DrumBeat: August 8, 2006

[Update by Leanan on 08/08/06 at 9:19 AM EDT]

The World at $100 A Barrel

...The dispute centers on the precise timing of what is variously described as "peak oil" or "the big rollover"? the predicted date when existing oil production, together with new discoveries of crude, can no longer replenish the world's reserves as quickly as consuming countries are depleting them.

When that day comes, the price of oil will skyrocket to heights never seen before. It's simply supply and demand economics. It will be a climatic threshold signaling the beginning of the end of the oil era; a small span of time covering only a dozen decades of Homo Sapiens existence.

[editor's note, by Prof. Goose] You may also want to check out Kurt Cobb's latest: Apocalypse always: Is the peak oil movement really just another apocalyptic cult?

Criticism flies over BP's pipeline maintenance


Energy Dept. has oil reserves on standby

WASHINGTON - The Energy Department is prepared to provide oil from the government's emergency supplies if a refinery requests it because of the disruption of supplies from Alaska, a department spokesman said Monday.


Variety of crudes seen filling gap left by Prudhoe Bay outage


'Dead zone' threat to US suburban dream

Petrol price rises may cause the housing bubble to burst, triggering global recession and the fall of America's Eden, writes Paul Harris in New York


Deconstructing Daniel Yergin, the "Energy Pope"


Food prices would soar in biofuels switch, says Unilever

BRITAIN faces soaring food prices, a shortage of staple foods and declining public health if the Government pushes ahead with plans to promote the use of biofuels, the UK’s biggest food producer has given warning.
Global warming may be killing palms
University of Florida scientists say widespread deaths of palms and other trees in low-lying coastal areas have been reported since 1992. But the researchers say their latest survey shows in some areas, 66 percent of mature palms have died since 2000.

...The researchers say rising sea level is the primary cause of the coastal forest decline. And the sea level rise -- expected to accelerate as the Earth becomes warmer -- is linked with the thermal expansion of water, as well as the melting of glaciers and ice sheets.


The New Frontier

As an unusually long and sweltering heat wave enveloped the traditionally mild San Francisco Bay Area, power outages knocked out air conditioning, and gas prices under $3.00 a gallon seemed like leisure suits or vinyl LPs, relics of a long forgotten era, those who have been warning of the consequences of global warming and the eventual decline of a fossil fuel-based life felt an awkward sense of vindication.

Though some progressive icons like Greg Palast still try to write the peak oil movement off using incomplete research and fallacious arguments, increasingly people are awakening to the limits of a system that is utterly dependent upon a finite substance; a substance that is becoming uneconomical and is destroying the earth’s life-support network.


Murky world of western oil interests in Africa


US looks to wean Georgia from Russian energy


Russians prepare for African energy, mining push


[Update by Leanan on 08/08/06 at 12:08 PM EDT]

EIA raises oil forecast $3 a barrel

The government Tuesday raised its forecast for the average price of oil in August by $3 a barrel, citing July's heat wave and decreased production from the closure of BP's oilfield in Alaska's North Slope.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), the numbers arm of the Energy Department, said in its monthly energy forecast that oil is expected to average $76.50 a barrel in August, up from its prior forecasts of $73.50.

A fun bit in The Truth About Cars feature called General Motors Death Watch:

My God, how wrong can you be? At last Wednesday's press launch of GM's new(ish) pickup trucks, GM Car Czar Bob Lutz once again explored the possibilities. "The effect [of high gas prices] will decrease over time as people adjust to the thought of $3 a gallon, just as they did when it was $2 a gallon and just as they did when it was $1 a gallon." In other words, sooner or later, GM's truck sales will return to "normal" and everything will be allllllright. And then GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner stepped up to the microphone and raised the stakes on Maximum Bob's bluff. GM's new(ish) pickups are "the most important part of our North American turnaround plan."

If that statement doesn't send a shiver down Detroit's collective spine, nothing will. Last month, GM's pickup truck sales slumped thirty-two percent. While that's a year-on-year comparison against last summer's Fire Sale For All program, it's clear that GM's second string cash cow is being gored by gas prices and, less obviously, a downturn in the housing industry. A SMALL company called BIGresearch says over 50% of pickup truck drivers planning on buying a new vehicle in the next six months are considering a more fuel efficient sedan or... wait for it... a hybrid.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1970

Delusional, isn't it? And consumers are following their lead. The blind leading the blind...

Gas prices don't put brake on SUV sales

Funny, though, the skyrocketing gas prices don't appear to have much effect on the type of vehicles sold at local car dealerships.

Joe Spinola is sales manager at Bowser, a large multiline dealership in Pleasant Hills. He said few, if any, customers recently have mentioned gas prices when negotiating for a new car, truck or SUV -- and he doesn't expect that to change as prices top $3 for a gallon of super unleaded.

"I don't think customers who are interested in buying trucks or sport utility vehicles are even concerned with the price of gas, because if they were, they would be looking at buying a small car," Spinola said. "It's just not an issue like they say on TV." ... only 3 percent of respondents to a poll indicated that gasoline prices would factor into a decision about buying a certain type of car.
I think, or at least I hope, that one's a puff-piece to make local dealers (advertisers) happy.

Here's one pointing the other way:

Higher gas prices mean lower SUV sales

Smart Motors Inc., a Toyota dealership in Madison, has had a shift in buyer interest, too. Three years ago, about 3% of its yearly sales were gas-electric hybrid vehicles. Now, general manager Allen Foster said, hybrid sales account for 20% - one of every five vehicles sold.

But perhaps nothing spells out more clearly the impact of $3-plus gas than the July statistics from the National Automobile Dealers Association. Sales of large new SUVs were down 19% through the first seven months of 2006, and sales of new hybrid vehicles were up 27%.

