 | DrumBeat: August 28, 2006 | The Oil Drum | From the old to the newer, or a thought for Khurais and its companions |  |
DrumBeat: August 29, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 29, 2006 - 9:11am
Topic: Miscellaneous
BP's Crude, Gasoline Trading Under Investigation
Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc, Europe's second-largest oil company, is being investigated by U.S. authorities for possible manipulation of crude and gasoline markets, a further blow to a reputation that's already suffering from spills in Alaska.The crude oil inquiry is led by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures markets, and the Justice Department is probing its gasoline trades, BP spokesman Robert Wine in London said. BP is "cooperating fully," he said.
Gasoline demand rises slower in June
U.S. gasoline demand in June grew by just over 0.6 percent year-on-year, less than half the rate previously implied by weekly data, the U.S. government's monthly oil data showed on Monday.
Energy Bulletin has posted more reports from ASPO-5:
|
Dennis Meadows - Peak Oil and Limits to Growth Jeremy Leggett Intertwines Peak Oil and Climate Change Skrebowski tells us there’s 1,500 days until the Peak, & closing thoughts on ASPO 5
|
Head of Bolivian state oil company quits amid a corruption scandal. He was replaced by Evo Morales.
Suspected Pakistani rebels attack gas lines
QUETTA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Suspected rebels blew up a gas pipeline and electricity pylons in the gas-rich Pakistani province of Baluchistan as supporters of a rebel leader killed at the weekend prepared to hold prayers for him.Nationalist rebels have waged a low-key insurgency for autonomy and a greater share of profits from Baluchistan's resources for decades.
Iran to miss 2010 oil output target due to "lack of investment in ageing oil fields."
Pipeline explosion kills 5 in Iraq. Sounds like it may have been oil theft rather than terrorism.
Energy industry preparing for limits
When the head of the American Public Power Association spoke recently to electric utility operators in Minnesota, he had a straightforward message: Federal regulation of greenhouse gases is coming. Get ready for it."The issue is no longer whether there is a human contribution to global warming but the extent of that contribution," said Alan Richardson, president and chief executive of the group, whose members supply 15 percent of the nation's power.
[Update by Leanan on 08/29/06 at 10:39 AM EDT]
Betting billions on liquefied natural gas
Slacking crude reserves and rising demand are driving what some are calling one of the biggest investment trends in the world.
They need to pump harder and harder from their tired old fields to increase production.
This is the story all over the world. Seventy-five to eighty percent of all new production is coming from tired old fields. This will only steepen the slope of the decline curve a couple of years down the road. CEAR is pretending this is all new oil. They say current fields will decline by five percent, offset by new production. But at least 75 percent of this new production is from the same fields that they are saying will decline by five percent. Can they not see the error in this logic?
And that "serious work" would be...?
Serious digging?
But seriously, Bakhtiari says Iran has only a third of the reserves it offcially states, 35-45 vs 132.5 billion barrels. In that context, they have little time left at the wished-for 5 mbd.
Add to that the fact that they specifically talk about mature fields, and it's not a big surprise if they can't meet the target. In other words: a yearly decline of 10% or more is in the cards.
And serious worrying.
And would the rest of the world really, say, OK, build your nukes?
But don't forget, Bakhtiari doesn't necessarily do things by himself. For all we know, he may well have talked it over at home before going on his world tour. And spread the word in a diplomatic fashion.
Despite Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions which will gain them additional defense self-reliance, the move to nuclear for energy generation makes both self-reliant, and economic sense as it leaves the oil and gas up for sale to fund the building of a nuclear society.
I don't like the whole idea of them having nukes, but I can easily see why they would want them for both military and civilian uses.
If they are wise enough to see gas and oil as a soon to be dead end, then cash in while they can, and setup a nuclear society after the gas and oil industrial countries come crumbling down.
All and all, I have to give kudos to the Iranian "strategery" and long term positioning, at least from a detached admiring your opponent standpoint.
Not huge quantities, but they started production at Saghand this year, and have built a facility to produce 50 tonnes of uranium per year.
