DrumBeat: August 23, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 23, 2006 - 9:11am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Russia oil production overtakes Saudi Arabia
Russia is extracting more oil than Saudi Arabia, making it the biggest producer of "black gold" in the world, figures show.The statistics, from the oil cartel Opec, reflect a trend that has seen the Russians periodically surpass the Saudis as the world's biggest oil producers on and off since 2002.
These latest figures are being hailed in Russia as evidence that such periodic production spikes are not one-offs though and that Moscow really does have a right to lay claim to the No 1 spot.
Oil Profits Help Russia Pay Off Soviet-Era Debt
Eight years after it defaulted on more than $40 billion in debt and slid into financial chaos, Russia transferred $23.7 billion to the Paris Club of creditors Monday, wiping out the last of its Soviet-era debts and underlining the extent to which oil and gas revenue has transformed the country's finances.
Katrina, Rita Cost to Oil Industry Rises to Record $17 Billion
"Hurricanes come every year, and we are accustomed to dealing with them," said Roger Plank, chief financial officer with Houston oil and gas producer Apache Corp., which had as much as $700 million in damage from 2005's storms. "But what, as an industry, we are not accustomed to are 100-year storms, and we had two of them last year."
Energy Bulletin has posted several articles about ASPO-5:
| Robert Hirsch scares me out of my wits… |
World oil demand growth brings dilemma for Opec
Energy focus for Chavez in China
Oil producer Venezuela wants to reduce its reliance on the US, the destination for most of its oil exports despite the two countries' ideological differences.China, in need of oil supplies to maintain its rapid economic growth, offers a lucrative alternative market.
More protests over power shortages in Bangladesh
The Sylhet Bibhag Ganodabi Parishad, a citizens' forum, yesterday took out a procession in the city and laid a siege to the Power Development Board (PDB) office demanding smooth power supply....With Md Turan Mian presiding, speakers at the rally said power stations in Sylhet region produce 180 MW electricity a day, which can fully meet the demand of four districts in greater Sylhet. But the region reels under severe power crisis as power is supplied to other districts.
They demanded that Sylhet region's requirement has to be met before taking power for other districts.
Nigerian oil unions consider quitting Niger Delta
Nigeria's oil workers' unions may pull out all members from the Niger Delta over safety fears following a spate of abductions by militants and a military crackdown, the head of one of the unions said on Wednesday.
U.K.: Winter power shortages loom
Namibia: Fuel Hike Starts to Bite
NAMIBIA'S farmers expect to be severely affected as fuel prices continue to spiral up, with last week's increase alone - 50 cents a litre - pushing up their operating costs by 20 per cent....The fishing industry is hunkering down, predicting "millions of dollars" in extra running costs, while transport companies anticipate the increase will add 10 per cent to their input costs.
[Update by Leanan on 08/23/06 at 11:16 AM EDT]
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending August 18, 2006: Crude oil fell less than expected, distillates grew far more than expected, and there's a surprise build for gasoline.
Lower Fertility: a Wise Investment
The results might be interesting.
However, the U.S. would be at steady-state or slightly declining population growth, if not for immigation. Everyone wants to move here and get a piece of the American dream.
As a Canadian, I'm accutely aware that we not only have more immigration but a much higher average ecological/energy footprint. If America is bad, we're worse. Much of the reason we're worse is that we are supplying America with energy and resources, but that doesn't get us off the hook in my view.
Nit-pick: Be careful using "everyone".
IMO...no. That is an issue separate from population.
It is pointless to control population without also understanding the impact of individual (and collective)ecological footprints, just as it is futile to moderate individual (and collective) ecological footprints without understanding and adjusting population.
Well, overpoplation will, too, but that will be a lot nastier than not being able to afford an SUV or plasma TV.
And the market will not take care of overpopulation. The laws of nature will eventually curb overpopulation, not the laws of the market.
Methinks you are mistaken the market with Mother Nature. Malthusian principles will prevail in spite of the market, not because of it.
No, I think what will fix it is the market. We are using more than our share of resources because we're sucking them from the rest of the world. That won't go on forever.
No. what will "fix" it is war.
(It being America's taking of 25% of resource flow in comparison to her 8% rank in world population)
You forget that we are the "ownership society"
We "own" all the resources of the world and if they don't hand the stuff over to us, we go to fight them "over there" for it before they fight us over here.
Our notion of being the "ownership society" will end when we are bankrupted by our nonprofitable military adventures or when "they who hate our freedom to take what we want" vanquish us militarily.
J. Paul Getty
There is nothing inherent in the market that will assist the current have nots to become equal with the haves. While it may be true that we will not always have more than our fair share, the market will not be the instrument that changes that. In fact, if it is ever changed it will be in spite of the market, not because of it.
And you said, in your previous post, that the market will also take care of the overpopulation problem. It is the principles of Malthus that will eventually fix that problem, not the market. What the market will do is insure that those with the most have the best chance of survival. Very unfair but that is just the difference between the market and Malthus. (Again, fair only in the moral sense.)
Who said anything about equitable?
Utimately the rules of nature and the market system is connected. I can best summarize the connection between markets and nature by borrowing the title of Darwins famous book "Survival of the fittest". Those without wealth, resources or can't adapt will suffer and probably die off.
The rules of survival, the market, and natural selection are all the related. People that can adapt and have access to the necessary resources will survive. Those without will perish. We can see this all the time in business. Successful businesses that provide good or services that meet the demands of tje market survive and flourish, those that don't go bankrupt. Businesses also need to adapt to the changing market. For instance during much of the 20th century, camera film manufactures and processors flourished. Kodak was part of the dow 30 for many decades. When film was replaced by digital photography, these companies no longer served the market. Some adapted and some went bankrupt.
Market forces will bring about changes, but they aren't going to save humanity from the trouble ahead. The only option is to adapt or die. Those that believe that Communism and socialism can solve the problem are dead wrong. Our planet's history has been dominated by the market system since life began about 2 billion years ago. During this time, nature has never developed an eco. system based upon the ideas of communism. It has always been based upon a market system and always will be. In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.
No, "the market" is a much too coarse approximation of Darwinian selection AND vice-versa!
Survival of the fitest does NOT have the same meaning in these two cases.
This is all because of several reasons, among which :
- In nature more is not necessarily better.
- In nature the various needs are regulated by idiosyncratic mechanisms which do not "trade" among themselves thru a neutral medium, neither money nor raw energy, a lack of such or such protein is not "fungible".
- In nature cooperation between individuals, groups, species and even across genres (bees / flowers) is regulated by hard-wired mechanisms which evolve only VERY slowly, like our "basic instincts".
In the market these are replaced by the rule of law which can be arbitrarily crazy and changing fast.
Never had a tax rebate repealed or the like?
In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.
Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
The market does not appear to be sustainable in a FINITE RESSOURCES environment neither are "Communism and socialism" which are just a reframing of the growth trend with more "equity".
Your absolutely correct. Althought I was just refering to the rules that that they share, such as the rules of supply and demand. If a required resource becomes depleted, it becomes expensive to obtain. For in a drought, food and water are harder to obtain for both man and animals. More labor or energy is required to obtain adquite supplies to sustain life. A society, herd, or even single cell organisms either adapt or fight to obtain what remains. These rules apply to business, societies, or even single cell organisms. The market system isn't fair nor is survival fair.
>Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
We don't have a sustainabe system, and there is no way to support 6 Billion or even perhaps even 2 Billion in any sustainable system. FWIW: If I had some sort of magic wand I would use it to waive all these problems away.
Most probably, any other idea beside the "magic wand" ?
Prayer, Rapture, Singularity, Armageddon, Nukular, what's you pick?
Darwinian is right:
When the US is no longer able to import the required amount of fossil fuels, Americans will start to use what ever fuel is available. That being trees, coal, garbage, etc. What ever they can use to heat their homes and run the power grid. Search the financial websites for growth in wood pellet stoves and coal consumption to see that its already begining.
A decline in oil and gas imports will be the beginning of the biggest ecological disaster in history. FWIW: The entire Northeast of the United States was deforested by the beginning of the 20th Century (mostly for heating and steam power). Since that time, the land has recovered because Oil and Gas was cleaner and cheaper than wood and coal. You could say that Oil and Gas production came in the nick of time to prevent a real disaster. This time there is no new source of energy to save us.
