCo Makes A Bold Blog Buy, Jumps On The Cluetrain
FWIW, I don't mind Ford paying the bills.
We have our daily local newspaper delivered to our door. Attached to this morning's paper was a bright pink notice bearing the title 'Carrier Cost of Materials Bill.'
It was a cheerful note from our carrier expaining that, 'You have no doubt noted the skyrocketing price of fuel. This cost is not in any way absorbed by the paper. etc. etc'
It ends with a request to make an annual payment of $10 to the carrier help defray the cost of the carrier's gas. It stresses that such payment is completely voluntary, costs less than 3 cents a day, and failure to pay will have no impact on your service. (Good! Because I'm not paying it - the service couldn't get much worse anyway.)
I think this is a perfect example of a development that is totally trivial in its own right, but possibly highly indicative of things to come.
So, I wonder who's gonna hit me up next to help pay for their gas?
Hey, maybe a new social custom will develop. When you're invited for dinner at your friends' house, they show their appreciation by giving you a small gasoline voucher to be redeemed at your favorite gas station. How about gift-wrapped designer one-gallon cans filled with your favorite gas-ethanol blend?
A great gift idea for the peaknik on your list would be a sample of their favourite type of crude oil. A pint of Texas Light Sweet, anyone? And it'll have to come with a leaflet or the like as its provenance, telling which well it came from, the date, and the well's daily output.
As far as showing appreciation with gas vouchers, I already did that, of sorts. On Fridays, I often buy someone else's lunch as he drives to get mine and his. The change is $1.50 or so. One such day, I told him "Keep it and get yourself a couple fifths of gas". He laughed at the idea of gas in "fifths".
They simply put plant parts into a "pressure cooker" and add some water and drops of cytric acid as a catalyst.
They heat it to 180°C for 12 hours. After that, the cooker contains fine coal powder and water. 100% of the carbon contained in the biomass is processed into coal. There are no C02 emissions at all, and, after the initial heating, the process is exothermal.
Hydrothermal carbonisation can produce up to 14 tons of coal per hectare.
The full story in German.
Looks very promising. This can even be used to extract C02 from the atmosphere.
"They heat it to 180°C for 12 hours."
"...the cooker contains fine coal powder and water."
You have two energy sinks in those two sentences. Seems to me you would be better off burning the biomass instead of turning it into coal. Even if the process is exothermic after heating it up, (which is a bit of a mystery to me unless they are adding oxygen), you are still going to end up with less energy than from burning the biomass.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpg.de%2FbilderBerichteDokumente%2Fdokument ation%2Fpressemitteilungen%2F2006%2Fpressemitteilung200607121%2Findex.html&langpair=de%7Cen& hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
The process must be thermodynamically favored (or else it wouldn't proceed in the closed vessel) and might indeed be exothermic (although one would have to do careful calorimetry to tell). It's just that heat and a catalyst are required to increase the reaction rate.
I'm not sure about the actual catalyst. In a paper referenced at the bottom, they used AgNO3. They were trying to find a cheap way to make carbon nanostructures, but perhaps they gave up and just kept on cooking until coal formed. Sort of like when I made tar in Organic Chem lab.
I agree that there doesn't seem to be a reason to do this vs. just burning/gassifying/liquifying the original biamass. As we are told quite often, there isn't a coal shortage (yet).
But Choren would certainly buy the coal they make and liquify it into sundiesel.
In an article in "Der Spiegel" they said that when they only "cook" for 4 hours, they get some liquid hydrocarbon, but that's not mentioned in the press release.
Ooops!
When you take oil out of the SPR does the production curve resemble that of an oil field. If so, then is it true that you could not rely on 4 million barrels a day but rather a peak of 4 million? Or is it an average of 4 million with a peak of about 6 or 7 million?
"There is no reason the SPR couldn't have a major impact during a price shock. Its drawdown capacity of 4 million barrels of oil per day is roughly equal to the amount Iran adds daily to the world oil supply. With the stockpile releasing at full tilt, the government would be able to replace over a third of oil imports and add about 5.9% to the world's daily oil supply for roughly 163 days before the reserve ran dry, according to a study last year by economists Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the libertarian Cato Institute."
By the way, anybody check out that thar' crude oil price after the big emergency.....? :-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
There is some talk about demand for jet fuel going down, thereby increasing gasoline refining capacity and causing a drop is wholesale gasoline prices.
I guess the British Counter-Terrorism apparatus has more of a pull on oil prices than a war, an insurgency, a nuclear program, and a rebellion combined.
Restricted travel from one country doesnt do a whole lot to the aggregate #'s to really justify a decline in demand, does it? Interesting times we live in....
One day in Portland I sat next to a woman and we talked a bit (my habit :-)
She now drives "over 30 minutes" from Sandy, Oregon to the end of the Light Rail Line in Gresham. Beautiful country, but she is burning a tank a week.
Her lease expires soon, and she is looking at apartments in Gresham, "close to shopping" (I asked, and she would like "walking distance", but the rents might be too high) and within "5 minutes" of a Light Rail station. She hopes to use one tank/month instead of one tank/week and save some time commuting.
Looks like I made it. This site has come quite a ways since the early days. As well as the number of people who are aware of the problems that we face. I have seen several postings with the question "How do I explain peak oil and convince others that we have a problem?" I don't have an answer to this question. Sometime I wonder whether you are really doing someone a favor by bursting ignorant bliss. It is so much easier to blame the oil companies rather than the geologic nature of the earth.
The point that I wanted to make here, on this board, was a continuation on what we briefly discussed at the ASPO conference last winter. With only 15 minutes of time, I was not able to show the full scope of my presentation.