That's what makes the enrichment of uranium for civilian use so plausible. Why would they want to rely on imported fuel, with the associated risks of cut-off, when they could master the whole fuel cycle and be independent?
I also think that they are only an adversary because the US wants to pick a fight with them.
Also as you note but I would like to add emphasis to, that the current capping factor for Iranian Uranium(say that 5 times fast) production is their refining capacity. If they built additional mills, they could up their yearly volume from 50 tonnes if they desired it.
Iran has most if not all the pieces for a self sufficient nuclear society. Even with sanctions its going to be tough to stop them. It will require a military strike to end their nuclear aspirations.
Iran is holding some interesting cards right now, high risk, but potentially high reward also.
This president has pretty much locked in his policies and said that we isn't going to change course. So everything now shifts to '08, when we will be in the 3rd year of persistently high gas prices, perhaps $4-6 a gallon for gas. Assuming the Republicans have an ultra slim majority in both houses, they will have to start working with the Dems more closely.
It's not like they are really ignorant of the realities on the ground. And they will work with "environmentalists" when it suits them -- and the "environmentalists" in turn have shown a willingness to be co-opted.
Could you reduce your oil use by 1/2, 6 billion other folks in this world do or, about 11 out of 12. Not to mention all the electricity and NG we waste.
Concerning RR's post yesterday: I have commented on ethanol using the same numbers as RR, here at TOD before RR's first Comment at TOD. I am certainly happy he took up the subject of corn ethanol, because I found trying to explain the EROEI to some is like banging your head on a brick wall.
The US uses 9.6 million brls of gas/day and produces 300 thousand brls of ethanol/day or about 3% of the gas usage or 140 billion gallons of gas/year and 4.6 billion gallons of ethanol. 4.6 billion gal's of ethanol requires 1.7 billion bu's of corn or 17% of our current average annual corn crop. To achieve 10% gas replacement would require 58% of our current annual corn crop. Our current commercial production of cellular-ethanol is about zero and in 5 years may yet be zero. The production of corn ethanol is a boon-doogle and here is why. Dry corn or 10% moisture corn weighs 56 lbs/bu and a lbs of corn contains 7000 Btu's or 392,000 Btu's/bu high heat energy. A bu of corn can produce about 2.6 gallons of ethanol or 84K*2.6=218,000 Btu's. So by burning corn in a corn burner you can provide 174,000 more Btu's of energy to heat a home than the energy in 2.6 gallons of ethanol. That 174,000 Btu's is equal to the energy in 1.4 gallons of gas or diesel, so the 1.4 gallons of fuel oil saved could be used as transport diesel. Also the energy saved in the distribution and distillation process of ethanol is about equal to 30 % of the total energy in 2.6 gallons of ethanol. So that 65,000 Btu's of NG or coal saved could also be used to heat or produce electricity. So using a bushel of corn to produce ethanol wastes more energy than is contained in the ethanol. I also realize that Mead Nebr. is going to use cow dung to produce methane
for the distillation process, however that methane could be used for other purposes if no ethanol was being made.
Soy-bean diesel is also a boon-doogle. 1 bu of soybeans can produce about 1.8 gallons of soy oil and about 1.5 gallons of bio-diesel. Since soybeans are about $6.00/bu that is $4.00 dollars/gal before considering capital costs or process costs, before even considering EROEI.
I think we need to reframe our arguments in a more magical story form if we want them to be believed.
In other words, for those who do not truly understand "technology", the laws of thermodynamics, of physics, of chemistry and of other such specialized stuff; the world truly appears to work on "magic". Put the key in the car. Turn. It goes. Magic. Flip the computer on. Click on internet. It goes. Magic. Feel ill? Go to doctor. Swallow pill. All better. Magic. Feeling a loss of confidence? Flip the TV on. Click on talking heads. They say it's all good. Worries go away. Magic.
Here's a little to help with "magic", reality, quantum mechanics, consciousness:
http://www.ecauldron.com/quantummagick.php
http://www.mkzdk.org/quantummagick.html
...and the philosophers's stone:
http://www.mkzdk.org/philosopherstone.html
I think NeverLNG is on to something.
