DrumBeat: August 31, 2006

[Update by Leanan on 08/31/06 at 9:17 AM EDT]

Peak Oil Forecasters Win Converts on Wall Street to $200 Crude

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- On a sweltering Tuesday in mid-July, in the fields outside Pisa, Italy, Willem Kadijk scribbles notes as a ragtag troupe of doomsayers predict the end of the Oil Age.

With his shaved head, jeans and sandals, Kadijk, 48, blends into a crowd gathered under a white tent to hear of the coming calamity. The death of cheap, abundant crude, the forecasters warn, might unleash war and plunge the world into a second Great Depression.

That's not the prophecy of some apocalyptic cult. Kadijk, a hedge fund adviser, had flown from Amsterdam to attend a conference on a geologic theory known as peak oil.

Will the End of Oil Be the End Of Food?

American agriculture is fatally dependent on oil. A few forward-thinking farmers are trying to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.


PODCAST: The Nuclear Option. Popular Mechanics on the pros and cons of going nuclear.


Tom Whipple on The Peak Oil Crisis: Labor Day 2006.


BP may resume pipeline production soon


Chad oil tax row 'not asset grab'


Western auto execs woo newly rich Russians

Booming economy fuels Muscovites’ taste for conspicuous consumption


Analysts: Venezuela move hurts profits


Cash-strapped Cambodia eyes black gold

US oil giant Chevron is poised to prove Cambodia is sitting on oil reserves worth $1 billion annually.


Absence of an ill wind blows some good

GLOBAL warming's failure so far to produce a repeat of last year's serial hurricane assault and battery of the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico is the swing factor in the suddenly soft price of oil.


Public has to make solid energy choices, Lugar says

U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar acknowledges that production represents only half of the energy crisis equation.

"We want our SUVs despite all the talk about the mileage isn't so great," the Indiana Republican said during an energy summit he co-sponsored with Purdue University Tuesday.


[Update by Leanan on 08/31/06 at 10:00 AM EDT]

Nigeria: Kerosene Scarcity - What the People Say


Ghanaians told to save power


Pakistan’s oil demand to double in 10 years


China nomads on energy's cutting edge. Well, I guess this explains the silicon shortage:

One day last year, Sitkan and her husband were called to a meeting where 100 villagers waiting for a transmission line learned of an alternative to burning coal. After government subsidies, 500 yuan - a tenth of what Sitkan makes each year selling sheep's wool and meat - buys a photovoltaic solar unit that would provide enough electricity to power a small heater, a radio, a television, or a couple of light bulbs.

"Nearly everybody bought one," says Sitkan, a seminomadic shepherd who treks a well-traveled route each year with her family, 200 sheep, and a few cows.


BBC Radio 4 series - Driven By Oil. A four-part series about peak oil, starting Monday at 9am (UK time).

Can we suppose that TPTB are not worried about our present oil production plateau because they know that the imminent collapse of the housing bubble will suppress US and other OECD demand for several years?
Tocchigi, The Powers That Be are just as clueless as the average joe in the street. They are basically just a bunch of dumb-asses like the rest of the populace.

Why would anyone think that those elected by an unimformed populace be any smarter or more informed than those who elected him or her.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- H.L. Mencken

Ron Patterson

And that day is today.  Talk about prescience!!!  
love that quote
What makes you think that TPTB are those that are elected to the government?
Precisely. I am always amazed when people honestly believe that those clowns we see on TV are the same that are calling the shots.
What amazes me is all that stupid crap the conspiracy theory nitwits actually believe.
what?
like peak oil?
conspiracy theory nitwits? are my wits nits? or is your brain on the shits?
I enjoy your posts on oil, I don't enjoy anyones post on conspiracy theories here on tod. It's not the right place. Just keep in mind you post ( a lot) on a site that's considered by most to be on the fringe. in the eyes of most you are a conspiracy theory nitwit. I don't think you are but I do think you should pull back and try for some new perspective.
I'm with Darwinian. The recent Bloomberg article and other mainstream press coverage is more proof that peak oil is not a conspiracy theory.

The fact that posters do think it is appropriate to toss any wild paranoid plot into any thread sure does make it look like one though.

Peak oil is still extremely sketchy. Obviously I am one of the real ____ of the this "movement." I'd be the first to tell you that it hardly exists.

It is so small it doesn't exist. (yes, we have ours sects)

Through August 2006 - What Are Our Accomplishments!?

It's less sketchy than "Bush blew up the World Trade Center" or "The Council on Foriegn Relations is putting flouride in your water" (Sorry AC, I'm not sure if I got that one right).
The point is - We are extremely not sketchy. No, my friend?

I think Jack and myself have settled ourselves on being extremely settled.

We duggs ourselves a pitt and we're gonna defend it. I got the  big money on that. what's the big money on that? We ain't stupid. You can fly, butcha can't eat it!

"Sorry AC, I'm not sure if I got that one right"

You didn't on both accounts but that just highlights your ignorance on the subject.  Bush couldn't blow up anything.  His job is to cover-up who actually did it...

==AC

Dude.I justed jumped over the fence. My only friend is in ...If it was Spec OPs... We had our nation's calling-we did not fail them -  or my boy Jack. Jack's the only one I ever stick around to see if he's still alive. Yeah, well shut the fuck up, obviously Jack win's on this. ObvioislybJack's the real fucking I don't know what you cal it. Jack's obvviously got connextions. He's the only one I care about. He's the only one that matters. Yeah well...I did that OK. Jamie's OK. Hehheh. Fuck this. I'm gonna connect with Jack.
Unfortunately I can have this effect on people.  I apologize for CEO's licentious behavior...

==AC

"that just highlights your ignorance on the subject"

I know, I know. I lost my decoder ring a few months ago and I can't follow any of the good plots any more.

Please fill me in on the Council of Foriegn Relations one again. Just this once. My curiousity is killing me.

"I know, I know. I lost my decoder ring a few months ago and I can't follow any of the good plots any more."

Buy a couple dozen boxes of Cracker Jacks and you'll find one inside.  I've got three of them now so I know at least three times more than you.

I'm not going to tell you about the CFR if you lost your "ring".  What's the point you couldn't decipher what I was saying anyway...

==AC

I apologize for CEO's licentious behavior...

Whhat? Whaaaaa? Huh...Wha.Whaat? What are you fucking insane? Did I just hear that? Hello?

What else are you going to apologize for? Pol Pot? Boy George? You are a fucking nutcake. Don't ever try to apologize for my behavior again. I own my behavior. Not you. Control yourself.

Or as we say on TOD...Cheers.

You are ranting at the wrong person. I am not a consipracy theorist, I just think that these guys (be it neocons, dems, reps whatever) are following the agenda of the circles that put them in those places - in general these are de facto huge corporations, represented by their lobbying groups in the Congress etc. It is de facto an institutionalised corruption on a grand scale, and in this country it is even 99% legalised.

That's what I mean that "they are not calling the shots". Bush and co, are nothing but representatives of these groups. As such they act as errand boys, but mostly as PR. As such their ability to follow an agenda of their own is very limited. It is akin to telling your employer that from now on you will do whatever you want to, instead of whatever is wanted from you and still wait for your next paycheck...

Let me suggest that there are a number of possible mechanisms by which the system that we see could come into being:
  1. Conspiracy in its most severe form (a Star Chamber),
  2. Conspiracy by covert understandings (wink of an eye and nod of the head, rather than a "plan" expressly made by the all powerful leaders of a Star Chamber Council),
  3. Random behavior (as in Fooled by the Randomness),
  4. Consequential outcomes of a Hierarchical "Education" System where "elites" are taught to think under one paradigm (the Harvard / Yale paradigm), where middle managers are "educated" into thinking under a second world view (the MIT / Cal Tech view of world systems) and where the "lower working class" is managed by being brain washed into seeing the world in yet a third way (the community college --be a dental technician, trust your superiors paradigm).

Obviously, I'm going to vote for number 4 because I put so much energy into wording it.

Is there not a possibility, --a 1% possibility?-- that GW Bush and Dick Cheney (and their neocon inner circle) actually are formulating US policy all by themselves because of the way they were "grewed up" by their parents? Is it not remotely possible that GW Bush truly beleives he is a superior being cause his "Daddy" taught him that special people don't go to Vietnam but instead "serve" by boozing it up in the National Guard? That the lesser persons are the ones that make "the ultimate sacrifice"? And if you were a young GW Bush, why would that world view not be an appealing one? Hell, it sure beats the alternatives.

Is it not remotely possible that the minions of the elite; your Yergins and your Cato Institute pundits for example, actually believe the nonsense they spout out because they were "educated" to think that way? They are not knowingly evil? They actually believe in that which they blather out?

Is not remotely possible that Peak Oil believers actually believe the nonsense they spout out because they were "educated" in physics, chemistry and scientific thought patterns? Or is it that Peak Oilers are part of a vast looney conspiracy?

Well how about it? Do you feel YOU are part of some vast conspiracy? Do you?

And if not, why should "they"?

Just think about it.
No need to rush to judgment.

Well I don't think your argument contradicts mine, it just complements it. Bush, Cheney and their circles are not some random guys, hired to do the job - they were chosen because they come from the same ideological den as those that supported them. In this respect they are part of TPTB, what I am just arguing is that their real power is much less than what is percieved and for that matter what it should be. You know for example that the plans to invade Iraq are dating long before not only 9/11 but before GWB even came to power. How does this speak for our democracy?

Actually the propagated idea that those frontmen and women are the de facto the people in charge is a key part of the brainwashing machine and that's why I am resisting it so much. If things go really bad, Bush and his crew will be changed with some others, the public will finally get its scapegoat, while in the end nothing fundamentally will be changed.

LOL.  Ron is a true believer.  He actually believes we live in a "Democracy" and those empty suits on the tele screen have "power".  He is told old to change his mind.  His brain is now "hard wired" to be ignorant...

==AC

"The whole drift of our law is toward the absolute prohibition of all ideas that diverge in the slightest form from the accepted platitudes, and behind that drift of law there is a far more potent force of growing custom, and under that custom there is a natural philosophy which erects conformity into the noblest of virtues and the free functioning of personality into a capital crime against society."
~ H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist, Linguist, Lexicographer, and Critic Source: quoted in New York Times Magazine, 9 August 1964
Yes, yes, I am a fan of Mencken too but you are still too much paranoid.

It does NOT take a conspiracy to create all the nasty deeds we can witness or strongly suspect.
Just bunchs of individuals and groups with base motivations which act in loose tacit coordination while still competing between themselves can give the illusion of a SINGLE goal seeking "evil entity".
This is our "monkey brain" penchant for identifying agency behind seemingly purposeful events.
It is much easier to think about a single anthropomorphic "will" than to ponder the effects of interacting trends in a more intricate model but this introduce severe PARANOID distortions in the outcomes.

Actually this "distributed evil" is MUCH WORSE than a conspiracy because it cannot be rooted out.

Just bunchs of individuals and groups with base motivations which act in loose tacit coordination while still competing between themselves can give the illusion of a SINGLE goal seeking "evil entity".


Maybe there is a little more to it than "just a bunch of individuals".
Suppose you were a Professor of Economics at Yale. (Well maybe not this guy on the right because at least he admits that GW may be responsible for larger hurricanes although he leans against that notion. Click on his picture to read his pdf paper.)

And you are getting a pretty nice paycheck because after all it is "Yale" and most of the people who go to your school can afford to go there without worrying about the "price" of admission.

So what are you going to preach to them? You're going to preach what you think they want to hear (or more to the point what their Mumsy & Old Man want them to hear). They are happy with the Darwinian, Survival of the Economic Superiors Theory that you dish out to them and you are happy with the paycheck and perks. A very cozy relation. Year after year.

Then there are the few wanna-be-rich and talented Mr. Ripley's in your class. They are smart. They will never be super rich. Wrong blood you know. But they will grow up to be the Yergins and Cato Institute wizards of society. They will be the minions to the elites. They will soak up what you preach and dish it back to the elites later on in order to re-validate that which they learned at alma matta. Again, that is going to be a very cozy relation for all involved.

Next, you step down the rungs of society and look at some slob of an engineering professor at MIT. Who are his students and what is he going to teach them --assuming he wants tenure and his cozy niche in society?