In other words, overpopulation will be solved, either by birth control and family planning, or be depopulation. The same with the other problems we currently face.
I would much rather take the first route instead of waiting for Mother Nature to do it for us.
Overpopulation has only 3 solutions as I can see. 1. Mother natures kitchen solution - Global warming or bird flu...or both. 2. War 3. We wake up and convince several generations to stop having babies so we can reduce the global population 2/3rds. (yah right)
Maybe the outcome will be a hybrid, some of Momma's wrath, a few nukes, and then who ever is left is involuntarily forced in realizing that they should have less babies(however this is against procreation principles).
In any case, growth must stop somehow as you stated.
If you have other solutions, love to hear them.
=======It's all about population!
5. Malnutriention resulting in wide spread of pandemic diseases (The dark ages during the little ice age).
If one person makes the decision to only have one child or no childern then somebody else decides they can take up the slack and have extras. The first person had reduced the chance of continuing the blood line and somebody else filled in.
I carpool, but that just allows one other car and that much more gas to be used by others on the road.
I lower my electrical consuption by using a programmable thermostat and turn off the AC during the day. But that just allows somebody to run a little bit cooler without overloading the grid.
Samething with NatGas in the winter. . .
The Easter Island story has been mentioned several times here. I can imagine the last group of survivors as they watch the trees disapear with each day. At some point either one person, a small group, or even the entire population looks at the remaining trees and realizes that they are running out. Maybe even as a collective they decide they should not cut any more down for fires to cook food. But all it takes is one person to decide that they are going to go out and cut down a tree and use the wood for fire. He has just increased his chance of surviving. Then somebody follows suit and cuts down the next tree to increase their chance. As individuals they feel justified because just one tree isn't going to matter, but pretty soon everybody has cut down a tree.
Maybe the person that stood up and said that they need to save the trees holds true and does not cut down a tree. He cannot cook food or provide shelter. His chance of survival is reduced.
Even though the long term solution is to reduce there will always be masses that 'pick up the slack' of those that are conserving. It is human nature - and I don't see how we avoid it.
I conserve, you conserve - sustainable world
I conserve, you don't - I suffer a lot, you enjoy yourself
neither conserves - we both suffer greatly because of an eco-collapse.
There are two ways around it, according to Diamond.
One is to be such a small society that everyone can understand the problem and everyone has a stake in the solution.
The other is a central government strong enough to force compliance.
This is all a problem of priorities, which kind of goals is a "strong enough central government" likely to look for first?
- Survival and enjoyment for government employees (of "sufficient" rank of course).
- Necessary but unpopular measures which may bring trouble with the masses.
As Diamond points out, a king has incentive to protect his kingdom. He gets his wealth from the entire kingdom. And he hopes that his heirs will inherit that wealth one day. He has reason to promote sustainability.
In a democracy, where your time in power may be fleeting, perhaps there's more incentive to just loot the country while you can.
OTOH, our system of government isn't as egalitarian as we like to believe. Maybe King George II would like to leave something for his heirs, future Presidents Jenna and Barbara.
That was Votlaire's idea of an enlightened despot.
That won't work either, not only because we cannot get back to this, but because if by any stroke of luck you DO get an enlightened one this always turn sour in a few generations.
Enlightenment is not hereditary.
Speaking of enlightenment, do you really think that "King George II" COULD manage to "leave something for his heirs" ?
Not that I think it's an option for us, but perhaps the idea that "all despots turn bad eventually" is a myth? Or, as Tainter would put it, it's one of the "nonmaterial elements" used to legitimize our society. The Emperor is a God. Democracy is the best form of government. Etc.
The pretty violent downward adjustment in energy consumption of the 90s was handled, overall, unexpectedly well (no mass starvation or mayhem; human contentment index probably not substantially lowered).
I'm not advocating it as a transposable model or anything. For one thing, I would be prepared to tolerate a fairly high degree of mayhem before surrendering my freedoms. For another, the ratio of "enlightened" despots to overall despots is not terribly high.
Contest. This is a college essay. Or an essay on a college entrance exam (just shutup, and pretend):
Explain what the Eastern Roman Empire did to preserve itself.
All entries must be between 50 and 5000 words. No quotes or links are allowed. Immediate disqualification for any comments that include either.
Points awarded for conciseness, accuracy, and writing style. In that order.
Prizes:
1st) A fictional "Cadillac" mentioned by the Alec Baldwin character in Glengarry Glenross.
2nd) a brand new set of steak knives.
3rd) You're fired.
Now let's progress to the bonus round.
Wait, we have a complaint - somebody is saying you were not actually anwering the question, you were asking a question...Judges?...yes, sorry. Minus 5 points!
Beavis and Butthead? Your remarks?
uhuhhuhheh.
OK. Plus 10.
Final score - 105. Congratulations. You are the Leader.
I've always wondered. Does DIY mean Do It Yourselfer?
uhuhhhuhehuh
Yes, that's what DIY generally stands for. It was a handle I used in another forum, and lack of creativity or a limitation on handle length or a desire to limit typing prohibited using say, "ConcernedButUnpreparedAndNowScared****less" or something. Of how large a company are you CEO?
So now I suppose we have proof that Beavis and Butthead cause brain damage, even in a 30-second spot.
No, it's the crystal-meth, he is hosed.
Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire) was the only society that ever simplified itself on purpose. At its nadir it was almost completely destroyed. Byzantium had 1/3rd of its population killed by plagues, the currency was so debased that it became no longer used and their empire was at one point almost completely overrun by Visigoths and Arab Muslim invaders yet they were able to recover from their nadir in the 700s and survive till the 13th century (600 years!) even though they faced almost constant invasions from the Muslim empires to the east and goths and other barbarians to the north and west. They were able to do this through a number of clever simplification maneuvers.
- The Government had run out of money to pay soldiers so instead they gave them land in exchange for hereditary military service organized in "themes" or military districts. The soldiers were responsible for purchasing and providing their own rations, equipment, and uniforms. This got rid of almost all the military bureaucracy and a large part of the taxation complexity. Can you imagine the government devolving the military into local farm owner's gun clubs purchasing their own heavy military equipment? It reflects an amount of trust in the people by the government that is unthinkable today.
- The civil administrations were merged into the military. There was no distinction between the military and the local governments. The Military ran the courts, the police, and local government functions. No Posse Comitatus but the military was the equivalent of these local farm owner's gun clubs and would therefore be far more trusted with their authority by the people.
Because of the above reforms soldiers were fighting for their own land and family and the military was exteremely efficient and inventive, the arab invaders were unable to make any headway against them despite almost constant attacks.- They gutted all the glamour of their central government to keep things together. At one point they paid the army by melting down 20,000 pounds of gold from the emporer's throne room. Equivalent to selling off most public lands and buildings. Administrative ranks and honors were done away with.
- Cities contracted to densly packed fortified hilltops. That would mean abandoning the suburbs.
- Aristocratic life (what rich educated people were doing) was focused around the imperial court. Meaning that rich educated people mainly passed the time by hanging out at city hall with the politicians, drinking wine, wearing fancy clothes and gossiping but otherwise didn't have many luxuries, compared to Roman times.
- Education was simplified. Basic math, reading and science were the order of the day. New books were mostly the lives of Saints, the ancient traditions were preserved and copied.
The Western Roman empire collapsed however because they tried to survive by tightening the screws. They raised taxes to very high levels on farmers to fund the inefficient army that was doubled in size. They hyperinflated the currency, they conscripted labor, and tried to control who was in what occupation and increasingly tried to regiment all aspects of life. It failed, the farmers started to abandon their land in protest so the government forced them to be hereditarily bound to the land at which point they welcomed the barbarian invasion and the overthrow of the empire. They took all the productive parts of their society and burned them at the altar of keeping the power structure alive.Tainter points out that a) a government can wreck itself by trying by all means to sustain itself and b) complexity in problem solving destroys governments slowly, subtly over long period of time and that simplification is very hard because so many have tied their interests to growing and maintaining the complexity of the centralized power structure.
This is subject to immediate revision(before 5 am EST) based on actually reading response.
For now it looks pretty good.
Initial estimate 260 points. Leader. Congratulations, you wear the yellow jersey.
Note that it was not without cost, though. They call this period a "dark age." Literacy rates plummeted.
And they basically made the military their government.