When we talk of solutions or mitigations, often the talk is usually in technological terms. Actually there is much technology that has been proven over decades of time. The problem is financing of technolgy. 10 years ago I was involved in the Home Energy Ratings/ Energy Efficient Mortgages initiative that was being generated from the Energy Policy Act of 1992. It disappoints me still that the program has only limited market penetration and most are not aware of what the potential of what this could do for the alternative energy industry.
Some on this board may have already invested in alternative energy. Most likely they were self financed. For our society to make a widespread solar conversion, financing must be made available and the btu saving must be reflected in the techologies' energy production so that the devices "pay their own way." Solar panels or wind turbines may make the homeowner seem outwardly to be "environmentally sensitive" but unless these systems are actually producing kWH or btus they are a waste of energy. The Home Energy Ratings are a method of providing energy appraisals so that proper credit can be given to well installed system.
The Energy Efficient Mortgage is a tool that has only limited use over the 30 years in which the concept first was addressed in the 1977 Energy Policy Act. It is long since due for this to be addressed and promoted by the powers that be.
10 years ago I gave a presentation to a State Mortgage Bankers Association and showed them a profile of monthly mortgage cost compared to monthly energy cost. At year 15 I showed the crossing over of energy exceeding monthly mortgage. There was a gasp of disbelief at the time, but I should say that I believe my predictions are still on target.
I think that it would be useful for members of this site to do some research on Home Energy Ratings and Energy Efficient Mortgages. Search Engines should have quite a few links on these issues.
The gov't's own websit describes the great advantages to these types of mortages and the top two
Why are we using ARMS to qualify for houses when can stretch our budget on "energy efficient" homes? I know this is a start, but I'd be curious as to the definition of energy efficient homes, when McMansion would probably qaulify as "efficient." More digging discovered that if the home is deemed already energy efficient then the lender can stretch your qualifying ratios so you can afford it. Sounds safe enough, right?
Since ethanol debate is still somewhat fresh, I stumbled upon this. If anybody has previously posted it, call it a refresher. Its got graphs and alot of technical financial stuff.
http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/cont_detail/0,3206,1213+28195,00.html
anybody who could ungarblelize it I would appreciate it. Perhaps it would explain V.K. statement:
"Today, even if ethanol prices were cut in half or more to $1.40 a gallon wholesale, corn ethanol producers would make adequate margins of profit."
still doesn't make sense,(This is why I let the wifey do the checkbook :)
Also, today, I don't know if you heard, but UK police just arrested 20 or so Asian gents who were believed to be planning to blow up planes with soda pop - and as you all know UK intelligence (especially Scottish intelligence) is the best in the world. No dangers of any mistakes being made here. British Airways ended the day down 5%.
The hedge funds do screw with the market, but I'm never sure that they screw with the oil price that much. My guess is that "informed opinion" sees what it sees and may underestimate the power of capacity erosion throughout the world. OIL CEO got an interesting table posted on "The Tar Pit" - to be rechristened CAD - Canadian Oil Drum.
This was supposed to be connected to those fretting over the oil price - like I am.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1710912.htm
It didn't discuss carbon taxes or quibble with a claimed 12-16% energy penalty. Angles covered included both gasification and oxyfiring of coal but not direct carbon, the Lake Nyos scenario of CO2 escape as well as geophysical monitoring of liquid CO2 underground. The story questioned the retrofitting of older coal plants and those some distance from suitable rock formations.
The conclusion is to slow GW we have to use less coal. As if.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1838212,00.html
That is not the thinking of neocon policy makers, so it is well to remind Mr Blair what Henry Kissinger said to the World Affairs Council in 1999. 'In America, there has been a tendency to divide foreign policy into two schools of thought. One that identifies foreign policy as a subdivision of psychiatry and another that treats it as a subdivision of theology. The psychiatrists think relations among nations are like relations among people and you bring peace through this strenuous exercise of goodwill. The theologians believe that all foreign policies are a struggle between good and evil and the thing to do is to destroy the wrongdoer once and for all, after which normalcy returns.'
Kissinger was psychiatrist; the Prime Minister and President Bush are theologians. Unfortunately, they do not hear the guns of August.
and this:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/9116.htm
Some senior officers have been mentioning the C-word in private conversations. They have been saying that a coup d'etat might be the only way to prevent an outcome in Lebanon that could embolden the Arab world to join forces with Syria and Iran in an all out assault on Israel, given the fact that such a development would be spurred entirely by the Arab and Moslem world's perception of Israel's leadership as weak, craven and vacillating, and therefore ripe for intimidation.
Seeing the once invincible IDF being stalemated by Hezbollah's 3,000 troops is a sure way to radiate an aura of weakness that in the Middle East could precipitate attacks by sharks smelling blood
http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2383&Itemid=27
This is an article about world spare capacity and saudi production over the last year.
Click to Enlarge
"My fellow Americans: whereas we are trying to shake our addiction to oil, and whereas BP had to shut down about 8% of our domestic production recently, I declare that we will take steps to reduce our domestic consumption of petroleum by the same amount of production that we've just had shut in.
"This is an opportunity to reduce our dependency on oil -- let's just consider this a time to reduce total oil consumption, so that when this field is brought back on line, we can continue to reduce our total petroleum consumption.
"Not only will this reduce our dependence on foriegn oil, but if we further reduce petroleum consumption, maybe we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions too.
So, my fellow Americans, please join myself, the Vice President, and all members of the House and Senate as we lead in the 'Great American Powerdown.'"
Will we hear such a speech soon?
Just got back from a long day of work and taking care of family -just read a "Magic School Bus" book to my son, who is now asleep.
Funny thought that the political leadership might actually encourage us to conserve gasoline, eh?