So you see that there is a built-in compact in our eductional "institutions". It perpetuates the system. It's not "just" a bunch of accidentally random individuals. It's got history. It's got roots. It is a living and self-perpetuating bio system.

WOW BLOOMBERG has announced Peak Oil to the masses of businesses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arur.i7moHMs&refer=exclusive

As energy prices soar and violence convulses the Middle East, the peak-oil movement -- an unlikely alliance of geologists, physicists, oil industry consultants and environmental activists -- is winning converts. Peak-oil ideas are bubbling up from scientific journals and offbeat Web sites, much the way warnings of global warming did a decade ago. For the first time, the peaksters have begun to grab the attention of Washington and Wall Street.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog, is due to release a study on peak oil this November. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican, has formed the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus to sound the alarm.

``The world has never faced a problem like this,'' Bartlett says.

More and more, however, the peaksters are drowning out everyone else, Cranberg says. ``You can't turn around without seeing or hearing these ideas,'' he says. ``I think they are gaining.''

Jim Kunstler, a writer-activist who lives in Saratoga Springs, New York, says peak oil will ultimately destroy suburbia and plunge the U.S. into a violent dark age of feudalism.

``The question is, Can we run our shit the way we are running our shit?'' Kunstler, 57, says.

By 2020, Canada's oil sands will yield 4 million barrels a day, almost four times what they do now, according to CAPP. That sounds like a lot until you realize that 4 million barrels is just over a third of what Saudi Arabia produced per day in 2005.

``Geology will trump technology,'' he says.

You gotta love Kunstler.  This has to be one of the most mainstream looks at what peak oil entails.  I'm glad they pointed out the fallacy in believing the tar sands will save us.

The Bloomberg article also mentions LATOC and dieoff.com.  Perhaps it will make more than a few converts...  

Any predictions on oil prices today?

  My best guess is that oil prices will be level or slightly down because the commodity traders are closing out their contracts and the Republicans are trying to keep prices lower before the November elections. But my other best guess is that oil prices will average around $85-$90 next year and spike to around $100 a barrel.
How can the Republicans keep down prices?  I know they have the power, but really, can they control the market?  If so, why didn't they start controlling the market, say, a year ago.
  They can control prices short term by issuing statements about how we are winning the war in Iraq and by faking new discoveries with giant reserves,touting the bitumen potential or releasing more oil from the strategic reserve. Yes, they've done all of this before,and it only works short term, but they are counting on the short-sided vote. Their time line (and that of all politicians) runs no further than the next election cycle and they will do anything to retain power
They close their eyes really tight, concentrate their will, and as a large group they say "wewewebzzzewwwwonnnngaledaang" and POOF!  Down go oil prices.

Well, something is causing gas prices to drop, so this might be it. The price per gallon in local stations has dropped as much as $.18 in the last month, or so.

This is what makes it so difficult to explain the seriousness of the situation to non-Peak Oil aware people. They look around, see lower gas prices, and assume that everything will eventually be ok and the happy free-motoring lifestyle that we all know and love will continue in perpetuity.

<quiet voice>Thats what they want.</quiet voice>
How can the Republicans keep down prices?

They don't have to do anything. The Invisible Hand can knock down prices all on its own with mere expectorations (err... expectations) regarding demand destruction.

"Price" is a human-generated noise signal. It need not have anything to do with physical reality. It is all about how we humans fool ourselves into believing one thing or another. And fools we certainly are.

Demand destruction is happening. My real estate type customers are not able to pay their bills. Look for super discounts on thorobreds and Arabians. All the junk of the nouveau riche at flea market prices.
Hey... that's an incentive to stay solvent.

Garage sales in the rich quarters.
Opportunity to live above my station at fleamarket prices...

Already happening for months.  I bought a (peak oil ready) luxury mechanical watch on Ebay for 20% of the new price.  I have also purchased top end designer precious metal jewelry for the scrap metal value.  The depression and liquidation of assets is well underway.
After posting the above I went to the thrift shop where I can count on finding handmade suits(Oxxford, Belvest etc.) for $100, never-worn handmade suits for $200 or so. Lots and lots of handmades on the rack. The owner tells me he is now only accepting new inventory if handmade or fast mover like Armani or Brioni. Grabbed a never final fitted dupioni silk for $75.
The main junk of the nouveau rich going on sale will be mcmansions and who would want them?
There are already indications like this..... stores like Crate & Barrel and Williams-Sonoma are seeing decreased sales, the nouveau riche are starting to go to K-Mart instead. Restaurants like Chilis and Outback Steakhouse, trust me, more often than not favored by the McMansion crowd, are likewise sagging. I'm sure the "horse people" like groomers, breeders etc if any read this could tell us some good penny-pinching stories.
Oh, they probably can be useful. Insulate the central room and install a wood stove, and use the extra rooms to store firewood. If they have a lawn, grow some potatoes! ;-)

Btw, early blight turned my potato field into a wasteland... lucky for us that we chose a resistant variety, so the nodules are mostly OK.

Warmbloods are still fine right?  I mean those guy's got the money.
Love your reply. I have been saying this for a while. When I was approached by a friend who quoted S. Forbes statement about oil being priced at $35-$40 per barrel by Aug 31, 2006 I told him that he would see $80 oil before he saw $40 oil and still think that will happen.
Hah, it also presented them in the light they deserve. Big media can't contribute to the appreciation of the peak oil phenomenon unless they draw a line between the legitimate concerns and the doomsday prophecies with their EarthMarines(tm) and their Olduvai Cliff(tm) and whatnot.
Actually this article is the best sumary on the subject we had in months.

They state every position and opisition known in the debate.  They come up with all the names that are something in the debate and state many of the effects.

They go on saying in which different organisation they are adressing the PO.

They only missed the Portland and San Francisco move.  But otherwise, it is an excellent article.

I've been forwarding it to everyone I know.  I too, thought the article is balanced and presented an even view of both sides.  It was obviously slanted to PO, but I think it needs to be since after all it's coming.  

I want to hear the response I get from friends, etc.

It was a nice find.  Thanks!
Will the Wall Street Journal follow suite?

And is the esteemed NY Times next in line to chime on our PO times?

PO saturated minds want to know.
We bait with our breathes. :-)

I was going to post similar praise. Very balanced, comprehensive, fair, and specific where it needs to be. Everyone in the USA needs to look at that Bloomberg article.
...uh except that might cause a panic crash
It's going to happen regardless, so if it's now, so be it.  We need a drastic change in the direction of the country.
Perhaps the best in a mainstream in a while.  The problem is that these lay out the argument, this guy says this and that guy says that, and then there is no followup.  

Not all names are there, for example Robert Hersch.  I don't agree with Hersch so much on his approach to mitigation (I'm more of a Kunstlerian) but I think Hersch brings a useful perspective in terms of viewing it as a risk mitigation problem.  All this bickering over a date of the pick obscures the issue of what are the detrimental outcomes?  The severity of the outcomes should determine for policy makers what level of effort should be placed on mitigation now.  Unfortunately, the other dynamic is all this misplaced, blind faith in corn or switchgrass fuel.  

Hirsch is mentioned.  If you spell his name right.  ;-)

Agree that this is one of the best peak oil articles I've come across in awhile.  

The Cosmos one was very good, too, but Bloomberg probably has more cred, at least in the U.S.

Doh!  My article skimming powers let me down.  Thanks for pointing that out!  
While it's not totally bad that Bloomberg devotes space to Peak Oil, it's weird to see how you can write so many words on the subject and still completely leave out the potential consequences of the peak. The only thing really there is that prices may rise. And in mentioning dieoff.com, that it says millions may die.

But that is buried in the overlying message that while there might be a peak sometime in the future, the reader should not listen to peaksters, or doomers, as they are apparently not very nice people to be around, or something like that.

The best thing to do is be with Pickens and grab the opportunity. And that is a strange idea to take home: that the negatives are outweighed by the positives, and you therefore don't have to look too close at the nagatives. Everything is fine, as long as you can make money off it.

The strength of this article is that it is factual. Anyone reading it will not be turned off by doom. No one will read an article that shrieks about death and global war. Everyone here, I would wager, has come to those conclusions by following the dots themselves, after being presented with the facts and theories. And that is how new converts will be awakened.
Bingo!

If you scare people spitless, they'll assume you're not just wrong, but a wrong nutcase, and they'll ignore anything you tell them, even when you're merely covering solid facts (like the history of world oil consumption).

You have to teach them in stages.  Get them familiar with the facts, then give them time to internalize it (and be prepared to answer a lot of questions), and if they're still with you, start talking about consequences.

Yep! Here in this enlightened blue state, (california, san francisco bay area) I have to be very very gentle when I try to bring up Peak OIl. I generally just leave it at "the amount of oil in the earth is not unlimited" and even that is only swallowed about half the time since it seems tons of people believe in abiotic oil here, takes the shame out of driving an SUV I guess.
since it seems tons of people believe in abiotic oil here,

I have to laugh about this cause an argument over abiotic oil was one of the factors that led me to checking into Peak Oil.

I was watching the news one night when abiotic oil was brought up as a "solution" to running out of oil.  At the time of this newscast I was not worried about immediate PO but I did think the whole notion just seemed a bit far fetched, given that there were examples of oil fields that are depleted for all practical purposes.

Throught that newscast, some conversations with friends and then later information I researched, I found about Peak Oil.  It also has finally led me to a strategy on how to handle abiotic proponents.

Framed somewhat like this:

Ask the proponent to prove abiotic oil is real.

After they can/can't, hypothetically cede the argument that abiotic oil MIGHT be possible and immediately follow it up with a question on "at what rate does abiotic oil replenish our reserves in relation to how quickly we consume oil?".  

If the answer is anything less than the current rate at which we consume oil then the system will eventually break itself.  A constant increase in growth will lead to a break sooner, and the slower the rate of replenishment the sooner a break will occur also.  A combination of both factors just speeds things up even more.

You could also ask why abiotic oil has not allowed the US to return to it former highs of oil production from earlier decades.

It's essentially like bailing water out of a ship in which you can move one gallon of water out for every two gallons coming in, only abiotic oil hypothesis works in reverse.

  It's terrible, but the best personal response to Peak O IM oil is to get rich, IMHO. I'm investing in stripper oil production by reentering wells in "depleted" oil fields hoping for a 10%-20% increase in the total production from the leases in the next few years.
The "green" and "community" wings of the po community don't want to admit it because doing so will pretty much deep six their respective agendas (ones I'm sympathetic too) but you're completely correct: money is going to be the most important thing, at least in the short to medium run. See Hurricane Katrina.

Long term, all bets are off of course.

Like I said at the NY conference: I"m one of the more prominent people in the "movement" and I can't afford to go to any of the conferences. That should you tell you something.

(Not that I can plead poverty but I can't see dropping $750-$1,500 plus lost opportunity costs for any 2 day conference unless I'm making over $100,000 with no other pre-existing financial obligations and the conference is going to have lots of young women.)

Famine rarely occurs for lack of food, but for lack of CHEAP food.  It's when most people can no longer afford the necessities of life that things break down.  When you can't afford food for your family, some people quietly starve; others riot.

Money has value only because we all agree that it has value, and that agreement is balanced on the fact that the expected value is positive--there's more benefit going around than detriment, even if the benefit is disproportionately allocated.  But when prices go up and hunger becomes commonplace, historically what we've seen over and over again is that people abandon money because it no longer works for them.

So, I guess I'm failing to see how money will be good for anything but kindling once Peak Oil really begins to take its toll....

Famine rarely occurs for lack of food, but for lack of CHEAP food

Exactly. It's more like lack of demand (insufficient money). One solution would be a global basic income (say, $3.50/day/adult?).

Hm, but there's the "we feed, they breed" problem, better lace that food with oral contreceptives......
<Goldmember Voice> GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!</Goldmember Voice>
lmao!!!
There is money and there is "money".  One is paper and the other is wealth in tangible assets.  Paper money can inflate and be worthless but the things you can touch and need will always have value.  If Peak Oil is true then tangible assets will have positive expected value.
Well let's say I want to move to Willits which is 1.5 hours driving distance from my current location. At the very least I'm going to need $15 for bus fare.

If I want to buy a home there, we're talking another $350,000.

Solar PV system: $20,000

Small cache of food and essential supplies: $5,000

Used bike to ride over to Jason Bradford's house: $50.