Any society trying to get out of the declining marginal returns trap will have some very difficult choices to make. What is worth saving, and what will you sacrifice?
Let's tick off some fun things the market has brought to North Americans
(1) very large homes in sprawling urban zones with as little regulation and planning as tolerble. Hello Lakewood California!
(2) very large motor cars that generally cart around a single occupant.
(3) efficient and effective corn and soy delivery systems, often highly processed, and packaged in shiny objects.
(4) Airconditioning! And the subsequent movement of people from colder north to hot and humid south (beach front property anyone)
(5) overweight, corn fed residents of #4 and #1, drivers of #2 and avid consumers of #3.
(6) Southpark (though maybe this one is a good thing)
Yup, "The Market" will solve our problems just fine. Always has before, always will in the future.
Indeed, if you've read many of my comments here, you'll know I am not a fan of capitalism. I think it is inherently unsustainable.
I'm just saying it will solve the problem of Americans consuming more than their share.
This doesn't mean it will solve the problem of overconsumption in general. It just means the resources will start to flow to the countries that have something other than paper to offer the world. Likely oil-rich countries like Russia.
Why batter ourselves against the wall trying to reduce American consumption? It's going to happen anyway.
Population, OTOH...I think we're in serious danger of losing all the progress we've made toward slowing population growth rates, due to peak oil.
It's a matter of priorities.
Short term: the exact opposite.
We will scramble and fight and dig and drill so hard, using so much energy and other resources, that our footprints will go through the roof . We'll be too busy trying to get our fix to care about the environment any longer.
This happens already, of course, because we use more enrgy than ever, with on average lower EROEI. Hence, we spend more energy per energy unit, on more energy units. The 2nd law is quite clear on that one.
A somewhat forgotten effect of peak oil will thus be that pollution and climate change will increase, probably quite dramatically.
Probably true, and I don't think it's forgotten at all. (If I had to bet, it would be on a catabolic collapse. Plenty of time to trash the environment.)
However, I think we Americans would become increasingly constrained. We could trash our own country, but not others, as we are doing now.
Unless we really decide to nuke their @$$ and take their gas. Then all bets are off.
Actually, all countries are colluding to trash the globe. C02, other airborne pollutants, and water-borne pollutants often have little respect for national borders.
And the World Bank, IMF, Bank for International Settlements, Bilderberg. CoF......
I refer to Ammurkins, Murkins, etc
http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&q=Amurkins&btnG=Search&meta=
Other variations came up blank. Seems like another version of Sheeple, which translates to "people aren't smart like me".
I'm starting to think though, if everything "comes from the movies" like Angry Chimp believes...crap, I've gotta rethink this. I've seen most of those movies. This just totally brought havoc upon my databases...errror...error. Does not compute. Alright, we'll have to take this up after a quick reboot. I hope.
The level of scrunity all of these issues (oil supplies, corn-based ethanol, sheep) have gotten recently - because of the web, access to information and smart people - is profound.
Who am I kidding?
Seriously. That's my problem. I'm not trying to rebut anybody. I'm trying to keep the fight even and fair.
Both sides so far are just talking past each other.
One of the best debates I have seen [edited] And you actually walked away victorious (in my mind). It's a weird thing. I totally disagree with you(on that subject) - You scare the shit out of me about ethanol. You are actually convincing. That's why I recommended you to Khosla. Yet you won the day. I won't even engage on the ethanol thing. I tried that long ago. My thing is oil. and gasoline.
Is there some way we can continue this conversation privately? As far as who I am trying to rebut on CERA thing. Simmons. I can do it. I bought his book. Cost me eighteen bucks. Plus I had to read it. CERA was all free. And they gave me the deal up front. CERA doesn't F around. Their detractors make a business out of F ing around.
1200 words.
We are relying on the market, but misinforming the market ... brilliant!
It's not misinformation, it's just advertising puffery.
Translation: Victims "deserve" their ill fates.
We old TOD readers probably feel EIA and CERA work and in glove to deliver this advertising puffery ... but the danger is that less cynical planners are out there taking the EIA numbers as the best available.
It's frankly sad that some people honestly trust the market, while being blissfully unaware that the market might be misinformed.
Bring it on....
Lock & Load
Shake 'n Bake
Cut and Paste
Rock and Roll...only for class of '62 though
Now to town to get a fat .45 set of reload dies...and BTW I ordered the highly recommended bumper sticker about 'fat asses and wildlife' but in Magnetic Backing(I am not stupid enough put one on permamently since some states dont' allow Deadly Weapon Concealed Carry).
Ordered a few for my friends and now I have done my part to save 'Merka'.
The Energy LLP idea sounds interesting. I think it only amounts to securitizing project outputs, but if it could standardize or expand that market, it could be useful. It's better than sitting around complaining about how bad everything is and speculating on the end of the world.
You definitely need to get out more or visit some other websites.
Its a sarcastic term..used mostly with a thin sheen of disgust overlaid.
I was once a proud patriotic Merikan lad who saluted the flag, got choked up seeing it, believed in our politicos, went to church regularily and really believed in a lot of this shit.
I found it all to be a ugly pack of lies, ego and greed wrapped in a genxer marketing, stock huckster image of the Real Merica and the Merican Dream disguised. I looked at the video images of Bill Gates and realized we were all toast.
When my previous employer's CEO raided the company and stole millions by killing off the benefits of those who had made the company the best..and turned it into into a vast sucking machine then I began to realize...this wasn't Kansas anymore Toto.
The scales fell off mine eyes and I beheld a shining light reflecting off the Steppford wives happy, shiny faces and knew the Apocalyse was not far off.
Part of the above is definitely TIC(tongue in cheek). You figure out how much.
airdale-- "I looked a behold a pale rider..yada yada"
Confession: Me too.
I don't remember anymore when exactly I took the red pill instead of the blue pill (ala Matrix)
What about the term 'footprint-equivalent' population growth?
one standard footprint unit = 1 Indian peasant?
Here is a site you can go to in order to calculate yours. The results can be quite fascinating -and disturbing.
http://www.myfootprint.org/
Our footprint has to inculde the facts that we are globally over fishing. That we are using vast amounts of fossil hydrocarbons to grow our foods. That out climate is changing and going into cycles we will not fully understand until way after the damage has been done.
I can live on an arce of land if I can get my crops to grow, and can plan well in advance how I am going to use everything. But I can't have the food resources I have now, and very little of the health care. I and anyone like me would have to form some kind of community to better serve the mutual futures we would want.
As in yesterday's talk of tiny houses, even with them we have needs that have to be met, or we slowly just die off. As the energy we use in the US gets harder and harder to find, we will lower our foot print. But, we will also shorten our lives and make them a whole lot harder to live. Growing all your own food is not an easy task. Very few people do it even today. In the future I know that a lot of people are going to wish for the local grocery store, and be telling their kids about it as the fairytale it'll seem to them.
I interviewed one of the authors of the new report here:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/707
The new EF includes the oceans and the authors claim has more realistic numbers of "energy area."
Graphs of EF over time are available per nation, and the US number is amazing!
See: http://www.ecologicalfootprint.org/
It also has new calculator for individual footprints.
In India it is striking that the provinces with the best education of women have lowest birth rates--and lowest death rates too; these are not by any means always the richest provinces.
Where women are forbidden the freedom to work and opportunity to learn, in these places the outlook is bleak--and getting worse in many cases.
I believe that the end of the age of oil will find that the rapid population growth of America's arid SW regions was foolhardy, to say the least. Large cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix will see a massive exodus of people and eventually return to a something of a no-man's land.
Can you imagine living in the desert SW with summer temperatures reaching 120 degrees and no air conditioning? This summer we saw the introduction of "cooling centers", expect many more to crop up in U.S. cities in the summers to come. I imagine plans are already in the works for winter time "warming centers".
The problem is more complex than that but generally, the more resources we use, the fewer people we can support in a given ecological niche.
However, the main thrust of my comment was consideration of long term carrying capacity, meaning 50 years, 100 years and beyond. It seems safe to say that in 50 to 100 years fossil fuels will be accessible to few humans. Pessimists like Deffeyes think we will be driven back to the stone age in a few decades, but for a discussion of long term carrying capacity whether a crash occurs in 20 years or 50 years is irrelevant because the end point is the same: sustainable population levels with few or no fossil fuels inputs for agricultural production.