Look at the way Big Oil presents their "story" to the General Public (GP). They don't douse them with charts, graphs and equations. It's all about basic human emotions. A friendly face pops into view. "What's my carbon footprint? Ha Ha. What the heck is a carbon footprint?"
It gets your attention. It gets you thinking. It's the foot in the door.
Honestly, who throws a graph through the door?
If you think about it, most people make decisions based on largely emotional inputs (that's how they sell cars, deodorant, bottled water-- you name it) and only after the decision is final, do they (we, really -- I'm no different most of the time) use the rational faculty of the neo-cortex to JUSTIFY and RATIONALIZE the decision that has already been made from the gut.
I believe in rational thought -- but I am sure that for most people it amounts to just another belief system-- and that for most people, rational thinking and magical thinking are equivalent systems. You just take whatever works.
I am not sure how to do it, but I am working on a way to tell the story in a frame that appeals directly to the emotional side, gives options for correct choices, then allows for post-decision rationalization that will affirm and reinforce the correct decision.
We can't keep beating people over the head with "facts" -- successful salesmen never do this. And like it or not, we are selling an idea -- the idea that a better world is possible, and it is possible to get there by making better choices. And that the default position (continuing to accelerate against the wall) is simply chaos or endless predation.
I've been thinking a lot about what I believe is going to happen to our society, our way of life, and our species. I don't believe it can end well, and I don't believe it will take long. You may certainly feel differently.
What is your motivation to make everyone aware of these issues? Is it a desire to say to everyone "See, I told you this was going to happen?" Is it to allow others to prepare themselves for the changes ahead? Is it out of the belief that we can change course and save ourselves (preserve our way of life) if enough people get on board?
Is the motivation to advertise TOD rooted in the need for others to validate our beliefs, findings, and predictions so we can all feel like we're being reasonable in believing what we believe?
From my perspective, the belief that the today is as good as it can get has fundamentally changed my paradigm. I'm emotionally less invested in "someday" and firmly rooted in now.
I think before we spend energy on promoting TOD we should understand the goals of promoting TOD. Don't you think?
TAB
My purpose ?
To publicize the overlooked solutions from Electrified Rail. To get these "Silver BBs" as part of the policy mix of solutions.
I figured that there was a less than 5% chance that my individual efforts will actually result in a significant change in public policy. But the odds are lower if I do not try.
I am more or less stumbling around a slowly changing set of intresting overlapping issues and problems with peak oil absorbing more and more of the set and have this form of debate as one of my favorite ways of finding new insights and collect ideas and I happily mix that with proselyting. I am here since this seems to be the best public peak oil debate.
My agenda is to learn, have fun, spread ideas I find constructive, be usefull since I enjoy that, try to further things I am reasonably sure are constructive and try to tickle a small part of the world a little to see how it works. And be less lonely with these thoughts.
I have yet not found the right place to do usefull work, unfortunately I ponder issues more then search for work or more important people to work with or chew on any of these intresting problems.
And I got some doubts about the quality of my insights, that is probably good for bettering them but I am at a loss on how to realy check things. I mostly use a loose set of principles to sort things into reasonable and unreasonable. Peak oil affects one amazing large set of processes and stuff and the world is weird and very, very large.
It is a little scary to have overreaching thoughts about this stuff that seems too work reasonably well togeather. It fails my own test for what is reasonable...
I have absolutely no idea if my efforts will ammount to something and how likely that is.
Perhaps prominent train skeptics should be sent on sponsored train journeys across western Europe or Japan to see how it's done properly.
Last night in one of my classes a guy was bragging about how much he likes Chicago's "L." He was like it's so nice to just pay the small fee and sit back and relax while you get to where you need. I'm ready for rail too.
Bring a good book and a laptop, visit the bar/snack/observation car, talk with friends and other travelers.
From my perspective, any day riding Amtrak beats any day in the cube farm (guess where I am now).
Still, bike touring is my favorite way to travel, but the time is hard to find.