I could go on but I hope you see the point.  A person with no money can't really do much to prepare. Not saying they can't do anything, just saying not much.

1.5 HOURS FROM WILLETS EH?

Now Blackwater know where you live...

And if they are not sure, they can carpet bomb, until they are sure.

PAX AMERICANA

I dunno... I might settle for just one out of two...
It's terrible, but the best personal response to Peak O IM oil is to get rich, IMHO.

It's not really terrible, because in most cases the actions that will get you rich will also help society. Investing in technology to resurrect old oil fields is going to be very important in cushioning the peak. Likewise with other investments in alternative energy. Even simply buying oil futures helps by driving up the price of oil, thereby both encouraging conservation and also making alternatives more profitable.

The down side is you could be wrong, everyone here could be wrong, Peak Oil may not happen in the manner or time frame you envision, and your clever investments may be wiped out. That's called risk. You take the risk of being wrong, and you get the reward if you're right. It's how business works.

in most cases the actions that will get you rich will also help society.

Like Ethanol?

Ethanol from what crop distilled with heat from where?
Its not so simple as all ethanol being bad.
Re: "in most cases the actions that will get you rich will also help society":

Is that also true of defense contractors and the like getting rich off of death and carnage in the Middle East?  Or of the whole slew of well-known corporate fraudsters in recent years?  Or of those making a killing for virtually nothing via Katrina contracts?  Etc., etc., etc.

There is ample empirical evidence to disprove your free-market-capitalist a priori regarding the benefits to broader society of individuals getting rich.

in most cases the actions that will get you rich will also help society.

In my best Michael Douglas voice: "GREED IS GOOD!"

"It's not really terrible, because in most cases the actions that will get you rich will also help society. "

yeah, like investing in Halliburton.

Most doesn't mean all.
Hello OilManBob,

Sadly, with the current infinite growth paradigm, this 'getting rich' is true.  I think Americans will be shocked going forward in time at how fast future wealth will rapidly consolidate into ever fewer elites.

TPTB are moving strongly ahead in preparing their required Earthmarines.  Blackwater Security and Heckler & Koch recently announced a joint venture in comprehensive tactical training on Blackwater's 6,000 acre private military base.  Don't forget: the first on the ground in Nawlins was privately hired armed men fully deputized to use lethal force.

There are internet rumors of US military Special Ops ready to go on a moments notice to protect PEMEX's infrastructure if conflict comes to a head in Mexico, but I think Pemex is more likely to hire Blackwater so that this info 'will fly below the MSM radar'.   Blackwater has recently created another subsidiary that specializes in security of maritime infrastructure like shipping, ports, and offshore oil platforms.

The privatization of everything will continue its relentless course.  Recall my posting from yesterday's threadbeat where the Red Cross is joining with Walmart [thxs AMPOD]: if you cannot afford res$$cue in your desperate time of need--Thank you for contacting the American Red Cross.  We regret that we are unable to assist you.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Where are the websites following Blackwater?  I remember reading about the deputized hells on wheels.  They were making some serious cash.  They got a hundred dollar per diem just to cover their daily costs of food etc.
Hello Tate423,

Thxs for responding.  Yes, they made big bucks and their mission objective was to prevent the looting of the mansions and the businesses of the rich that hired them, NOT going to the aid of the helpless.  Such is life.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

What websites are following blackwater?
Hello Tate423,

I am not aware of any websites that consistently report the actions of private militias.  Hell, even our Govt auditors cannot keep track of the billions being shoveled to these estimated hundreds of for-profit businesses.  Please read this Aug 28th, '06 article entitled, "Mercenary Jackpot":
--------------------
While the WPPS program and the broader use of private security contractors is not new, it has escalated dramatically under the Bush Administration. According to the most recent Government Accountability Office report, some 48,000 private soldiers, working for 181 private military firms, are deployed in Iraq alone.
-------------------------

What I do is use various search engines and keywords like mercenary, private security, special ops, covert action, ....on and on.  The MSM has a vested interest in not headlining their operations.  WTSHTF: Rupert Murdoch, the Hearst family, Bill O'Reilly, et al, will be hiring these men to protect their survival farms and yacht-lifeboats.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

LATOC

I thought about even having a special sub section on the daily news, "Halliburton and Blackwater"

Why don't you? What's holding you back?
What was the point here? Obviously I know who Blackwater is and you know I know. So I will ask you again...
Write us up a piece. Just a little teaser. 500 words or so. What the hell. We deserve it. You could call it something like "Savinar on Blackwater." I'd be looking at the New Yorker or The Atlantic. Maybe even The New Republic. These are places talented young writers get published. Personally I am still partial to the Nation and even Rolling Stone.
"There are internet rumors of US military Special Ops ready to go on a moments notice to protect PEMEX's infrastructure if conflict comes to a head in Mexico"

Are you referring to the rumors you are ethusiastically spreading? Or are there others? Failure to link to a single website may provide the answer.

I ignore any statement preceded by "there are rumors that", "I read somewhere", or "analysts say".

Hello Jack,

Thxs for responding.  Try this link:

http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman300806.htm

The pertinent info is about 3/4 of the way down in this article.

The verbatim quote can be found in this earlier posting of mine:

http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/8/30/91153/3012/154#154

Just reporting what I find by googling around--many of my postings have a disclaimer whereby I state that I have no way to actually verify the info.  But obviously, any websurfer knows that.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

So, some guy on some blog with no listed qualifications related to Mexico, energy or the military says that:

"it's been rumored that a contingent of US Special Forces has been sent to help the Mexican military guard the country's oil fields in case of trouble."

I far prefer Angry Chimp's conspiracy theories. At least they have sone vague underlying believability beyond a circular link of unspecified rumors from unnamed sources.

C'mon Bob. You can do better than this. I at least think you are smarter than yeast.

Here's the authors bio:

I was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. Raised in a modest middle class family, attended public schools, received a BA from Harvard University in 1956 and an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of PA in 1960 following 2 years of obligatory military service in the US Army. Spent the next 6 years as a marketing research analyst for several large US corporations before becoming part of a new small family business in 1967, remaining there until retiring at the end of 1999.

"I far prefer Angry Chimp's conspiracy theories. At least they have sone vague underlying believability beyond a circular link of unspecified rumors from unnamed sources."

Thanks Jack?  "Complements" are far and few between, even if they are half hearted.  I'm used to savage attacks for departing from cherished beliefs...

"Human beings never think for themselves; they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told--and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity, and the characteristic result is religious warfare. Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their 'beliefs.' The reason is that beliefs guide behavior, which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion."
~Michael Crichton, "The Lost World"

==AC

Good quote despite the unlikely source.

Believing what you are told, or what you hear, plays a big role in both reflexive acceptance or reflexive dismissal of theories that conflict with prior beliefs.  

I think we should be equally rigorous in viewing evidence that supports our positions as those that question it. I personally think that posting the accusation that US special forces might be taking over Pemex based on a very loose linkage that ends up with the unattached rumor does conspiracy theories a huge disserve. In this regard you should be more upset than I am.

I do think it is true that many people, including myself, find some topics initially uncomfortable and react with instinctive dismissal. On the other hand, this example shows that others embrace these and are willing to accept any nutty theory just because someone might have said that someone else might have said it.

I know that some things that we initially think are preposterous, later become obvious. At that point, we probably deny that we ever denied them. The life of a conspiracy theorist must be quite frustrating. Peak oil is a good example - out of the nutcase and into Bloomberg, but do peak oilers get credit or mockery?

I only have this observation right now, no conclusion. I look forward to arguing with you over the next huge crime the TPTB must be conspiring to perpetrate on all of us sheeple. I'll also keep an open, if sceptical, mind. You never know, focus on evidence and not just motive (or lack of proof to the contrary), and I just might believe you one of these days.

"You never know, focus on evidence and not just motive (or lack of proof to the contrary), and I just might believe you one of these days."

I always try to focus on "evidence".  What have we debated?  Pearl Harbor? 9/11? Fluoride? The problem is what one considers evidence or facts.  Almost no one can make judgment on such things without some preconditioned prejudice.  For example if I were to say that finding a passport of one of the hijackers onboard the planes on 9/11 is a plant and proof of a cover up you might say there is 1 in a billion chance the passport could of made it out if the hijackers pocket.  How can I refute that?

The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html

New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said Sunday a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was discovered a few days ago several blocks from the crash site by a passerby. Based on the new evidence, the FBI and police decided to widen the search area beyond the immediate crash site.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html

There is always a way out of an uncomfortable truth..

To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats- we know it not.
~Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

==AC

How did the Council for Foriegn relations bevome central to various conspiracies?

This isn't related to anything specific, but recently I noticed they were popping up a lot and couldn't make the connection.

AC, as you know I'm one of your biggest fans. I'm dissappointed to see Jack has taken a liking to you recently. That is a sure sign you won't survive.

I've got a book for you. The Looming Tower.

I of course have the most difficult path to tread. These bastards will never make it easy for me. I can never be sure if they are on my side and just testing me, or Al-Queda. I never drink, but were I ever to get drunk, I would wish it to happen with Jack and El Chimpster. And may we have mucho Tequila available. and cases of Negro Modelo.
Hello Jack,

Thxs for responding again.  I make no claims to being an ace investigative reporter--as mentioned before, just reporting what I find on the WWWeb [anybody can do it, but somehow: Leanan does it best  =) ]--take out of it what you wish.

I gladly defer to the up and coming TODers of AlanfromBigEasy, AMPOD, TLS, AC, RR, SS, Westexas, Khebab, Leanan, Dave, Todd, et al [too many experts, IMO, to mention].  They have much more expertise, knowledge, and pure writing ability than me.  I think most TODers will agree with me: we are getting a formidable 'critical mass' of talent here on TOD across a huge spectrum of careers, disciplines, and interests.

I am very proud of those TODers that have achieved national media recognition like RR & others.  Go Team TOD!

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

I echo your sentiments. However despite your claims, on sheer volume terms, you must be near the top.

I don't don't mean to pick on you, but I have really thought the Mexico stuff you have been posting has been huge tracts of irrelevant nonsense, unlike the TODers you note above.

It seems that there was an election in country with a tradition of relatively free elections. One party lost by a close margin and threw a hissy fit. They have garnered little public support outside of the radical element that they are tightly allied with. Then last week the election panel voted unanimously that there wasn't fraud. Yet you have posted on this just about every day at page length. The Pemex rumor is utterly ungrounded supposition by one old guy who doesn't provide any clue as to where he might have heard this rumor or why we should believe anything he has to say about Mexico. Has any of this contributed to our discussion of peak oil?

Again, apologies. I just wanted to get this off my chest.

I don't know how you do this, I really don't. I've been spending the last few days reading about how the original Al-Queda survived in Egyptian torture cells. I got a book or two for Angry-Chimp.

As for you guys. I have a deep respect for Bob Shaw. He has always remained the ultimate host. I'm convinced he has perfected the ultimate defensive position.

As for the Chimpster. I'm pretty sure the only way we can defeat him is with a concerted, concentrated full-on assault. The reality is we probably want him on our side. He probably tells the best jokes.

C'mon chimpster, you got as much to gain from us as us from you. Let's cut a deal. Plus, you ain't never gonna win this conspiracy thing. Not with me over here. You know that. Now let's start moving towards the center. Rock on.

"I don't know how you do this, I really don't. I've been spending the last few days reading about how the original Al-Queda survived in Egyptian torture cells. I got a book or two for Angry-Chimp."

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html

Ya ya the "original Al-Queda".  

==AC

Hello Jack,

No apology required, just expand or refute my info with your best info--that is what this forum is about.

I believe Mexico's nearly 2 million barrels/day of exports to the US should make us vitally concerned that the election standoff is peacefully resolved.  I would argue that a prosperous Mexico and their continuing oil exports are more vital to our national security than Nigerian, Venezuelan, or even ME exports to our shores.

Your quote: "It seems that there was an election in country with a tradition of relatively free elections."

Sorry, I respectfully strongly disagree.  Feel free to study Mexican history and one party ruling for 70 years.  Revolutions, assassinations, election frauds, a computer crash in 1988--it has been tragically ugly for the Mexicans.