We've already seen that overshoot is possible even when there is little to no access to ff for the average person. When this occurs, the unfortunate consequences include malnutrition, famine, and ecological damage from deforestation and water contamination.
The debate over what constitutes a reasonable ecological footprint is too subjective and involves too many variables to be the main determinant of carrying capacity. Besides, in today's world the term "ecological footprint" tends to be a moving target.
The bottom line is: In the post-oil era how many people can be expected to have a diet that supplies adequate nutrition for basic health maintenance? For sustainability the procurement of said diet must not depend on practices that damage the ecosystem and thus reduce the chances of survival for subsequent generations.
Based on these parameters, my guess is that 150 million may be too high for U.S. since this figure was proposed prior to wide spread knowledge of the peak oil paradigm.
We desperately needs experts to revisit this question.
I'll admit, no clue what UBS is, but frankly dear, I don't give a damn.
Oh, it's a Swiss investmant bank, the world's largest wealth manager. Whatever...
USB, through Reuters doesn't agree with Westexas. Natural gas to the rescue. To infinity... and beyond....
The money quote:
"However, the fact that consumption is outstripping new discoveries by more than 400 percent suggests that further increases in global reserves may be nearing an end."
We're consuming more than we're finding, by 400 percent, so that "suggests that further increases in global reserves may be nearing an end"?
If you are consuming way more than you are finding, your "increases" in reserves are not merely "nearing an end." The "increase" in "reserves" is, by definition, already over.
And no, never use passive index investing, you need active managers. The experts. Like UBS!
Companies like UBS must love it when they can get free advertisements disguised as news.
It only "suggests" to them that You & Us is hosed?
"Suggests"?
What do they need for conviction, an indictment?
A swift kick in the cornucopian caboose?
*
*
California Hemp Bill Passes Final Senate and Assembly Votes; AB 1147 Heads to Governor's Desk for Signature
8/21/2006 9:06:00 PM
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71052
Perpetual Motion Claim Probed
Sounds like one of the "magnet" perpetual motion machines.
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/08/23/russiaoil.shtml
Russia Overtakes Saudi Arabia as World's Leading Oil Producer -- OPEC
Created: 23.08.2006 11:24 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:39 MSK
Excerpt:
"According to OPEC, in June 2006 Russia extracted 9.236 million barrels of oil, which is 46,000 barrels more than Saudi Arabia. The statistics also showed that Russian production in the first half of this year increased to 235.8 million tons, a year-on-year improvement of 2.3 percent."
I assume that most media outlets that report the captioned story by the Moscow News would describe it as good news regarding Russian oil production. What the Moscow News is not reporting is that current Russian production is 2.8% below its December level. As I outlined in a recent article regarding net oil exports, "Net Oil Exports Revisited," (http://www.energybulletin.net/19420.html), I estimate that oil exports from the top 10 net oil exporters are probably now falling at a double digit annual rate. The captioned article provides additional evidence of the decline, since the June production number is below the May (EIA) production number for Russia.
I have a question for my friends in the mainstream media. Who among you is going is going to have the courage to step forward and "break" the story that the lifeblood of the world economy--net oil export capacity--is declining?
I just read this morning in the Dallas Morning News that a builder is breaking ground on a new suburban McMansion subdivision that is closer to the Oklahoma border than it is to downtown Dallas. Perhaps if we had a mainstream media that reported the hard truth about our energy supplies, we would not see stories like this suburban insanity. Builders in the Dallas/Fort Worth area continue to pave over prime farmland for suburban McMansions that will soon be wildly unsustainable, covering up the very farmland that we will soon need to feed the cities.
As I said in an "Open Letter to Two Texas Newspapers," (http://www.energybulletin.net/14606.html) "The US media have two choices regarding the Peak Oil issue. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, you can now have either your honor or the status quo. If you do nothing regarding Peak Oil, you will soon have neither the status quo nor your honor."
I should mention that, to its credit, the Dallas Morning News did prominently feature a pro and con segment regarding Peak Oil. However, this is not a one time story. We are looking at a fundamental transformation of our society. Richard Rainwater said that Peak Oil was the only scenario that he had seen that made him concerned about the survival of the human race. I agree with Mr. Rainwater
Regards,
Jeffrey J. Brown
Thanks in advance
Read this article to possibly answer your question.
According to the IEA in this article-- OPEC has 2 million barrels/day of spare capacity to provide a safe cushion if Iran chokes off its production [true or not true?]. If this is true-- war with Iran seems more likely now instead of later because Japan disagrees on oil cutoff.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thanks for the interesting links.
Stephen Richards
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4133591.html
This story: World oil demand growth brings dilemma for Opec shines an entirely different picture.
Not only will demand grow, the growth will "quicken". But not for OPEC oil?! OPEC needs to cut its production, or so we read. An increase in biofuels and OPEC's own NGL will further reduce demand for OPEC oil.
The Reuters spin is quite simple: there is too much of the stuff. The best OPEC can do with all that surplus is to boost its spare capacity.
The same media people that get your letter may read this report and think you are nuts.
You the man, Westexas.
We need to consider if Russia is choking production as the Texas RR commission did back in the US prePeak days. Consider the Russian-Lithuanian pipeline problem I have posted on before. Consider this diplomat's 'accidental' fall from a Brest, Belarus hotel window, -- reads like a Tom Clancy novel doesn't it? Don't forget the Ukrainian Pres. was nearly poisoned during their Orange Revolution, and a Russian billionaire is in prison. We talking trillion$$$ and global power as we go postPeak--we should expect bloody corpses in the snow.
More links for consideration [but googling yourself is best for info]:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060821/52945198.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Lithuanian_leaders_seek_to_cool_pip_08212006.html
A very cold Eurasian winter could be a possible tipping point.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
It seems you have an alternative view, although you haven't stated what it might be. You don't think they are just being nice, or that integrity overrides any thoughts of self interest the Russian government has, do you?
When I hear about the economy in the parts of Texas effected by oil prices I can't help but think of Andrew McKillop and his forecast that high oil prices increase growth to a point. I understand that home prices and the economy in certain parts of Texas is doing very well.
Even the so-called experts can't seem to agree. Deffeyes says we are past peak already while Chris Skrebowski says production will increase for another four years. And of course Yergin and the USGS says we won't peak for at least another 20 years.
Those McMansions will keep getting built as long as we are able because people want them and that's how people make their living. They aren't about to drop everything and become organic farmers. And you can count on a continuing stream of conflicting information to keep the issue cloudy enough to justify their inaction until the whole thing collapses.
The core problem is that the economy is extremely good at reallocating resources via the price mechanism, but only in the short run. Virtually all the discussions we have about peak oil involve, in one form or another, getting people to do things now before the price signal is there to "force" them.
If we sit back and let the market do its thing, it will cause far more pain throughout the transition than if we act collectively in our own best interest now. Not building McMansions, avoiding low efficiency vehicles, improving structures to minimize climate control energy consumption, etc. all pay off now, but will pay off a hell of a lot more in the future.
The only way we can exert that collective will is through public policy, which in the US currently means state-level actions, because the federal government is worse than useless on energy and environment issues.
Post-Bush, I predict that US energy policy will improve dramatically, no matter which party is in power.
I certainly agree that pulic policy is needed. However, it is likely doomed to failure because:
- Competing economic interests - there are too many powerful vested interests in the status quo that have the capability to influence legislation and public preception.
- Growth economic paradigm - I believe that growth will undercut any policies or actions taken.
- No consensus - do we want to head toward Ecotopia, maintain the status quo albeit less energy intensive or what. In addition, there are issues such as population that would have to be part of any realistic policy and they would likely set off a firestorm.
Lastly, and I don't know how to put this, my gut feeling is that were there a policy(ies) to redcue energy/resource consumption, that a lot of people will feel that the bridge has been crossed and life can go on as it was. Let's say all the coal plants were shut down and replaced by wind and PV, might not people then feel they could keep on consuming "stuff" at present rates?Todd
Hmmm, you have some previousily unknown evidence that the majority of the US political class is not as tied to our fossil lifestyle and subservient to the energy powers that be and the rest who profit from it?
IMO, Chris Skrebowski is underestimating the decline from the large old oil fields, like four largest producing fields. If he had done his analysis of Texas production in the early Seventies, I'm sure that he would have produced a much too optimistic forecast--primarily because of the sudden decline in the large old oil fields.