Well said.
Sales people know that the lizard brain makes the critical life/death and buy/don't-buy decisions.
As for TAB's question: Why bother advertising PO or TOD? My take on it is that I know I can't be self-suffcient. I cannot perform my own triple-bypass heart surgery on myself and I can't even make a pencil. So I need the rest of "them" (doctors, lawyers, pencil makers) to keep doing what they are doing best so that I can continue my semi-negotiable way of life.
In order for the rest of "them" (doctors, lawyers, pencil makers) to keep doing what they are doing best, they must be alerted to the PO problem (and yes, to the GW problem). We need to divert the main herd (the MSM herd) away from its madenning stampede towards the cliff. It is the only "rational" way to preserve our own semi-negotiable ways of life. --Well, at least that is what my lizard brain tells my neo-cortex and limbic brains. :-)
Yes :
I don't care what you're going to tell me intellectually. I don't care. Give me the reptilian. Why? Because the reptilian always wins.
But how do you sell powerdown to the lizard brain ?
We need to divert the main herd (the MSM herd) away from its madenning stampede towards the cliff.
What's your plan?
Emotionally sell against poor usage of energy and emotionally sell for good usage of energy. This is what they have done for smoking.
For example, I'm thinking of billboards on the highway that say in large letters:
(Emotionally Selling Away)
How many loved ones of yours were ripped away from you in a car accident?
More people died from cars in 2006 than the total amount that died from terrorism.
CARS: Are they worth it?
Invest in public transportation and keep your loved ones.
OR
Debt ripping your family apart?
Cars a big chunk? How much could you save if you dropped those cars?
CARS: Are they worth it?
Invest in public transportation.
etc. etc.
On the emotionally positive side to encourage good usage of energy:
Save money with Solar Energy. Because real men know how to keep it light.
I don't think I said we necessarily should advertise TOD. Only, that if we have a message to sell (and some people here seem to) that we should look toward successful sales people for guidance. And facts don't sell -- never have. Remember Tulipomania? You can sell anything with the right message -- for a while anyway.
On the other hand, I don't feel like I am in possession of a deep secret that I want to keep away from the MSM Herd so I can wind up surviving the next holocaust. I don't know what's going to happen, but since we as a species have overshot the carrying capacity of our environment, it can't be good. But keeping this secret won't help us. Maybe Cheney can in his bunker -- maybe he thinks he is the new Noah.
I'm interested in everything, personally. I prefer what I consider to be "facts" -- but sometimes that's pretty subjective. And I am interested in what makes people "believe" -- whether fact or fancy. Not that I can do anything with the information -- it's just interesting, and maybe it just passes the time.
Now that is funny:
... And it came to pass that the Higher Father spake onto Chey-Noah for He saw goodness in the right-sheetish man. "Bring thine daughter and her friend girl into the Bunker-Ark, two of everything. However, as for your sure-shot shotgun, leaveth that outside please, especially when the quail passeth by ..."
Our arguments need to be accessbile, but it's vital that we not sacrifice intellectual integrity. If we sacrafice intellectual integrity, then civilization is surely doomed as we compete with other, probably more skillful, witch doctors.
John P. Kotter (Harvard Business School) and Dan S. Cohen, in The Heart of Change: Real Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations Harvard Business School Press (2002) writes, "People change what they do less becasue they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings .
In watching the growing understanding of Global Warming over the last year, I think it was less because of Al Gore's excellent movie, An Inconvenient Truth , than because of last year's hurricane season, especially Katrina and Rita. I think Katrina was the tipping point, when we shifted in a few months from perhaps 2% of the population concerned about Global Warming to 60%.
I don't know the action that will create consciousness of Peak Oil. I surely don't want to hope for a "small" disaster that will lead the world to prevent the impending big disaster. Maybe a vivid picture of a winter without heating oil after a bloody attack on Iran and concomintant destruction of shipping from the Mideast. Or an unusually hot summer with frequent blackouts limiting air conditioning. Less compelling, I think. We can expect very savage attacks as (if?) we grow more effective.