In my past postings: I tried to use a broad variety of sources, from BBC, to mexican websites like UNAM Physicist Luis Mochan's statistical vote analysis, Mexidata.com, mexican newspaper websites translated by Babelfish, to other US MSM sources.  From CNN and Washington Post to the other side of the WWW like Narcosphere and Countercurrents.  They are available in the TOD archives to prove my attempt at journalistic balance.  Perhaps, you are using a selective bias in your recall-- That's OK--I have done it before myself.

You maybe correct in disputing the PEMEX-US troop rumor-- I find it politically implausible myself, but I wanted people to be aware of it.  But you make a good point in that we need to get this author to provide more proof.  I will try to email him for a response.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your reply and patience with my disagreement. I noted that I didn't think Mexican democracy was perfect. Compared with developing countries Mexico's electoral system has been regarded as pretty good. I did see you use a variety of sources, however, the problem isn't selective memory. I just didn't read all 500 posts.

By the way, I don't just dispute the rumor about the US troops, I even dispute that there was a rumor. One guy with a blog says there was a rumor, but doesn't even say who is spreading it, or why he, sitting in retirement in Chicago heard it or should believe it. Starting an assertion with "there is a rumor going around" is the journalistic equivalent to saying "I am making this up"

I disagree that the election dispute should be resolved, only because I disagree that there is an election dispute. I think there is a sore loser who is trying to use non-democratic means to forcibly obtain powers he was denied by the vote. I think Mexicans broadly recognize this and if the election were to be held again, he would do worse. Fortunately that won't have to happen since the electorial commission unanimously found there was no fraud.

Now about the flouride in the water...

This is great. On your flank. Your left one, that is. Bob on your left.I'm just gonna watch unless you assholes get out of hand. Actually, I'm just gonna pass out in the corner. These girlies are way too smokin.'

Yabbadabbado.

Fluoride. Aah. This will never work. We obviously have similar desires in girls.
I'm just looking for my brother'n'law. C'mon you little fucker. I'm gonna smoke you out. WhooHoo. Let's go. C'mon now. You said you wanna play. C'mon now, boy. Let's play.
Put down the bottle CEO!! You're making an ass of yourself and making us nutters look good!!

==AC

I think you're jealous.
Here's stuff I found through Google. Mexicans tired of opposition protests, would elect Caleron if vote was held now. I can't vouch for the site, but it looks good.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12978

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12967

Plus Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election,_2006

I withdraw from this discussion, which isn't in my area of expertise. I just wanted to show that listening exclusively to one side, gets you a one sided viewpoint. Surprise, surprise.

Bob,

Don't sell yourself short! I think your posts are top-notch. They also have an understated and unique humor to them. The Red Cross post was one of the funniest things I've seen float through the po blogosphere in a longtime and I intend to highlight it over at LATOC.

And don't forget, your mobile preparedness vehicle idea. If you ever get it up and running I want to sell them on  my site.

  I'm 54 and an old hippy. And I have been rich, as well as poor. And by poor, I mean destitute and homeless. Money isn't the secret to happiness, which I consider liking myself because I like and respect what I am doing in life
. However, in order to play with the big boys and have a positive effect on the world it is a necessity to have something to offer-and money is a good start in the oil patch.
  I'm pretty sure that there is such a thing as too much money because most affluent people are afraid of losing their money. Its easy to become arrogant. And I am also sure that lacking basic necessities makes a person short-sighted and selfish. In our society money gives a person status, even if they are a fool-look at GWB or Steve Forbes.
  What I see as the most productive use for the rest of my life is putting together some deals for redeveloping Texas oilfields, because we need oil for the transition.  And I also see this as the best preparation for life after the peek. I'd much rather do this than hoard food and guns or other apocolyptic craziness. Its not very scientific, but I also believe that God wants us to love one another, to be kind and generous and "faithful stewards" of the Earth, so I try to live economicially and help my neighbors.  And, the Buddah was right, desire is the basis of suffering.
That's why we love you. Because If we haven't been there ourselves - We've had Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Lovers, Uncles, and Aunts who have. And most likely - we've been there ourselves. Thanks for reminding us. I hope you will be there for us.
Nothing to be ashamed of. THere has never been a crisis where it was better to be poor.  Maybe not so good to be ostantatiously rich...
The world will continue to allocate resources, including oil, to the highest bidder. imo, investments in us oil reserves are the most conservative way to prepare for high oil prices.
No, what the article says between the lines is that here is a real, persistent problem that will probably appear before long - and incidentally, it's also spawned a large movement of hysterical doomsday prophets.

There are far too few critical questions. For instance, figure out, if I buy a tin of american corn in my supermarket, how much oil did it take to get that into my hands? Well, the oil price was probably at 50 - 60$ when it was made, and it costs me 3 NOK, or 0.50 USD. That puts some real bounds on how much oil was used to make it, and how much the price of a tin of corn will rise if the price of oil rises.

Well, the oil price was probably at 50 - 60$ when it was made, and it costs me 3 NOK, or 0.50 USD. That puts some real bounds on how much oil was used to make it, and how much the price of a tin of corn will rise if the price of oil rises.

I've used that "bounds" idea also.  FWIW, people sometimes throw around a single number like "it takes X oil Calories to grow and deliver 1 food Calorie."  The problem is, when you multiply out for all the food now consumed, the oil number is irrational.  The oil cost in a steak is higher than the market price for a steak.  The total oil used to produce beef is higher than the total oil used for agriculrure, etc.

... bounds.

Generally agreed, but you also have to take into account that corn production is heavily subsidized.  I don't think that drastically changes your point, but it does complicate the math.
There are things that could skew the reasoning here, one of them is subsidies, but there are things that work the other way, too (taxes, for instance. That tin has a 12.5% sales tax in Norway, I included that). Also, I could imagine that if a waste product that people paid to get rid of was involved, the price could theoretically be lower than the price of the oil needed to make it, but then that waste product probably wouldn't keep its negative cost very long... and anyway it's a pretty long stretch.

I wasn't suggesting a definitive analysis, just thinking that the price is a generous upper bound for the cost of the oil that went into making it. While there are things that work the other way, labour resources aren't free either, and there is tax... in short the real cost of the oil used to make is probably much lower. If an economist could correct or qualify this statement I would be grateful.

This was my favorite part:
Alex Cranberg, chairman of Denver-based independent oil company Aspect Energy LLC, calls the peaksters Chicken Littles -- misguided souls who think the sky is falling.

In fact, Cranberg hired two people to dress in chicken costumes and hand out fliers dismissing peak oil at the conference Kadijk attended in July.

Bac! Bac! Bac! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

  Aspect Petroleum's main exploration thrust is in unconventional natural gas, mainly Barnett Shale. Boone Pickens' investments seem to be XTO-also a Barnett Shale producer. Exxon-Mobil seems to be spending money in a massive share buy back, while EnCanna is both in shale gas and tar sands. Watch what they do, not what they say.
OK, that explains a lot -- the Barnett Shale. This is one of the few "success stories" for unconventional gas production. Here's hoping all the houses stay upright in Fort Worth.

Encana in shale gas? Bob, have you got some details on that?

 There was an article in the Rigzone a couple of weeks ago about how Encana was buying in to a big block of Matador's in Culberson and Hudspeth County, Texas in the Delaware Basin. I aasume its a Barnett-Woodford shale play, plus I also heard an industry rumor that they were in the main Barnett play in Hill and Johnson County, south of Fort Worth
This was my favorite part:

You mean you weren't totally won over by the confident assurances that (to qoute):

market forces and technological advances will ultimately cure our energy ills
???
Wow, what a judicious use of money. Definitely makes me want to invest in his company.
I understand the instanst gratification people here have when seeing that big media mention peak oil, and I have that too. Bu I don't get the overall feeling of positiveness that many express, I know I'm being played.

What I see is a carefully constructed article that is geared from the start towards one goal: telling the public that there are people who voice concerns, but there are equally those who dismiss those concerns. In the end, the one that was meant to be achieved, we are left with the idea that we just don't know. And there is no need to worry about things you don't know. Terrorism 1, Peak Oil 0.

That is how US media have covered, and still do at times, global warming. The result of that approach has been that countless Americans still think it's not a problem, or even a truth.

They ignore as long as they can, and when they feel that doesn't work any longer, the tactic of fabricating doubt is applied. And that works very well, they've had plenty of practice.

After the doubt has been established, and it's 50-50 at best, there is a subtle indication that among those that worry there are lunatics, some of whom utter words that would be bleeped out on TV, Kunstler's quote is not a random choice, the writer knew exactly what he was doing. And you don't want anything to do with people who say things like that. At the very least they must be godless.

And then it's no longer 50-50.

Exactly.

It's the same old same old:

Here are 5 experts who are concerned

Here are 5 who are unconcerned

Here are 2 folks who are REALLY concerend. One of them is a lawyer (me) and the other is a potty mouth (Kunstler.)

Average persons reads that and thinks, "mmm. . . interesting" and moves right along to crap their pants about some guy trying to carry toothpaste onto his commuter flight.

 

thanks matt
I guess I'm kinda happy that there's at least one person who can read
or whatever
and no, I'm not wrong about what I see in this article
and it bothers me to see what I see here on tod
praise for what runs counter to what the whole thing is about
it's too much like getting candy from a pedophile
or whatever
no intention to hurt or shock, it's not that
too many smart people (and there's tons here, and I appreciate the heebeegeebees out of y'all, I ain't worthy of licking the shoes of some of ya, and I know it )stop thinking and/or reading as soon as their pet peeve gets a mention in bleeping bloombergmountain
but the article does the exact opposite of what y'all here think it does
think back 10 years guys when you first got into warming, and wanted to tell the planet about it, the press looked just like this
and it killed the issue for a long time
yea the media know peak oil, and they have for a while
but they live off car ads
keeping up appearances is the only thing that makes sense from that point of view, you're being played
bla bla..... I digress
Yup.

Now obviously I'm biased as I got my pic in the article but I still think the Rainwater article in Fortune was one of the few MSM articles that actually got some people off their asses. I know this because I STILL get email from people who say, "I read that fortune article about richard Rainwater and am now selling my home moving to the country, going solar, pulling my money out of the market, etc." I have never heard of anybody doing that as a result of any of the Peak Oil articles in the NY Times Magazine, WSJ, Bloomberg, Harpers, etc.

Why? Because in the Fortune article you had a freakin multi-billionaire friend of George W. Bush crapping his pants (figuritively speaking) about the issue. If reading that doesn't put the fear of God into you regarding Peak Oil, nothing will.

As far as what somebody said up top about the Bloomberg article being good because it doesn't scare people. WRONG. That was the whole freakin point. To keep people from getting scared doing anything rash like - (sweet jesus no!!!) - pull their money out of the market.

Why did the Fortune article work? Cause it scared the piss out of people. There is no way and I mean NO WAY you can come to understand these facts - even when presented in the most sober fashion possible - and not get scared.

So if the person you're telling doesn't freak out it means you didn't really communicate the reality situation. So you shouldn't be surprised when they don't understand the need to prepare themselves. And that's even if you believe in a more optimistic scenario akin to the Great Depression.

Best,

Matt

you have to know what you do as a writer to manage to put both sides of a seemingly unsolvable equation to sleep at the same time, and I gotta give the man kudo's for that
but it's still looking at a magician making all those young women at the conference disappear
and then you're left with what?
That said, California (or "Kalli-four-knee-ah" as Arnold would put it) just passed a major emissions cap law.
TreeHugger report with link to bill here. Way to go Arnold! You the GW Terminator man.
Sadly, I share your perception of the effects. And, though I appreciate Jim Kunstler's vision and diligence in The Long Emergency , I think his extreme language make him a liability in persuading the general public that this is a real problem of concern to sane, knowledgeable, thoughtful people.
Good stuff indeed. I only wish they'd mentioned EROEI - at least in passing so people can look it up. The concept is crucial in separating viable mitigation ideas from non-starters. Wide public debate will not reach sensible levels until many more people catch on in this one area.
``The question is, Can we run our shit the way we are running our shit?'' Kunstler, 57, says.
I don't know about you folks, but even though I know they quoted him to make him out as a wild-eyed doomer, this really makes my day. In Bloomberg, would you believe it?

And the Yergin quote from the NY Times (above) about how E85 = I85. We're on a roll!