Yergin, et al are smoking some good stuff.
In regard to Russia, it is accurate to say that their year over year production is up, while it is down since December. Note that Texas production, which peaked in 1972, did not fall below the 1971 level until 1976.
This why I think that Defffeyes is correct:
Repetitive information follows
Following comments based on HL method. Qt = URR.
The Lower 48 peaked at about 50% of Qt in 1970. Using only production data through 1970, actual post-1970 cumulative production through 2004 was 99% of what the HL method predicted it would be.
Russia peaked, in 1984, in a broad plateau centered on 50% of Qt. Using only production data through 1984, actual post-1984 cumulative production through 2004 was 95% of what the HL method predicted it would be.
The North Sea peaked at about 50% of Qt in 1999.
The world, based on Deffeyes work, hit the 50% mark in late 2005, and world crude + condensate production is down 1.3% since December.
Saudi Arabia, in 2005, was at the same point at which Texas started declining. Saudi production is down by as much as 5% to 7% since December.
The top oil exporters, based on Khebab's HL work, are more depleted than the world is overall. In January, based on Khebab's work I predicted an export crisis this year. I estimate that exports from the top 10 net oil exporters are probably now falling at double digit rates.
Will we add new production? Yes--just like the 14% increase in producing wells that Texas put on line between 1972 and 1982, as total production fell by about 30%. Why? The big fields like East Texas started a permanent decline.
Today, it's highly likely that the world's four largest producing fields are all declining. Cantarell is crashing. Ghawar may be crashing too.
The world is declining--just like the Lower 48; Russia and the North Sea.
Despite your efforts, the prevailing view is that big increases in production are just around the corner. This guy uses EIA's graph to justify sub-$60/b very soon:
http://www.safehaven.com/article-5751.htm
I bet if you had asked the Texas State Geologist in 1972 what the production repsonse would be to a 1000% increase in price, unrestricted drilling and no TRC limits, he would have made the same kind of predictions as the EIA is today, don't you think?
Very good point.
As Westexas mention many times, its only a matter of time before steep declines return to Russian production. There production increases is just a small blip on the radar.
I have a gut feeling that a lot of the large fields are going to drop in a very short period, and it will probably start within the next 24 months. I think we'll see Mexico go first, followed by Russia and then Saudi Arabia. Although, I hope I am dead wrong on this prediction.
The Saudi history is filled with deception, and there seems to be an emerging consensus that the discrepancy has to do with heavy sour crude that is not particularly wanted.
Somebody else argues that Chris Skrebowski seems to be more optimistic than many experts about the rate of decrease of production from mature wells.
More importantly than these (minor) discrepancies: how much does it matter to you and to society if the precise peak is December 3, 2005 or March 15, 2006 or April 7, 2008? The lead time for necessary changes, both individually and collectively, is long.
My plan is to create my own small sustainable organic all-electric wind-powered farm in a rural region of the upper midwest that so-far gets ample rain and has ample deep reservoirs of good water. But I am currently in Southern California and the date of social disintegration matters to me because I need to sell and move and build my new, super-insulated house before gypsum, concrete and gasoline (for the moving truck) go through the roof. I think I have time, but, I think it will take me three years, and I am shopping for land, now.
Here is a post of mine on another forum that might be of interest. With comments, it prints out at 20 pages but you can just view it.
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/printthread.php?t=72776
Todd
I can plant vegetables and start raising chickens and pasturing calves the first or second year (depending on the season in which I take possession) and have some food within months. Fruit and nut trees, in contrast, take more like 10 years to begin to yield significantly, perhaps more. I am doing it to feed myself and my family, not to earn in substantial amounts.
But my point was that the lead time is substantial, and you're saying it's even longer. OK. Lead time for society is even longer, considerably longer.
I didn't see anyone in the article say they have plenty of spare capacity - do you have a link?
"The Saudis are famous for their ability to access spare capacity and raise production at short notice and if they really wanted to reassert their leadership role the feeling is they could do so easily."
Again, it's the inference and conflicting information that matters. Most people are not as knowledgeable about this stuff as you and I are.
I suppose my difficulty writing such letters is that my passion and often frustration get in the way. I tend to get a bit too "sweatily earnest." This can put people off.
Well, back to do some very physical labor for me!
Keep up the good letter-writing, Westexas. I'll try to follow your example of careful reasoning as I write letters or posts in my area.
An Open Letter to my Friends in the Media
Muchos Kudos from me for the hard work you two have done. I tend to believe you guys are on the right track overall, but my hope is that you will somehow consider more political effects, if possible, into your projections. I realize this is easier said than done, and sadly, I really have no clues to offer but to push for a speculative Foundation and ASPO's Depletion Protocols. Rockefeller, Texas RR Commission, and OPEC seem obvious past oil market manipulators....any ideas on what or who lies ahead postPeak?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I think the next thing is that we realize we're running short of sucrose, and can't swim away from the ethanol :)
Reminds me of an old cold-war era joke. Russian news report on an auto race in which only two cars run: "Russian car finishes second while its rival finishes next to last!"
Brave Progressives?
Biomass Power?
Bullshit Publicity?
You choose.
They have just launched their "targetneutral" project / stunt.
Under the voluntary scheme, drivers can go to a website to calculate the cost of the annual C02 reduction needed to make their car C02 neutral. An average car, driven 10,000 miles a year, generates about four tonnes of C02. To neutralise that amount, BP says, will cost around £20 a year. It sounds like a piffling price to do your bit to save the planet. BP says a huge amount of C02 could be neutralised if all 40 million drivers in the UK signed up to targetneutral.
You can calculate your contribution (how much you owe the atmosphere) here. (In my case, about $64 a year.)
The projects they are funding look really excellent.
BP made a big deal about how they are dedicating $8 billion to alternative energy development. This is just a way to get the public to pay for it. Who gets the profits?
After the Corporation takes it's fat cut from the profits (also called expenses), the stockholders.
It was a rhetorical question, but yes, you're right. Perhaps the real question is: does the environment win?
"
Mother Nature Bats Last
I did recognize the rhetorical aspect to the question, but with the spread of IRA's it makes many many people paying more also getting some of it back in their dividends. The playing field is changing out there.
Certainly the environment loses. That is what makes the entire yin yang of oil and GHG so interesting.
I remember at my college graduation in 1971 and we had the dean of the Chicago Law School speak and he talked about the quality of life versus the quantity of life. My Dad, an older dad, executive for F.W. Woolworth, and he left the speech muttering that the guy was a communist!
It is good the playing field is changing, but I am not sure if it is fast enough!
The funds collected will go to good, environmentally-sound causes. They also do nothing to sequester C02, or reduce C02 output from existing sources. We're simply paying other people to be better citizens than we are.
I guess it's better than nothing. Martin Luther would disagree.
The trouble with the BP scheme is that a) they are aiming at the low-hanging fruit, i.e. the emissions that are easiest to reduce, and b) it seems they are preventing hypothetical emissions from new industrial projects rather than reducing emissions from existing ones. A meaningful, massive offset program would be much more expensive per-ton. Still, this is definitely better than nothing as it gives another nudge to public awareness...
The Iranian military handed back over the drilling rig in the Strait of Hormuz.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than YEast?
With this counter-insurgency, I think you can count on the cure being worse than the disease.
If only Washington would allow us to sell less gas, we would all be so much better off. But alas, they are forcing us to rake in all that extra cash. So everyone will understand that a windfall tax would be extremely unfair. We never wanted that money!
In the meantime, all the Big Oil negative focus has shifted to BP. Shell and Exxon are of course checking their pipelines like crazy right now, but they got to love that shift.
I, on the other hand, want prices to remain high so people will begin to change their behaviors.
But what this comment made me think is that's it's PR field day for Shell. All the bad stuff on Big Oil in the media is directed at BP for now, and in the same move he blames politics for what bad taste is left about his company. He gets a free shot and takes it.
Heard anything about windfall taxes lately? I haven't. The focus now is gas prices slightly lowering, oh what a rich feeling!, and 3 separate US government agencies investigating BP.