Yes, that's a weird quote, and no accident. The article does us the service of separating nice people, even if they are a bit worried, like Campbell, from those you should stay away from, the people who use words like shit.
The aftertaste of this vintage is only slightly perturbing, and lasts a few minutes at most.
Feels like a tornado is beginning to form.

"You gotta love Kunstler"

No, you gotta' love him.

I gotta' ignore him.

Given that his only credentials consist of an absolutely virulent hatred of the United States, hatred of the American way of life right to the core of it's construction, and seeming rejection of any lifestyle or culture post 1200 A.D., I am not sure he has added a lot to the American discussion or acceptance of Peak Oil, except among a small band of Primitivist-deep green, deep peak anarchist dreamers, who see no hope of alternatives or mitagation simply because that risks committing the greatest of all possible evil sins, preserving anything remotely kin to a most Middle Ages culture.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Hey Roger, fuck you asshole.  ;)
Yes, Rogar - no cartoons of peak oil prophets allowed.

"Smile when you say that, pardner"....:-)

Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout

I was gonna say. How 'bout a little respect? Jesus!
:)
Come again? Kunstler's book does discuss the possibility of a forced regression to medieval standards of living, but it's clear from the rest of his writings that his nostalgia is distinctly oriented towards the culture, manners and ettiquette of the 1890's.

Apuleius, he may have nostalgia for the 1890's manners, but I think he would have grave doubts about a culture that married to technology, after all they already were burning coal in steam engines and had gas lights!  :-)

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Ahhh. Whatever. I suspect Jim Kunstler isn't a lot different from ourselves. Let's start a Saturday Night Book Group. I nominate myself for first official moderator.

Drivers can expect more gridlock, report says

"Moving to small-town America is not going to solve your problem," says David Hartgen, lead author of the study, who is a professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "The growth in congestion is going to be worse there."

...Population growth and commuters' preference for driving are key factors, the study says.

The solution? Hartgen and the other authors argue for building or widening roads and increasing traffic-management techniques such as signal timing and toll roads

But some argue for public transportation:

Virginia Miller, a spokeswoman for the American Public Transportation Association, calls it "short-sighted" to ignore public transportation such as buses and subway systems. She cited a 2005 report by the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University that said public transportation saved 1.1 billion hours of travel time in 85 urban areas in 2003.
It's hard to believe that in 2006 there are still professors of transportation who champion building and widening roads to reduce traffic congestion. There are so many studies out there that prove that such measuses only worsen congestion, how do these people miss all of them?
The basic principle remains: give 'em a road to drive on, and they'll drive. The only thing that works is less roads, because only that leads to less congestion. While it may be, or just seem, counter-intuitive, how does a professor miss all the literature out there? Carefully selected reading?
An empirical proof: This spring the Gotthard motorway across Switzerland was closed for a month after a massive rock slide. According to Swiss, Austrian and French statistics on the cross alps traffic out of the 50.000 affected truck loads 30.000 Truck loads just disappeared into thin air.
??? Obdacher, do you have a reference for this?

All the numbers I have seen on alpine transit indicate re-routing of traffic, notably after the closures at Mont Blanc (France/italy truck traffic increased by the coastal route to compensate).

This is an important question :
There is debate in France about the necessity of a new Lyon/Turin rail link. We (greens) see a justification as a freight line (rail freight plus intermodal, truck on train). This is based on the presumption that it will diminish truck traffic in the alpine tunnels.

This is german, I am afraid, but that´s my source.
www.bahnonline.ch/phpkit/include.php?path=content/news.php&contentid=9039&PHPKITSID=3edec170 6ca6eebc7704ab77dbae4127
I have to correct myself: out of 80 000 affected truck loads 50.000 showed up on other routes, 1000 trucks on the railway.
Possible explanations: 1.) transports were shipped by rail in containers
2.) transports were delayed
3.) Other suppliers were found, which did not have to cross the alps.
Thanks for the response...

I spent some time searching in the French version of the bahnonline.ch site, until I realised that they just used Google translation ! (Gotthard-Autobahn = autoroute de base de dieu!) Typical Swiss German arrogance eh!

In general, individuals are much more easily discouraged than businesses, so this news is quite surprising.

The rock slides are due to the permafrost that holds Alpine rock faces together melting. The permafrost is melting because of global warming. Keep rebuilding the roads to make sure global warming does not lose momentum.
I agree with you.  That some still to this day advocate road-building as a "remedy" for congestion is reckless, stupid, and beyond the pale.  Time after time we have seen that the exact opposite is true.

There is a saying which most traffic engineers know and accept:  widening roads and highways to reduce congestion is like loosening your belt to solve a weight problem.  

Think about that one.


Well, then why don't we put permanent lane blocks in the freeways in LA?

That will help congestion right?

Or maybe not.

Well the corrolary to the belt tightening analogy would be:

Blocking lanes to reduce congestion is like tightening your belt to lose weight.

Here is a far better example.  Allow me to quote a passage from "Suburban Nation:  The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream" by the founders of New Urbanism (Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk):

"The phenomemon of induced traffic works in reverse as well.  When New York's West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, an NYDOT study showed that 93 percent of the car trips lost did not reappear elsewhere;  people simply stopped driving.  A similar result accompanied the destruction of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway in the 1989 earthquake.  Citizens voted to remove the freeway entirely despite the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers.  Surprisingly, a recent British study found that downtown road removals tend to boost local economies, while new roads lead to higher urban unemployment.  So much for road-building as a way to spur the economy."

This study found that 20 percent to 60 percent of driving trips disappeared rather than materializing elsewhere.  Imagine that!

Bottom line:  removing roads DECREASES congestion just as building more roads INCREASES congestion.  This has been proven time and time again.  Remove it and they will disappear.

"If you build it [they] will come"...
Well, then why don't we put permanent lane blocks in the freeways in LA?
No way! Then people would have to get around by walking.
Compare Vancouver, B.C. with Seattle.  Vancouver has no freeway access.  Bottom line -- for that reason alone, Vancouver is a far more livable city.
Peak oil = peak roads. That hasn't sunk in yet.

There is a plan to build a new motorway in my area (Lyon to Saint Etienne). Obviously, it will be redundant by the time it's completed (2020 at the earliest, there is major engineering involved).

This, despite the fact that car numbers on the existing motorway between the two cities have declined (slightly) in recent months -- too early to say they have peaked, but I think it's safe to say that by the time petrol reaches 2 euros per litre (currently about 1.25) then the traffic peak will be behind us.

Just as the Easter islanders were building statues, we will be building highways.  
That would be funny if wasn't so true.

There is no chance humans will evolve past this, and it appears we are incapable of learning our way out too.

I can't remember who, but someone around has a saying to the effect....pull up a chair, grab a cold one, and sit back and watch.
... as long as the cold ones last! First, we'll have to make do with warm ones. Then home brew. Finally, water from the puddle we are sitting by because the chair is burning under dinner.
"burning under dinner"   Wow!   We have to get going to make this power down work.
"Fat rats roasting on a furniture fire,
Peak Oil nipping at your nose..."
Well, that sucks.

Rat

Let us build edifices in honor of our Demander in Chief.

Fear not. The gods of Demand and Supply shall provide us with all that we need as long as we don't cut and run. Stay the course my fellow lemmings. You have nothing to fear but cheerlessness itself. Be steadfast and resolute in accomplishment of your missions. You shall surely pass over the edge safely and honorably to your just and ever lasting rewards. God speed. Score well.

Hello Step Back,

Excellent cartoon!  The elite predators [bears, wolves?] on the right side are having the 'time of the lives' watching the ignorant lemmings prematurely end their lifetimes!

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Not my cartoon.
Found it here: http://www.stevecolgan.com/

As for the elites, the important thing is to "honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for God and country". Where have we heard that recently? Jenna & sister just signed up for the Marines so they too can be one of the proud, the few, the hoodwinked. Yea right.

New roads are planned fairly close to where I live and I like it, they will be usefull for a very long time even if traffic declines a lot. But going from two lanes to 3 or more is only sensible in a few parts of the road network.
There is a plan to build a new motorway in my area (Lyon to Saint Etienne). Obviously, it will be redundant by the time it's completed (2020 at the earliest, there is major engineering involved).

Yes, it will not even be any use to Ryanair who try to convince people that Saint Etienne is Lyon.  

This Hartgen guy is, well I have nothing nice I can think to say about him, except maybe that at least he is an academic and not practicing.  But calling him a "Transportation Engineer" is ridiculous.  He is a "Traffic Engineer".   Maybe better called a traffic cultivator, he sows roads and reaps traffic.  Another article where he gives his expert opinion

http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/2003092956.html

Is this guy out of touch or what?  Yeh, wider roads will solve the problem.  Look out at how smoothly things go in L.A.  

I guess Peak Oil news hasn't reached the University of North Carolina.

My proposal for the highway that goes by my small town is to make it narrower by expanding the shoulders for bicycle traffic. Ideally, I would like to see it depaved and turned into a dirt road. Those who can't handle that can move or choose not to visit this area. We have less services here than we had 50 years ago because the "convenience" of the wider highway has made it possible for people to drive their cars to other towns to do their shopping.

No further roads should be built or widened anywhere unless the purpose therein is to provide space for buses or other non automobile transit. Maintain or increase the misery factor in driving while at the same time providing alternatives for people. When I lived in Frankfurt, Germany, you had a choice, spend thirty minutes driving downtown and looking for a parking place or spend ten minutes getting downtown by subway.  Those truly dedicated to the "freedom" of their automobiles had that choice. The rest of us, those who actually wanted to get some place quickly, cheaply, and safely, took the buses and the subways.  

You would appreciate the writings of Jan Lundberg (www.culturechange.org).  Jan founded Alliance for a Paving Moratorium, and advocates NOT ONE MORE ROAD be built, anywhere.  He tore up his own driveway to build a garden, and says he hasn't been in a car since 1989.

Jan also writes about peak oil issues, of course.  Having been an oil insider for many years (he is the brother of energy analyst Trilby Lundberg), he firmly and absolutely believes peak oil is at hand.  His polemics are, if anything, more dire than Kunstler.

Somewhat related, regarding the transformation of one of the most car crazy parts of Virginia (Virginia Beach)

http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues06/08-28/Bacon.php

This is good news (I know people will say when PO is in full, there won't be the resources)

For those who think that re-working failed suburbs is a process that will take generations, Saunders' assessment of Pembroke is profoundly optimistic. Yes, developers and city officials should approach their task with a 50-year planning horizon. "A city," he says, "should be built to serve generations." But Town Center has demonstrated that it's possible to transform large pieces of the physical environment in just a few years.

and

Transportation is not an issue that should be left only to the traffic engineers. Their solution is to add more lanes of roadway. A better approach is to change where people live, work and play. "We have enough roads," Saunders says. "We have enough asphalt. It's a question of how you organize the use of the asphalt."

I would have said "too much" on the asphalt rather than "enough" but still...

The separation of land uses is the root cause of suburban dysfunction. Saunders compares it to building a subdivision for 20 families and saying, "All the kitchens go over here, and all the bedrooms over there, and all the bathrooms over there. And you have to walk across the neighborhood to get from one to the other." That's no way to organize a subdivision -- or a city.

Well I guess things could have been worse than they are now - if you had to drive to go to the bathroom!  

I've spent some time living in small towns and the traffic jams can be HORRIBLE. Spent literally hours in traffic in smallish towns, nope moving to a small town will make you much more dependent on having a car and you'll burn up much more gas.
Not much of a town if you had to be driving.  

We have traffic of course but its the people trying to get here, or through here.  Most of the people who live here just walk - after all that is the point of a town.  

'Merkan small towns, it's often not all that safe to walk - you'll get run over (drivers often intentionally aim at walkers to see 'em dive into the weeds) or attacked by one of the many semi-feral and vicious dogs, hassled by the local meth freaks, etc. So, you drive up to the small store 1/4 mile up the road because then you're only exposed for the short period between getting out of your car and going in/out of the store.

Oh yeah and you're a fool if you don't have a gun and keep it on you when common sense tells you to have it handy......

I've seen small towns, I've lived small towns, I really don't see how the "countryside" would be any better a place to live in the Collapse. Unless one wants to really hide out like Ishi did for years - even he eventually was captured, put on display in what was effectively a zoo, and died within a few years.