High fives all over at Shell headquarters. I would still love to know how many engineers are checking Shell's pipelines as we speak. That must be their -media- worst nightmare, corrosion. After Greg Palast's piece, BP is a "SMART PIG", it's hard to see how BP can maintain they had no idea. I'm sure one of those 3 agencies read it, the Guardian is not an obscure publication.
That's an extraordinary admission even if he does so in a backhanded manner.
This is a reference to the fractional reserver system, mentioned on TOD here before. Economics and peak oil go hand in hand.
They don't know the cause, but I can't help wondering if it's because more people are walking and riding motorcycles, due to fuel costs.
So the real enemies are peanuts...
Let's declare a global WAR ON PEANUTS!
The Georgia Department of Transportation classifies sidewalks as "Automobile Recovery Zones". GDOT doesn't like for their to be trees, light posts, etc between the road and ARZ because if a driver isn't paying attention (probably babbling on a cell phone) and runs off the road, their precious automobile shouldn't be punished by hitting a tree. Nevermind if that tree would have prevented the car from running over the pedestrians on the sidewa, er, ARZ.
If you "start" with equal numbers each of plutonium-239 and iodine-131, the iodine will be 5 million times more dangerous than the plutonium when you start measuring, and will continue to emit more radiation than the Pu-239 until the higher decay rate of the I-131 is balanced by the much smaller number of I-131 left relative to Pu-239.
The key point is that the danger is proportional to the amount of radioactive material present as well as the decay rate (which is inversely proportional to the half-life).
But all radiation is not the same. You have Gamma radiation, the most dangerous, then Beta, the next most dangerous then Alpha, which cannot penetrate the surface of your skin but is dangerous if ingested.
But that still does not tell the whole story. Bikini Island for instance, measures very little radiation. One could safely live on the island without worrying about any residual radiation from the nuclear explosions there over half a century ago. However there is one small problem, Cesium 137. The Cesium 137 in the ground on Bikini is not great enough to be dangerous. But plants mistake it for Potassium and pull it up into the plants via their roots. People then eat the plants or fruit and ingest the cesium into their bodies. Cesium 137 gives off beta radiation and is very dangerous when ingested.
There are many kinds of decay events. Alpha, beta, and gamma are the three most common particles shot out of a decaying nucleus. A gamma ray is electromagnetic radiation, like an X-ray, but generally more powerful. Gamma rays come in a full range of strengths. So it's not just how many gamma ray particles (high energy photons) get emmitted per unit time, but how powerful is each photon.
Beta particles are electrons and alpha particles are helium nuclei. Each of these can also have varying energy - how fast do they come barrelling out of that decaying nucleus.
Decaying nuclei can also emit neutrons & really if a nucleus undergoes spontaneous fission then the fission products - two nuclei roughly half the size of the original nucleus - will also go flying apart from each other, but they are so big that they won't typically go too far.
So one thing to factor in is the energy released per decay event. Multiply that times the number of events per unit time, and you get the energy released per unit time, another possible meaning of "intensity."
Then one may want to consider where that decaying nucleus happens to be and where those energetic particles are likely to go. If the decaying nucleus is separated from your loved ones by a thick lead shield, not really a big deal. If, on the other hand, somehow that nucleus got smudged on somebody's cheek, or got ingested or inhaled somehow, if it chemically bonded and got incorporated into biological tissue and then decides to decay inside some loved one's body, that is not such a pretty situation at all.
- Its half life;
- Its uptake by living things.
note: Plutonium is not actually a fission product, it is the result of the fusion of a neutron with a U238 atom (followed by a beta decay).There's a fair amount of Xenon in the fission products, but that drifts off into the atmosphere and is not taken up by life. So they usually don't worry about it, though it does raise background radiation a little bit. Sr90, I131, and Cs137 are dangerous because they are all actively accumulated by living things. I129 is probably less dangerous because of its long half life (a long half life means not very many of its atoms decay in a given time interval -- stable isotopes have an infinite half life). On the other hand, I131 has a half life of a few days, so it won't be around thousands of years like some others are. Something that has a half life of about 20 to a few 100s of years would be a long-lasting but still quite radioactive source. Things like Sr90 and Cs137 fit that description, along with a variety of heavier-than-uranium elements. Plutonium, being a heavy metal, is not strongly accumulated by living things, but it is an alpha source and you don't want so much as a speck of it in your lungs.
If stray Sr90 weren't a threat to life, it would have some wonderful industrial uses: it is a pure beta source and does not give off any other form of radiation, so you could use it to build betavoltaic batteries, for example. But humans being what they are, would just throw them in the garbage before all the Sr90 decays, and who knows where it would wind up.
Biggest problem with nuke waste is you have these components all mixed together in a nasty mess, and nobody wants to deal with it because it's a nasty dangerous mess. And the isotopes aren't destroyed by burning or any convenient physical process, so whatever you do with them, they'll be around until they decay.
I have pondered in idle moments whether it would make sense to put some of them back into the reactor and bombard them with neutrons until you make them into some less-dangerous isotopes.
I certainly don't want to argue with someone who knows much more about this than me, but as far as I know, there is a dependency between the absolute temperature of a body and its molecules' average kinetic energy, isn't there? Very low temperature means very low kinetic energy of molecules, if I'm correct. Wouldn't that have an impact on the rate of decay?
Yes, but...
Wouldn't that have an impact on the rate of decay?
No because the radioactive decay is from INSIDE the nucleus of atoms, nothing to do with the kinetics or chemistry of the whole atom (nucleus + "gravitating" electrons).
The nucleus doesn't "give a hoot" of what happens outside its boundaries.
This really smell like a SCAM on par with the "perpetual motion machine" which has been discussed lately.
My own favorite pet method for disposal involves embedding the crud in low-melting glass, casting the glass into big blocks of concrete, then hauling them out to sea and dropping them into a trench subduction zone somewhere in the abyss. By the time it ever sees daylight again, it'll be millions of years, not thousands.
"In the beginning animals got their energy from their muscles, ... the first agriculture emerged, needed external energy in the form of horses and/or slaves... Slavery was an ancient practice that ended when oil replaced the slaves, however debt created new form of slavery...
Peak oil will likely lead to reductions in trade and a return to regionalism, possibly to the end of the nation state. Will power return to the regions? We can already see local currencies beginning to emerge."
======I wonder how long before we see slavery blossom in the West again. And if the First Batch of Slaves will be all the people who piled on the Debt, using their homes equity as an ATM.
Also, how long before the USA sees the individual states wrestle more control away from the Federal Government. The dayze of Central Gubermints Control are coming to an end. There is way too much waste to keep that giant parasitic layer of governent this TimezUp.
Also, I love the pic/article on the Energy Protests in Bangladesh. I wonder how long before we see similar protests in the USA and then how long before we see Marshall Law in our cities.
I think the idea of "benefits" will be drastically redefined in the not-to-distant future. Most of the people I know will probably die of shock early in this Transition when they learn the various Corporate, State and Federal Nipplez they were promised are no longer viable, and that there is no such thing as a "Safety Net" in Nature no matter how many times you click your heels together and mumble "jehovah" or "allah" or whatever prayer/mantra fits your personal cultural defect.
With the massive of personal debt in the US many people will probably become "indentured servants." And in many places in the world outright slavery will become much more common as the Weak are used to replace the Oil energy we took for granted the past 150 years.
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair...
However, I think under those circumstances slavery could be brought back quickly. We already have prison labor, and we have privatized prisons that would like to exploit that labor. The voters could easily be talked into easing restrictions on prison labor, and the profits from that could then be plowed back into endless media brainwashing campaigns to obtain support for creating more laws to justify imprisoning more people. Of course, if a majority white electorate is presented with competing propositions outlawing:
a. something white people like to do, or
b. something black people like to do
I think you can see which way the vote is going to go. As more blacks are imprisoned, there will be fewer left to vote, so it will get worse until they either revolt or are effectively stripped of citizenship. Same for other unpopular minorities.
The above scenario also makes sense in a deglobalized economy. If we can't ship it here from China anymore, we're going to have to force each other to make everything. The corporations do not intend to lose out on this process.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/worldbrief/highest_to_lowest_rates.php
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20199774-1702,00.html
I see that Robert Rapier discussed the by-product claims in a May 24 post and conceded that they might boost the ethanol EROEI to as high as 1.27. What do we make of this figure? Does it argue for or against ethanol?
Also, how many MPM (miles per megajoule) one could expect driving, say, a Honda Accord :-?