I don't know what small towns you've lived in, but the ones I've lived in have been nothing like what you described. Not perfect no, but far from what you describe there.
My experiences are limited to Western small towns, everything I have read/seen/heard tells me small towns in the East are not like that. I understand small Eastern towns are more like subsets of Madison WI than like something out of a John Waters film.
Perhaps if you either quit being so paranoid or found a better town (or country) to live, you'd have better luck with small towns. Or maybe you're talking about the satellite towns that pop up around a major city? Because I've lived in small towns for two thirds of my life, and I've yet to see anything close to what you're talking about. Or are you being facetious?

The town I call home has a population of less than 6000. I can cycle to work, year round in less than ten minutes. All the facilities are about a five minute ride from my home and this is true for everybody. I have never seen a traffic jam in a small town. I have seen a traffic jam between small towns and between cities and their satellite communities. Sharing the road with cars and trucks in a small town has been much less stressful for me than in the cities.

The self-sufficiency culture is also stronger in the small towns I've lived compared to the cities. Gardens and fruit trees abound and people actually use and preserve the harvest. We're also embedded in an agricultural area, so local produce and meat is easy to come by. Heck, I spent last evening converting a couple bushels of apples that my neighbour gave me into a year's supply of apple juice.

I've never felt like I needed a gun for protection. Not in a small town. Not in the downtown core of a major city. I like guns just fine (traditional flintlock long rifles being my favourites), and I wouldn't hesitate to use one to protect myself or my family. I've just never felt the need, not even a little.

I'm feeling luckier and luckier to be above the 49th parallel.

Mark (not really in Calgary anymore)

  I've got a theory for some small towns-its called Darwinian Selective Inbreeding. That's where everybody good looking or smart have been escaping for the last 100 years, and the remainder have stayed around making babies with their sisters and cousins. You can independently confirm it at any rural Walmart on the morning the SSI checks and food stamps arrive...
Um, Mark ..... you're in Canada eh? Very VERY different country, different mindset. The western pop-up towns seem to be full of the working-class washouts from California, from larger towns, high house taxes evict 'em, low wages and an informal and really illegal no-whites hiring policy keep 'em desperate, and they move out to these little towns and feel lucky to have a job at Wal-Mart or anywhere at all. A lot don't - tons of drug activity in these small western towns.

Sigh. Again, it's very hard for someone who hasn't spent a significant amount of time in the US to understand how hellish it is.

If people around you are shopping and working at the likes of Wal-Mart, that is an unfortunate sign that your town (if one ever really did exist) has been destroyed and is no longer a 'town'.  Sadly, that has happened in many places across the US.  
Nice set of articles again, Leanan.

Studying PO, I've seen this sentence so often: "We use X barrels of oil for every barrel we find", the X ranging from 2 up to 9.

I think this X-figure is very important. So how many barrels of oil do we use for every barrel we find? At this moment?

From the Cosmos article Leanan posted yesterday:


But we are not likely to meet that growing demand, says a report by L.B. Magoon for the U.S. Geological Survey. "Technology is great, but it can't find what's not there," he says. "In the last five years, we consumed 27 billion barrels of oil a year, but the oil industry discovered only three billion barrels a year. So only one barrel was replaced for every nine we used." And annual oil discoveries have been declining since 1965.

This is just one number, my guess is it could range anywhere form 5 to 15 right now, depending on who's doing the counting.

Thanks for that, roel. These figures say 9 barrels used for 1 barrel found.

BTW, you have a typical Dutch name, so I asume you are in Holland? I'm in Den Helder.

best,

MTL QC
MTL QC?
My guess is Montreal, Quebec.
I even googled it myself
lazy dutch!
Canada...Holland...there's a difference?  ;)
The October issue of Consumer Reports has arrived at my mailbox. The cover headline: "The Ethanol Myth".

In keeping with CR's philosophy, the article focuses mostly on ethanol's high cost, low mileage, and scarce availability.

Didn't find the article in the free area of the CR website, but they do have this rundown on fuel alternatives:
http://www.greenerchoices.org/...

I really emjoy The Oil Drum...keep up the good work.  There is a great need for a site that deals with the myths of energy production, substitution, geology, etc.

  So I go to have a light breakfast in town after reading RR's attempts at showing a misinformed reader the true energy return of the oil lifecycle versus the ethanol lifecycle.  A well informed friend shows up, he works in the alternative energy field, has a radio show and somehow we start talking about biodiesel.  He informs me that they get 3 to 4 to 1 energy return (lifecycle) for biodiesel and 7 to 8 to 1 if waste oil is used. I inform him that seems high because every hydrocarbon input is a loss of energy(fertilizer, water, machinery, refining(not much)), except for the solar absorbed by the biodiesel plants.  I inform him that current return on ethanol is .25 approx., 1 btu in to get 1.25 out.  I am informed these numbers I used are out of date, it's much higher.

There is alot of misinformation out there, IMHO.  I asked where he got his numbers....a biodiesel book.  Another aside was a conversation about reality.  People didn't want to hear the true dimension of out future woes and I felt he was using rosy biodiesel numbers that will lead us to a deadend in terms of energy production, land management and food production.

What is the true return on the lifecycle of biodiesel?  

Wikipedia has a good article for starters and many links to go deeper on the biodiesel perspective.

I'm currently doing an initial research on biodiesel from algae.  Oilgae is a good repository of many available ressources and technology.  

The yield per acre is about 30 times the yield of any other field crops, that's the reason why I look forward into this.

There is two different options regarding the production of algae.  One is to use raceway pond, developped by the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) up until 1996.  The New Hampshire University has a group doing some research in this field.

The major difficulties has been producing algae in a cost efficient way.  At the time it was 2 times the diesel cost. I wonder how much it has goes up in regards to increase in oil price.

What I try to seek is if the photobioreactor way could yield a fair amount of algae while being afforbable.  In town, Roberval we have a long period of winter so I'm thinking of a greenhouse heated by annualized geo-solar technique

There is a company in the UK building the tubes needed to produce a steady amount of algae. It's called cellpharm tubular reactor

Here is a photo of what it looks like :

I have been asked by the general manager of our MRC (we could say county management organisation) if with 200 000$ I could manage to start a pilot projet for producing biodiesel from algae. That was 2 weeks ago. I already had contact with scientist from our provincial government and he led me to a doctor already doing great stuff regarding fibro cellulose ethanol.  I on vacation this week so I will talk with him next week.

I hope that these links will provide you with some useful information.

The bio-reactor looks very energy intensive to manufacuture, maintain and operate. Of course this could be used as an CO 2 pollution mitigation device that at least "pays for itself" in terms of CO 2 absorption at low or no cost.  But are we going to be able to cover a fraction of the earths surface to power our civilization.  No....another silver BB, perhaps.
But are we going to be able to cover a fraction of the earths surface to power our civilization.  No....another silver BB, perhaps.

I don't think given current technology, that a silver bullet to replace oil is going to be feasible.  It will have to be silver BBs.

That said, Algae has the advantage over other crop types in that we can grow algae in areas unsuited for traditional crop types.  The vast, uninhabited deserts make an ideal location for this type of production or possibly floating greenhouses built on similar technology as current rigs.  Further Algae has the other advantage of not being a drain on arable lands.  Attaining and providing nutrient rich water is as easy as moving it from the ocean in many cases or tapping into sewage.  Can we afford to cover sections of the earth for our energy needs.  I think yes, provided we choose the right types of sections.

Personally I kind of like the floating greenhouse rigs idea as the ocean water will be immediately available, the rigs can be built in areas of ocean where yearly sunlight has a high yield, and lastly, if the rigs were designed to take advantage of the wave/tidal action the ocean produces, the rigs could be self powered using tidal devices.

Thank you for the information. Did you happen to see the September 2006 Scientific American issue Energy's Future Beyond Carbon?

In the Designer Microbes section of the Plan B for Energy article, they quote J. Craig Venter, founder of Synthetic Genomics and the Vinod Khosla of microbial oil manufacture, saying

"We think this field has tremendous potential to replace the petrochemical industry, possibly within a decade."

That assessment may be overly optimistic: no one has yet assembled a single cell from scratch...

I just happen to have a picture right here.


Overly optimistic?
Fly me to the moon, Craig!

Check it out.

Obviously Dr. Venter is someone to listen to.  Without his push into the shotgun method of sequencing the Human Genome Project would have dragged out forever.  Let's hope he is on to something.
I give Venter pretty good odds at actually finding some useful solutions. The guy knows what he is doing. I have admired him for many years (although I understand he is a bit arrogant). But I guess it's like Kid Rock said: "It ain't bragging if you back it up."
That's because he decided to just declare victory and crank up the hype machine. The claim to have finished something was fraudulent.
ANY KIND of biomass growing aimed at energy production is actually just a more convoluted way to collect solar energy.

Why not using solar directly?

No matter the "poor" efficiencies of PV or Stirling (from 15% to 40%) how does this compares to the whole intricate conversion chain for algae, corn, sugar cane, switchgrass & whatever else, PER SQUARE METER?

Very, very poorly.  Switchgrass in pellet or brick form, burnt in high efficiency stoves and boilers provide an EROEI up to 20 to 1 (REAP-Canada) and sugar cane 8-1.

With the exercise of knowledge (soil science, plant breeding, appropriate selection and placement of cultivars) we are able to improve modestly on the gifts nature has spent deep time finetuning.

We can also profitably improve our own burning technologies and the institutional arrangements by which we exploit these gifts from nature.  But it is laughable to think we can in a few decades develop superior systems to capture the daily income of solar energy than those nature offers.

Moreover, it is downright foolish to develop a dependence on systems, which require the availability of stored solar, for production and reproduction.  Which is not to say that solar panels and wind machines and the like do not have a small role to play in some places.

But it is laughable to think we can in a few decades develop superior systems to capture the daily income of solar energy than those nature offers.

Oh! Yeah?
Could you please give us the numbers of net energy collected PER ACRE for solar captors versus whatever biomass cultivation you see fit?

Plus, solar captors need only SURFACE not good agricultural land.

According to the FAO:

the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In practice, however, the magnitude of photosynthetic efficiency observed in the field, is further decreased by factors such as poor absorption of sunlight due to its reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels. The net result being an overall photosynthetic efficiency of between 3 and 6% of total solar radiation.

So for primary efficiency, PV or Stirling Dish win with efficiencies over 11%, and have lower end-to-end losses for final electric use.  However biofuels are storable and more flexible for non-electric use.  Initial resource costs are less with biofuels, but you need account for soil degradation from mineral and humus depletion and the opportunity cost of lost food production.

Thanks, great link, there are other interesting points in it:

The net energy balance for the processes involved can, however, be problematic in that energy requirements for cellulose hydrolysis and distillation, must be lower than the energy in the output ethanol.

Although [methane] small-scale digesters are popularly used at both the farm and village levels, large-scale operations are still in need of considerable technical improvement and cost reduction, and thus require both microbial and engineering studies.

This technology doesn't just collect solar. It 1. collects solar to a bottled form, so energy uses that still require self propelled machines can continue, and 2. can be used to trap carbon dioxide emissions as well as nitrogen and sulfur.

Photovoltaics are nice, and stirling even nicer, but we still need energy for storage.

we still need energy for storage.

Of course this point has to be solved but what is the COST of this versus jeopardizing FOOD PRODUCING land?
What is the expectable EROEI of biomass energy production?
We are still debating this it seems.
It is very difficult to argue on SEPARATE points without trying to model a sought for big picture (or preferably several).
Unfortunately nobody seems to have all of the skills, ressources and motivations for doing this.

P.S. I exclude coal and nuclear as VIABLE solutions, see my other posts.

Hi Kevembuangga

It may be that PV Cells are better than algae at capting the sunlight (wich I doubt) but I can tell you that the price is ever increasing.

Where I come from, I live next to a huge hydro electric power station (well, actually a few hundred km) so PV cell dont even start to compare. Think of a PV cell as a small grain of sand and one hydro complex as a huge mountain.

Take a look :

Thats a 1 528 MW dam, we have over 34 000 MW of installed power to produce electricity.  Of that number, only 600 MW is comming from coal/oil, 870 MW from gas and 675 from a CANDU nuclear reactor.  

Do you think that in our place using solar power make sense?

What we need is not raw power, we need a liquid fuel.  And the best liquid fuel for maintaining the rest of the infrastructure is biodiesel.  The most productive form of life to produce biodiesel is algae.

Most of the installation will use solar energy for power, but no PV cells at all.

Thousands of otherwise productive acres buried under water, to say the least.

In a canyon by me, some want to build a dam that might produce 300+ MW, but would cost over 5 Billion to build. Is that a bargain? To say nothing of the fact that we have regular periods of dry years in California, when it is hot, dry, electrical demand is at its height, and there's little or no water behind the dams to produce electricity.  The big crisis a few years ago had this as a major element. Even Washington state dams were dry, and you couldn't buy electicity from anywhere except at totally exhorbitant prices. Aluminum foundries in WA ran their generators and sold the electricity, shut down the plants, because the profit was so much better. The sun will always be there in a predictable manor (or else we're all dead anyway). Drought produce a catastrophic system-wide failure of hydro production lasting months or years, not days or weeks.

Quebec is not California, we have lots (like in very very very lots of) water ressources.

We have the most reliable electrical system in the world.  Space heating is done mainly with electricity.  We have not been touched by the last blackout (2 or 3 years ago).

Here is a picture of where are located the hydro systems.

and now a map of productive land in Canada  

I just found this map and find it very cool :)

You can also see, if you zoom in on Quebec, there is a lake surounded by a green patch, if you zoom enough you will see the Roberval dot.  The lake there is Lac Saint-Jean, it contains 31 Billon barrel of water. It's not the biggest lake in Quebec, but I live just in front of it.  

Needless to say, peak water is a fantasy around here.

what I was trying to show is that many of the dam are built where almost no productive land is present,  Even trees grow really dificultly.  Quebec is a large province with lots of space.

Thanks for your response and I understand your point. I believe that solutions will generally be local in many ways, relating to the specific regional situation. We do have lots of hydro, which is crucial to our state, but with around 25% from that source, we are in deep trouble when dry years occur, which happens with fair regularity. In the past, electricity could be purchased from elsewhere, but now as the US situation tightens, we can't count on that. Hopefully Quebec never faces that problem.

P.S. A good friend was an exchange student in a town on Lac Saint-Jean in the late 1960's. She was studying French and loved it there.

I grok.
If CO 2 becomes a real cost to producing energy then algae bioreactors will become very useful economically and hopefully environmentally.  But are we going to run our civilization on algae?
Well, I do not think so.

Even I start to do some research on this for 2 reasons:

1st.  If the project is picking up, I will use it to talk about peak oil in Quebec and Canada, in which almost no media is talking about in anyway.

2nd. I do not think it will replace oil in all it's application.  Nothing will.  But I do think that we could run some construction equipment and maybe some buses using that liquid fuel when the diesel wont be available.

I have no intent on running the civilisation, I have maybe some idea about running our small place.  The construction equipment will be very usefull to build new living arrangement.  Altough we are a small place (30 000 people in the county) we have lots of space and maybe we could welcome more.  Building urban area that can foster people, workplace and food growing places is the ultimate goal.

The biodiesel here is only for getting that.

Also as for the energy needed, I have in tought annualized geo-solar because it need very less energy to heat in the winter and cool in the summer. I will also use bubble insulation for heating and cooling.  This will help get the sunshine trough and keep the air warmer in winter and cooler in summer.

Altough we are facing shortage risk from diesel, we have in Quebec access to very large quantities of hydro electric power.  We have only 1 or 2 coal plants I think and I dont think they run all the time.  So producing biodiesel is also a way of keeping the maintenance machinery, equipment and trucks humming for maintenance of the power grid.

Also on a purely economical basis, we are deeply impacted here because of already high oil prices.  Many sawmills are closing or on the verge of closing.  The slumping of demand for structural wood from the US (resulting from the house slump) is lowering the price of wood.

So we are impacted both in the cost structure and in the revenue structure.

I have a friend owner of a oil distributor mainly for the forestry camp.  They sell 45-50 million liter (~300 000 barrel) of diesel each year.  For the whole region it amount to 200 million liter(1.2 million barrel) each year.  

The impact on oil price if the whole region closes forestery would be not so high I think.  But the local effect will be very hard and felt trough the economy.  Because of this we will need to divert our work to producing energy (if it can be done) and building a new way of life.

I expect that it would take at least a big recession (maybe a depression) to get people on the new track.  I dont think many people will do anything if that does not happen.

Something also impacting our economy is the slump in tourism we had this summer.  Many went to the US where they offered dollar parity with the Canadian $ and the gas price refrained people in their spending.

Altough no one talks about a recession right now, I think that it will be reconized after the hunting season (hunting season is a big vacation season around here)

So I think (I'm doing more research on the subject to latter say I know) that biodiesel from algae might be part of the solution.

Dave and HO have done algae on TOD. Pond scum?!
Hi, you said you live in Mtl, I'm just in Roberval (Lac Saint-Jean)

I will give 2 speaches at a conference in 3 week.  Maybe you can attend if you understand french.

You will hear from it anyway.

Thanks for the link Wolfric.

I'm in Montreal as well.
.

That is like asking How Long is a chinaman! Answer- thats right. Biodiesel comes from an infinite variety of sources and each has a different BTU cost to grow and harvest. From soybeans at 60 gallons per acre and a really mechanized approach to growth and harvest, to Oil Palm, at the high end, with yields as high as 1200 gallons per acre for specific Costa Rican clones grown in Indonesia which are only slightly mechanized, and numerous crops in between. As someone getting into this business on the oil palm side, I can tell you that the eroi can be very high if it is done right. The largest expense will be maintenance and harvest labor and we expect that to be 60% of total costs. About $.75 per gallon. But this operation is part of a complex interaction of sustainable practices involving biomass to electricity, hydroelectric power, and mahogany growth with potent nitrogen fixing trees in the mix. Like I've said before, It depends.
This was highlighted last night on CBS, who pointed out the mileage penalty for using ethanol.  Doubts about ethanol have finally reached the mainstream media. This was a good counterpoint to Dan Rather's puff piece early this year.
Following up, it dodges taking a position on the EROEI of corn ethanol by quoting Pimentel and Wang as opposing viewpoints. It does mention, though, that corn ethanol is currently more expensive when the mileage is factored in and won't be more than a minor solution.
From the article on Russia & cars:  "Russia is the world's second-largest oil exporter and this year's record high prices have swelled the economy and fuelled Muscovites' taste for conspicuous consumption."

A GM executive said a couple of weeks ago that the only thing limiting car sales in the Middle East was shipping constraints.  We are reading similar stories about Venezuela.  The WSJ had a front page story yesterday about the massive tar sands related boom in Calgary.  

Net Oil Exports = Domestic Production - Domestic Consumption

Through May, 2006, production by the top 10 net oil exporters was declining at an annual rate of about 7% since December (EIA, crude + condensate), while their aggregate consumption is clearly growing rapidly, especially in the Middle East, where there are some strong demographic factors at work too.

I noticed that the Drudge Report had a headline this morning stating that the Pentagon (Rumsfeld?) predicted that Iran would have nukes within five years.

Let's the day off to a rip roaring start. From Fill Up on Corn if You Can in the NY Times today.

"E-85 is really I-85 -- it's about energy independence," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consultancy.


Energy Independence

I-85. Yeah, but this could be a problem...


Intersection of I-85 and I-285

     

That's hilarious Dave. Maybe plant some corn in the green spots there?
 Do you suppose that ethanol is the spagetti sauce for the spagetti bowl? At least folks can stay home and drink when the oil runs out.
Known as Spaghetti Junction here in Atlanta.
Indeed. And I am trying to figure out when they snapped that picture. It's not 3 in the morning... so how did they get a daylight shot that's not absolutely full of traffic? I can see spaces between the cars. What gives?
It was probably a weekend.
and taken 20 years ago
Dave,

Yesterday I drove through the lower section of Delta County. It's usually dotted with a few corn fields, mostly alfalfa, beans and some wheat.

This year it's all corn fields!

Not that we have an ethanol plant around here, but I guess the farmers figured the price of corn would be going up, and so planted accordingly.

What will our grandchildren think when they see photos like spaghetti junction above?  Gosh Gramps, you actually had a car?  Or maybe, Dammit Old Timer!  What in the Hades were you THINKING??!!!!

Last night my nine yr old son & I were driving home and I stopped off to top off.  He eagerly asked to help pump.  As he pumped, I watched him enjoy the moment with Dad and I sadly pondered the likelihood of him repeating this routine with this children.

What the hell are we thinking?

It could only happen in England!


Protestors attempt to shut down power plant

... but wait! It's not a nuclear plant... it's a COAL plant!

Drax provides an estimated 7% of the UK's energy needs. Campaigners say it produces more than a quarter of the total amount of CO2 emitted by the nation's cars.

Last winter, coal-fired power produced 50% of the electricity consumed in the UK.


Not totally silly, if a bit unrealistic.

Coal plants are a disaster. Coal is the low-hanging energy fruit that is much beloved by people who don't understand that installing infrastructure designed to last fify years and produce a billion or so tons of CO2 just aint good thinking when we're near/at/past any number of climatic tipping points.

There are at least ten more under construction in the US. I wish somebody was protesting them.

Isn't it wonderful to be an offbeat website issueing a warning about peak oil? And the people seking information about peak oil are depicted as shaved headed, sandle-wearing Hedge Fund operators from the Netherlands, the world center of marijuana use.

Actually, the MSM is beginning to recognise peak oil, and the ad hominem attacks and negative stereotyping show that peak oil is beginning to gain real acceptance with folks

Definitely.  They admit it, in this bit:

More and more, however, the peaksters are drowning out everyone else, Cranberg says. "You can't turn around without seeing or hearing these ideas," he says. "I think they are gaining."
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
... then they fight you ...
Then you win.

In the words of the wise man. Whatsisname. er er Robbie Williams.

The wise man who spoke that was, like all men, subject to survivor's bias. Usually they kick your ass and loot your village.
there's a missing fifth line:
"and then you die"
You're assuming said wise man survivor doesn't have a fortified village somewhere with some weaponry.
You didn't see it coming, with the daily die-off patter?

There have always been people concerned with population growth, and broadly Malthusian problems, but it is the binding between those and oil which is new, growing, and obvious to any new visitor.

I do actually think we have a lot of environmental and population related problems on this planet, but I think they have a longer time horizon and are less immediate and specific a problem than peak oil.

I don't think that has much to do with it, really.  Obviously, the hedge fund operator doesn't think peak oil means dieoff, or even financial collapse.  He's planning to start a fund that will profit off peak oil.  He's still depicted as a (gasp!) sandal-wearer.

Nope, what makes us nuts is not the doomers amongst us, but just the nature of peak oil.  It wouldn't matter if we all believed converting to wind power would allow the happy motoring lifestyle to continue in perpetuity, we'd still be depicted as nuts.  Jeans and sandal-wearing tree-huggers.

Well, I respond below to someone who just said "A lot of people might starve to death."

How does that play to new visitors?  Are there any new visitors in the room?  Anybody?

Well, I respond below to someone who just said "A lot of people might starve to death."

A lot of people starve to death already.  Is it really so radical to think that more might, as petroleum gets scarcer and more expensive?  And shouldn't we talk about it?

Awhile back, I was reading about a "successful" new program that was helping poor people in Africa.  The solution?  Teaching subsistance farmers to use chemical fertilizers and giving them hybrid seeds.  

Come on Leanan, you don't need to do that to me.  I've dropped a few ten-grand on Médecins Sans Frontières in my life.

The question is at hand is whether die off in the US is going to break open following PO.

He said "the world."  And it's a very legitimate concern.  We've used globalization to drive farmers out of business, making them dependent on our exports.  And if we now decide we'd rather put that grain into our fuel tanks, where does that leave them?

As for the U.S....I think we are overpopulated, but could adjust.  The question is if we can keep the population from continuing to increase (in other than Malthusian ways, I mean).  The current UN stats are predicting a 45% increase in the U.S. population by 2050, which would not be good news.

If I recall correctly, the increase is attributable mostly to immigration. I wonder what will happen Post-PO if agriculture in our neighbors to the south collapses, either due to lack of oil inputs or climate change. How many refugees would come our way? And what would be the results?
In Collapse, Jared Diamond talks about something called "overcrowded lifeboat syndrome."