Ethanol 20 MJ/L
Gasoline 32 MJ/L
Diesel 38 MJ/L
A net energy of 5 MJ/L would imply having to put in 15 MJ/L to get 20 MJ/L. In other words, EROEI of 1.33 - roughly matches the figure you quoted.
According to Honda the Accord fuel efficiency is:
4-cylinder with automatic: 9.7 L/100 km city, 6.3 L/100 km highway
6-cylinder with automatic: 11.5 L/100 km city, 7.5 L/100 km highway
Let's take the 6-cylinder and assume an overall 10.0 L/100 km. That's assuming gasoline, of course, so that's 320 MJ/100 km, or 3.2 MJ/km.
For the benefit of those not using the measurement system used by 94% of the population of the planet :-) I will now multiply by 1.6 km/mile to get 5.1 MJ/mile. (statute mile) Take the inverse and you get roughly 0.2 miles per MJ.
See http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html for more such calculations. I can't resist mentioning that a Combino tram - 28 metres (92 feet) long, with 60 seats and lots of room for standees (crush capacity 200 people) - uses roughly twice the energy of a Honda Accord per unit distance. Let's see, 60 seats versus 5, for only twice the energy...
I post this site every so often as it is a world view of all disasterous currently happening.
I noticed 5 micro quakes in Alaska all today. Anything to that?
I also have some thought in mortgage applications being up
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082300355.html
All these people who were talked into ARMs want out. They know what's coming and they will try to finangle their way into a 30 or 40 year(these might explode) fixed mortgage. Now here's the kick that will decimate these people.
These fixed rts are more expensive than what people are used to so they will still have to pay more for the house. They will do this b/c the cost will be even greater if they let their ARMs reset, so they will seek to lock in a lower than ARM reset, but higher than their current pymt.
Now they are refinancing all this debt and meanwhile they are still equity negative as the houses left depreciate, but these ARM people are getting doubly screwed since they will lock in a higher price on too much debt and be stuck with it or get foreclosed. So I suspect we should see apps going up for awhile as people try to mitigate the freight train barreling down on them.
We will see Kids moving in with parents, Parents moving back in with Kids. These houses that they will be moving FROM will be on the market too. And they won't soak up any on the market as they will be cohabitating with others.
Combined effect.
This will make the situation even worse.
This's is the one that's gonna take things down I think.
JC
Here in Atlanta, Fulton County and the City of Atlanta are experiencing a housing boom as folks from the suburbs are getting tired of traffic and transportation costs and are moving back intown. The is lots of new condo construction and some infill in single family neighborhoods.
What is really interesting is the results of gentrification of existing neighborhoods. The lower income folks are being priced out of the market and are moving into older suburbs as a result. This is going to be really bad for them because while the blight of the inner city will follow them, they will now also have to deal with being automobile dependent. During the 70s and 80s the inner city had all sorts of problems but at least the neighborhoods were dense, walkable, and had access to mass transit. The suburban subdivisions the lower economic classes are moving to don't have these features.
The tragic-comedy part of this is that many of those moving to the suburbs are happy because for all their lives they've dreamed of one day being able to have that big house in 'burbs with the large yard and multicar garage. Sadly they are going to discover that the dream no longer exists and that their old homes in the city have been taken over by the upper class who will once again oppose extending mass transit to the suburbs, this time not to keep city residents from coming to the 'burbs but rather to keep the suburban underclass out of the city.
I'm not saying the current government wouldn't do such a thing if they could -- I'm just wondering what restriction mechanisms you are talking about?
Alistair? When is this Cease-Fire gonna cease-firing? Day 11. I won't guess. I just like the fact that Hezbollah can't seem to fire any more rockets into Israel. Looks like the Israelis won this round.
I had considered that the invasion of Iraq had at least one good outcome : Israelis no longer needed to fear the destruction of their nation. (in fact Iraq had had no capacity to harm Israel since 1991, but Israelis didn't know that.) Now I'm not so sure. Muslim entities will be looking at this little war and thinking, maybe we can take them. (I'm talking about non-state actors. Entities with capital cities are held in check by the nukes anyway.)
I just like the fact that Hezbollah can't seem to fire any more rockets into Israel.
That remains to be shown. There is no reason to believe they can't. They stopped firing because there's a ceasefire. Not because the IDF stopped them.
Look at the Greeks and Turks on Cyprus. Christ only knows how that has worked for so long. DMZ Korea?
I don't know, my man, how this thing in Lebanon is gonna work out. My reference is Bosnia. Except this time I think it will be worse. Guns of August it is not. Guns of some other month? Like September? Maybe.
The only booms going on here seem to be plots to blow up the Prime Minister, or plots to make it look like someone wants to blow up the PM, or plots to make it look like sopmeone is trying to make it look like someone is trying to blow up the PM. Thai politics is more confusing than oil markets.
"or plots to make it look like someone is trying to make it look like someone is trying to blow up the PM."
I don't know what your profession is, but you could give John Le Carre a run for his money. Cheers.
People ended up trashing their own neighbourhood, because that's where they were when the riots started. They were unfocused and unled, spontaneous combustion basically. So they burned their neighbours' cheap cars, and junked schools in some instances, because that's all they had to hand.
If they had been focused and organised, the kids could easily have taken the metro to some rich neighbourhood, and trashed BMWs and jewellery shops.
There's not the slightest doubt that urban mis-planning in France has exacerbated ghettoisation. But the idea that it was all planned to keep people under control (if that's what you meant)... no, that's not an idea that I've seen before.
Though there is an emerging tendency towards gated communities for the rich. Something that needs to be stamped out real quick, in my opinion. Next year's elections will be absolutely crucial.
The same could be said for gates. They won't protect the rich if things go really south.
Unless you've been or maybe lived here you won't understand, but no one WANTS to live anywhere near this downtown. Subway closes at 6 for Pete's sake!
I'm sad to say I agree. Housing scares the crap out of me mainly due to ARM's, but when you're buying a house AT the peak WITH an ARM only to convert it into a FIXED 40 year note a few years later, it's going to be brutal to say the least.
Lon Witter's Barron's article is scarier, though: available here
I'm glad I'm not in the ExxonMobil/CERA camp that has been promising abundant oil supplies.
Housing slump proves painful for some owners and builders
Judy Guth put her stately five bedroom home in Herndon, VA for sale last September for $1.1 million (based on 2005 appraisal).
No offers.
In March, she reduced the price to $899,900.
No offers.
She decided on an auction with a minimum accepted bid of $675,000.
High bid was $475,000.
Buyer and seller settled finally on $530,000--48% of the 2005 appraised value.
Consider all the people who bought at or near the peak, paying little or no down, with Option ARM loans. Consider all the mortgages that Fannie Mae has guaranteed.
I have one question: Who's your buddy? Who has been relentlessly--some would say obsessively and repetitively--warning you to Economize and Localize?
IMO, this is not the time to stop the ELP effort, even if spouses and teenagers think you have lost your mind.
The worst real estate losses are going to be in the areas farthest away from job centers that have shown the most price appreciation. An interesting question will be how close-in neighborhoods will fare.
In any case, if you had followed my advice and adjusted your lifestyle based on the assumption that your income was down by 50% and that gasoline prices were $6 plus, you would be ahead of the stampede out of suburbia right now.
As I pointed out before, this 'flight from the burbs' is all ready happening where I live.
Let me give a bit of an overview of my city so that you understand:
It is a well educated, fairly affluent mid-size metropolitan area. The total area -city, suburbs, rural hinterland -contains approximately 250,000 people. Almost 2/3 of them have bachelor's degrees and about 40% have doctorates. Most of the jobs are part of the military industrial complex, either direct government jobs or contractors.
The city itself is shaped like a long line with a slight bulge about the middle. It is about 20 miles long and at the widest point about 7 miles wide. I live at the eastern edge of the bulge and the protected forest area backs right up to the subdivision where I live. Because of this, I am technically in the city and the country. I chose my location carefully; I can be anywhere I need to go (church, downtown, grocery store, library, etc), save work, within 10 minutes of driving. Work is fifteen. If there were bike routes (which there aren't unfortunately) I could do the same in 30 minutes on my bike. So I have a good location in a relatively hidden area. The people in my neighborhood are a good mix of people, the entire subdivision is surrounded by protected land, and I have more than enough space for a good-sized garden. And believe it or not, I got this for a decent price.