Starving people would have poured into Gardar [the largest farm], and the outnumbered chiefs and church officials could no longer prevent them from slaughtering the last cattle and sheep. Gardar's supplies, which might have sufficed to keep Gardar's own inhabitants alive if all their neighbors could have been kept out, would have been used up in the last winter when everyone tried to climb into the overcrowded lifeboat, eating the dogs and newborn lifestock and the cows' hoofs as they had at the end of the Western settlement.

Diamond then draws an explicit parallel with unrest in the U.S., and our inability to secure our borders against illegal immigration:

I picture the scene at Gardar as like that in my home city of Los Angeles in 1992 at the time of the so-called Rodney King riots, when the acquittal of policemen on trial for brutally beating a poor person provoked thousands of outraged people from poor neighborhoods to spread out to loot businesses and rich neighborhoods. The greatly outnumbered police could do nothing more than put up pieces of yellow plastic warning tape across roads entering rich neighborhoods, in a futile gesture aimed at keeping the looters out. We are increasingly seeing a similar phenomenon on a global scale today, as illegal immigrants from poor countries pour into the overcrowded lifeboats represented by rich countries, and as our border controls prove no more able to stop that influx than were Gardar's chiefs and Los Angeles's yellow tape. That parallel gives us another reason not to dismiss the fate of the Greenland Norse as just a problem of a small peripheral society in a fragile environment, irrelevant to our own larger society. Eastern Settlement was also larger than Western Settlement, but the outcome was the same; it merely took longer.
Thanks for the quotes Leanan. What Diamond is describing is what happens when law enforcement breaks down. And it is what will happen, anywhere, when law enforcement breaks down as a result of declining energy supplies after peak oil. There will be riots, a few at first then increasing in number until total anarchy rules. I don't predict a soft landing anywhere in the world but it will be the strong arm of the law that keeps order and nothing else.

North Korea has avoided food riots simply by shooting anyone who exhibits such behavior. In Africa people simply starve in silence because it has become a way of life...and death. But they also starve in silence because all those with food also have guns, and they shoot to kill. But in the Western World, we think we are entitled to the good life and when it starts to disappear we will fight like hell, taking our wrath out on anyone and everyone. We will blame everyone and riot and burn when they cannot return things to the way they were.

"When law enforcement vanishes, all manner of violence breaks out: looting, settling old scores, ethnic cleansing, and petty warfare among gangs, warlords, and mafias. This was obvious in the remnants of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and parts of Africa in the 1990s, but can also happen in countries with long tradition of civility. As young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that had competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters (and offered a foretaste of life as a scientist)."
Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate" page 331.

I love that story. (well for illustrative purposes) The bad guys didn't even wait till lunch to go a-lootin' and a-pillagin'
they were busy "acquiring" money to pay for lunch
wait, hold it right there, that's my home town!!!
Thanks for the lifeboat metaphor, though my distinguished fellow-countryman got in there first:

The advanced world may well be like, and feel like, a closed and guarded palace, in a city gripped by a plague. There is another metaphor, developed by André Gide, one of the powerful minds powerfully influenced by Nietzsche: This is the metaphor of the lifeboat, in a sea full of the survivors of a shipwreck. The hands of survivors cling to the side of the boat. But the boat has already as many passengers as it can carry. No more survivors can be accommodated, and if they gather and cling on, the boat will sink and all will be drowned. The captain orders out the hatchets. The hands of the survivors are severed. The lifeboat and its passengers are saved.

Something like this is the logic we apply when we tighten our immigration laws, and in the general pattern of our relations with the so-called under-developed countries [...]. As this situation becomes more obvious, it is likely to generate its own psychological and moral pressures. The traditional ethic will require larger and larger doses of its traditional built-in antidotes - the force of hypocrisy and cultivated inattention combined with a certain minimum of alms.

(Conor Cruise O'Brien, On the Eve of the Millenium, 1994)

Hello Copelch,

Good post, along with Darwinian's post too.  The Titantic's sinking metaphor is often used in postings.  The additional caveat I would add is that the lifeboat survivors had a short row to the other steamships that belatedly arrived on-scene.  In a postPeak world: the lifeboat survivors will be ALONE metaphorically speaking--an extremely long row to the safe haven of shore.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Totoneila,

If you manage to find this reply in the maze of 'parents' and their descendants: here's another author who uses the lifeboat metaphor: Petti Linkola, the Finnish ecofascist:

What is it that Linkola thinks that scares so many people? A good place to start is his most frequently quoted analogy for the world's overpopulation problem:

"What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat."

For those who are ready to take up the axes, Linkola has some suggestions-an end to Third World Aid and an end to asylum for refugees. In his new approach for a better society he suggests "Green Police", unencumbered by the "syrup of ethics" that governs human behavior today to keep things in line. He thinks "Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed." Under the "Green Police" only "a few million" people would work as farmers and fishermen, without modern conveniences such as the automobile. A man of action, not just words, since the 1960s he has lived as a fisherman, using wood-fires for heating and travelling by bicycle or sleigh. It is only recently that he has gotten a phone and electricity and takes his fish into town for sale on the local school bus.

.

Life after the oil crash?

 

The hands of the survivors are severed. The lifeboat and its passengers are saved.

Yes, it is even likely built in the genes.
Seems to remember of something like this, I have to recall the links.

Halliburton gets more government contracts.
When (and I mean "when," not "if") unemployment goes above ten percent and is rising in the U.S., then I expect to see the door slammed on immigration and also a major effort to deport illegal immigrants.

By the way (in response to Leanan), except for immigration and emigration, all factors that affect population growth are Malthusian: He wrote about positive checks to population (those that increase the death rate) but also preventive checks to population growth, i.e. those that diminish the birth rate. In later editions of his book he became somewhat more optimistic on the possible effectiveness of preventive checks.

A hundred years ago it made sense for the U.S. to encourage immigration, but given the "ecological footprint" of U.S. residents it seems to me to be folly to allow further immigration--building up long-term major problems in return for short-term (and questionable) economic benefits. It may be selfish for me to say, "Let's slam the door shut!" but I'm thinking of my grandchildren's welfare; increase in the U.S. population does not seem likely to enhance their prospects.

I'd like to see an official statement on population policy for the U.S., including a statement of what our optimum population range should be and whether further population growth is desirable. The great philosophers Plato and Aristotle both thought population policy was a key political issue and of utmost importance to public welfare. In this respect (largely due to political correctness) I think we have regressed during the past twenty-four hundred years.

"When (and I mean "when," not "if") unemployment goes above ten percent and is rising in the U.S., then I expect to see the door slammed on immigration and also a major effort to deport illegal immigrants."

Some unsolicited advice to interested parties (which is worth what you are paying for it):

Rising unemployment is a key reason to adjust your lifestyle now so that you can live on 50% of your current income (I was forced to do it in 1986).  

As I said before, it's kind of ruthless, but you need to be ready to volunteer for salary cuts and/or be willing to take a more challenging job for the same money.  Reducing your expenses gives you much more flexibility.  

We are quickly headed into a period of probably near-permanent labor surplus.   You can't fight market forces.  The faster that you adjust to the new realities, the better off you and your family will be.

From today's Urban Survival:

"Personal saving -- DPI (Disposable Personal Income) less personal outlays -- was a negative $83.5 billion in July, compared with a negative $67.6 billion in June. Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was a negative 0.9 percent in July, compared with a negative 0.7 percent in June. Negative personal saving reflects personal outlays that exceed disposable personal income. Saving from current income may be near zero or negative when outlays are financed by borrowing (including borrowing financed through credit cards or home equity loans), by selling investments or other assets, or by using savings from previous periods."

WT,

You're killin' me, man.  My doomerocity coefficient was already high enough today, and I buy completely what you're saying.

<problem type="personal">
 But how do I get CinCFam (Commander in Chief - Family) to believe the wisdom of that choice?
</problem>

BTW, would you have time to entertain an email from me at your aol account?

Ed

re:  e-mail  no problemo
" You can't fight market forces."

Ah yes, Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropis.  The Fates.

On the other hand, reason tells us that market forces are guided by market rules as found in laws, regulations, precedents, conventions, customs, practices.  In some cases, the Hell's Angels make the rules.  In most, it is legitimate social institutions: broadly speakly, government.

Can market rules change?  They have.  Can they change again?  Yes.

Markets existed long before capitalism, which is a particular system characterised by an intrinsic need for growth.  Markets will exist post capitalism, even if attempts to suppress this deeply rooted social mechanism are again made, such as was the case in the failed Soviet model.

The key is to shape markets to serve the welfare of people, a welfare obviously tied to the health of the biosphere. Obvious at least to all but the most obtuse.

Markets organized on a capitalist model have found legitimacy in this system's ability to deliver on its promise of much for most.  To deliver on this promise, capitalism needs to function, and to function it needs growth.  The intelligence of our species has nourished this needed growth, but it is constructed from the continued expansion of the supply of energy and the continued improvement in the quality of the energy we exploit.  

Now the quantity and the quality of energy are in decline.  And our intelligence is not great enough to expand our leverage of this declining resource at a rate which outruns the decline.

Lovers of capitalism can perhaps say au revoir, in the hope that fusion, or some other miracle, will in some future time provide a foundation on which the system can be rebuilt.  Will our progeny, given the choice, even want to do so?

For the moment the question is not whether the decline in the quantity and quality of available energy will lay waste to civilization, but whether the impending collapse of capitalism will do so?  

That's up to you and me.  The Fates are imaginary.

 

http://www.shadowstats.com

He's got unemployment at 12% if we figure back in the discouraged workers and various other marginal changes they've engineered into this number.

Hello Odograph,

Of course Dieoff will eventually break out in the US: at some future tipping point precipitated by exponential positive feedback combined with systemic infrastructure collapse.  What, How, When, Where is the difficult part to determine, but the WHY has been explained countless times by experts and laymen alike.  Detritus Entropy is a cruel Master, Genetically-induced violence is a cruel Mistress.

Our best hope lies in cooperation & mitigation, real efforts at minimizing violence & population, and simplification & biosolar Powerup.  Time will tell how effective we are at maximizing peaceful mortality vs. violent mortality--the choice is ours.

Currently, 0.7% of US population is actively engaged in agriculture and fishing [CIA Factbook.  https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html]  The best way to mitigate postPeak violence is to figure out the optimal process for 60-75% of us to become fulltime permaculturists.  The 1500 mile salad, the 6,000 mile banana, and the 10,000 mile Alaskan King Crab dinner are not long for this world.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

I'll miss my banannas.

Here ya go Tate.

Nothing But Flowers
By the Talking Heads

Here we stand
Like an Adam and an Eve
Waterfalls
The Garden of Eden
Two fools in love
So beautiful and strong
The birds in the trees
Are smiling upon them
From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?
Now, it's nothing but flowers

There was a factory
Now there are mountains and rivers
you got it, you got it

We caught a rattlesnake
Now we got something for dinner
we got it, we got it

There was a shopping mall
Now it's all covered with flowers
you've got it, you've got it

If this is paradise
I wish I had a lawnmower
you've got it, you've got it

Years ago
I was an angry young man
I'd pretend
That I was a billboard
Standing tall
By the side of the road
I fell in love
With a beautiful highway
This used to be real estate
Now it's only fields and trees
Where, where is the town
Now, it's nothing but flowers
The highways and cars
Were sacrificed for agriculture
I thought that we'd start over
But I guess I was wrong

Once there were parking lots
Now it's a peaceful oasis
you got it, you got it

This was a Pizza Hut
Now it's all covered with daisies
you got it, you got it

I miss the honky tonks,
Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens
you got it, you got it

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention
you got it, you got it

I dream of cherry pies,
Candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies
you got it, you got it

We used to microwave
Now we just eat nuts and berries
you got it, you got it

This was a discount store,
Now it's turned into a cornfield
you got it, you got it

Don't leave me stranded here
I can't get used to this lifestyle

-----

Ya, You got it, You Got It.

I nominate this for the
"Post Peak Oil, Looking Back longingly" anthem.

I can't get used to this lifestyle...
JC

Might have to download this single, just to hear it with rythem.
I think our leaders have already figured it out. KBR/PolPot/FEMA style.