Now about the suburbs. Over the past five to ten years suburbia has sprang up in all directions from the city. The city limits have actually expanded south to encompass some of the nearer suburbs. They reach piecemeal up to forty miles from the city limits. In some cases farther; I know one woman who drives 60 miles one way to get to work.
This sets the scene. Gas has been at or around 3 bucks a gallon for over a year now and it is starting to take its toll. Foreclosure rates in the hinterlands have shot up in the past few months and property values have tanked. People I know have traded in their SUVs and trucks for more fuel efficient economy cars. And some of them still can't make it. People are trying to move back into the city in droves.
How has this affected in town property values? I can't speak for the rest of the city, but in my neighborhood property values have gone up 10% in the past year, most of that in the past 6 months.
http://www.foreclosure.com
Assumption: 50% drop in house price.
Choose one:
A) $100,000 house -> $50,000 house ($50k loss)
B) $500,000 house -> $250,000 house ($250k loss)
C) $1,000,00 house -> $500,000 house ($500k loss)
Good article on energy prices & the 'burbs:
http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlenewhome.aspx?cp-documentid=742526>1=8479
Could rising gas prices kill the suburbs?
When a high-cost commute reaches the point of no-return, home buyers will start finding houses closer to work. In fact, some already are.
Rising fuel costs are being blamed for everything from soaring utility costs to lower retail sales and higher airline tickets. And now, experts say high gas prices could reshape U.S. cities.
...Once the realization soaks into the American consciousness that high-cost gas is here to stay, Gabriel predicts, those high commute prices will pull more homeowners -- even young families -- to live in central cities and create a push for more public transportation.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/081806dnbusforeclosure.317270a.html
Foreclosures soar in North Texas
More losing houses because of poor planning, rising expenses
12:11 AM CDT on Friday, August 18, 2006
By STEVE BROWN / The Dallas Morning News
Excerpt:
"There are a lot of people out there who live on the edge," Mr. Roddy said. "If our economy had stayed about the same as when they bought the property, things would probably be going OK for them.
"But add the tremendous increases in the cost of living, driving, cooling and credit cards, and it all turns bad," he said. "And of course, there have been bumps in interest rates which have dramatically impacted payments on adjustable-rate loans."
But most of the foreclosure distress comes from a familiar problem - not enough money at the end of the month.
"Wages are stagnant," said Gail Cunningham, with Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Dallas. "And energy costs and other expenses are going through the roof.
"One hiccup can put someone over the edge," Ms. Cunningham said. "We are seeing people with electric bills that are higher than their mortgage."
By and large the decline in the real estate market is largely cause by the increases in interest rates and loss of the home ATM affect. As Property prices rises people cashed out there equity for supplimental income on the crazy believe that housing prices where going to the moon.
The market was also largely fueled by low rates, creative loans and bare bones lending requirements that permitted anyone with a breath to go out a buy a home. Everyone that wanted to buy a home or upscale has pretty much make a purchase. Home builders where expecting the good times to keep on rolling and have created a glut of new homes. Now the tide has turned. The interest rates have go up and the easy credit via the GSEs (Freddie and Fanny) has dried up forcing mortgage lenders to raise lending standards.
Now its a race to see which causes a recession that leads into a depression: higher energy prices or credit crunch. Maybe a little of both.
Kunstleria. But astronomers have recently downgraded it from planet status, and it is now considered a planetessimal.
"Some more numbers:
- 32.6% of new mortgages and home-equity loans in 2005 were interest only, up from 0.6% in 2000
- 43% of first-time home buyers in 2005 put no money down
- 15.2% of 2005 buyers owe at least 10% more than their home is worth
- 10% of all home owners with mortgages have no equity in their homes
- $2.7 trillion dollars in loans will adjust to higher rates in 2006 and 2007.
These numbers sound preposterous, but the reasoning behind them is worse. Lenders have encouraged people to use the appreciation in value of their houses as collateral for an unaffordable loan, an idea similar to the junk bonds being pushed in the late 1980s. The concept was to use the company you were taking over as collateral for the loan you needed to take over the company in the first place. The implosion of that idea caused the 1989 mini-crash.Now the house is the bank's collateral for the questionable loan. But what happens if the value of the house starts to drop?
The answer, at least from banks, is already clear: Float the loans. The following figures are from Washington Mutual's annual report: At the end of 2003, 1% of WaMu's option ARMS were in negative amortization (payments were not covering interest charges, so the shortfall was added to principal). At the end of 2004, the percentage jumped to 21%. At the end of 2005, the percentage jumped again to 47%. By value of the loans, the percentage was 55%.
"Yikes! Are there any financial instruments that would let you short the real estate and mortgage industry?
No, they can't be ready to drop. This spring we told our realtor we were going to hold off on buying a bigger house and she told us not to wait too long because interest rates were going up and so are house prices. :o
I think she may have actually believed that too - it is her job. I told my wife I expected house prices to fall, and now she has been seeing it happen in the real estate section, which she still checks religiously. I've tried explaining peak oil to her (my wife, not the realtor), but she doesn't quite accept all of the economic ramifications yet. She thinks it means people will just have to drive smaller cars. She is very conventional in an American sort of way, so she dismisses things that sound too far outside the box. But I did score some points with her by beating the realtor in house price predictions. We have a very modest mortgage right now and I really don't want to blow that just before a housing crash.
The picture clearley shows that each sign has:
a post,
a cross piece,
some link chains,
a laminate sign,
some more link chains,
another "agent" sign (or telephone number sign),
a holder for flyers attached to the post
the flyers themselves.
And people in the UK think that estate agents charge excessive amounts (1% or 2% of purchase price rings a bell). I hate to think what the US real estate agents charge for their services.
7%, 6% if you negotiate well.
Agents split at 2.5% each.
They will deal if you demand it!
yea, but if you sell a house, then they want 7%
The reporter did not mention which report he was referring to. Anyone seen that report?
Rest of city is without normal fire protection, health care, schools, mail delivery, garbage pickup, police protection, courts, and just about everything else. Debris pickup was just over 70% a week ago; but FEMA wants to jump the # for the 1 year anniversery, so lots of OT for out-of-state no nbid contractors.
TOOO busy with Dad for much TV watching lately.
"Word" was that Spike Lee was looking for specific types that fit his view for his film; but I am uncertain of that.
So, sorry.
Of course, what people say they want and what they actually buy are two different things. Still...it's interesting.
The shape of the peak.
I've read with interest everything I can find on production and I'm increasingly convinced that were going to face a plateau followed by a fairly steep decline 8%-14% for a few years then a gentler slope and back declining again. The slop of the decline is only decreasing after a year or two because of significant demand destruction.
The main reason for me believing this is that once a few big fields start and significant decline the smaller fields will be pushed harder leading to there own significant declines.
And modern extraction methods lead to a plateau swift decline profile at the well and field level.
I've as yet seen decent evidence for the gentle decline hypothesis i.e 2-3% overall decline rates. The main thesis is that since all the declines are staggered and infield drilling greatly reduces the decline rate we won't see major drops. I've not seen this scenario handle the situation where say Cantrell production collapses or some big field in Russia China or KSA. My point is that sometime in the next few years at least one if not more of the big fields will go into significant decline Cantrell is almost a sure bet.
As far as alternative extraction deep water NGL's etc maybe they can cover but were talking losing between 2-4 million bpd of production as the big fields go in addition to overall decline.
Finally for all intents and purposes were at peak oil now.
To increase production say by 10% in the face of world wide depletion and decline that we know about is probably not going to happen unless we find another ghawar. 10% of 84 mbd is 8.4 mbd that's almost a new KSA it ain't going to happen.
We may not know the exact maximum in real production but I'm not sure its relevant since were probably talking about a variation of 1-2 mbd variation say 2% of our total once you take into account depletion so at best from now on we can grow slowly.
Which takes me back to my concern what is the post peak shape ? A reasonable scenario is that at least two major fields will go in to serious decline along with a slew of smaller fields on top of our current decline rates.
We should begin to seriously try and understand how the worlds oil will decline since its the rate of decline that is the single biggest factor in peak oil.
Physically the evidence for a steep decline if even one of the big fields collapses is very compelling. The gentle slop scenario seems to just consider business as usual.