Not to burst your bubble, Odo, but it's a comparison that may not generalize well. On the one hand we're looking at what seems to be a typical affluent region (sprawl?) near Pittsburgh. On the other hand we're comparing it the somewhat self-righteous yuppie/professional but old-line region of Madison, Wisconsin close to the dealer, the sort of place where the houses are grand and old, the leafy curvy streets have sidewalks and are infested with speed bumps and "slow for kids" lawn signs, and despite all that, almost no one is walking (on most days of the year it's too hot, too cold, too rainy, or too icy.) And on the third hand - so much for that metaphor - Madison is sort of a Berkeley East to begin with.
Yeah I agree, it's Madison after all, of course they're going to be selling a ton of hybrids......
That was a quick google for stats.  I'm pretty sure the national numbers are running pretty hard against SUVs right now ... this one is a little old, March  06:

US Sales of Full-Size SUVs Continued Decline in March

Yeah, SUV sales are tanking, thank God. I look forward to that if only because there will be a great gain in humor nationwide watching obese ex-SUV-owners get in and out of small cars lol!
(SUVs aren't the only gas hogs out there these days though ... we won't know if the aggregate fleet MPG has really budged until the numbers come out.)
odograph -

Characteristic General Motors foresight and vision.

Suddenly it's 1976!

Surely the managers today were the new hires then.  You'd think they'd carry those years in their DNA!
Pickups have more places to put little flagpoles.
I can think of a few big car - small car - big car - small car cycles over the last 30 years, and as insane as it sounds, GM is not entirely unreasonable in assuming "this will pass".

And, I believe studies during the Great Depression showed that people will give up everything possible before giving up their car or the gas for it.

Don't have the data, but if I remember from classes wasn't per capita distribution light?  I remember the roaring 20's (the setup) and even at it's height car ownership was still a great status enjoyed by a few(including those ford workers paid enough to buy them, there were only so many of them too).  Just curious though.
While not the saturation it's at now in the US, I think by the 1930s car ownership was pretty high. Ford had been producing like crazy through the 1920s, had lowered and lowered the price of the T, and the other makers had all been producing like crazy in the 1920s also. Remember the 1920s were a period very much like our own - widening between the rich and poor, real estate speculation, tons of buying on credit, they were one big party - the 1930s were the hangover.

Ever read Archie Comics? They were written about the high school experience in the 1920s. It was a given that high school students had a car if they wanted one, even if it was a beat up old T like Archie had.

A minor correction: The timeframe the characters from "Archie Comics" inhabit is the late 1940's. Immediate post-war period.
Wow really? I read somewhere it was based on the creator's experiences in HS in the 1920s.
That may be true, however the first Archie comic wasn't produced until 1941.
http://www.archiecomics.com/news/pr060206_anniversary.html
Most of the inanimate items in the comics date from the 1940's (from black and white be-bops to roadsters and drive-ins).
Well, if the guy who came up with Archie comics went to HS in the 1920s, he'd be in his 40s or so in the 1940s and started the strip then. I think it was not only a neat and cute strip, but had some appeal as a nostalgic thing, looking back to those good times in the 20s which is understandable after the Depression, WWII, and the recession the US was in right after WWII.

Then, some "modern" things like drive-ins added to make it not seem too much of a nostalgia trip. Besides that, a lot of those things were first come up with in the 1920s. They just got big in the 1940s-50s.

OK, looks like the guy went to Haverhill HS in MA in the 1930s, and started comicking about it in the early 40s.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/gull_island_oil.html

any truth to whats in that link? I tried searching theoildrum for "gull island" and got nothing

I think its BS myself, I highly doubt anyone could sit on an oil reserve of any size and not do something about it at this point in history.

To believe this you'd have to believe that all the IOCs of the entire world would willingly walk away from an oil field that sounds like it's about 3-4 times the size of Ghawar, or that the US government is part of some secret shadowy cabal that can control the IOCs and that they showed foresight in saving the largest deposit for after the time when they've drained everyone else dry. Given today's prices and demand, do you think that this would be true?

It sounds like the guy who claimed that there are gigantic oil reserves off the coast of Thailand that can power the world for hundreds of years. I expect more such silly announcements, especially if they can form a corporation outside the bounds US and European legal authority and get fools to invest.

But dang it! Them blanket trees'n'sausage bushes is there! I done seen 'em! I rubbed elburs wit' them rich folks and seen 'em! See, the thing is, them rich folks is just keepin' 'em to themselves, greedy barstids!
Yes, people have adjusted, but part of their "adjustment" is being done by buying cars with better gas mileage.

On the other hand, if what GM says is true, this is just another reason why we need to raise gas to at least
$10 per gallon in advertised increments or institute a rationing system.  

I wonder what the children of today will think about their gas guzzling parents and grandparents in about 30 years.  Well, maybe by that time they will have learned to enjoy a fried planet without oil and lots and lots of coal.

It is statements coming from GM like this that justifies GM bashing to the max.  They are counting on a phenomenon that will spell disaster for the United States and the people buying their vehicles.  I do not wish them well.

Did this story, TAPPED, get a TOD mention?  It might relate a bit to the 'Dead zone' article above.
I almost posted the NY Times article that post references.  (When it was still free.)

I didn't, because I decided it wasn't really peak oil related.

However, those people are going to be in a heap of hurt when TSHTF.  They're living off their savings, their home equity, and off government handouts now.  Probably not things we should expect to continue in the post-carbon age.

Yeah, I agree that TOD shouldn't be about every bad news story ... but when we start to think about how vulnerable the economy (in our respective nations) is to higher energy prices, and recession, ...maybe worth a quick mention.

I continue to wait and see if our US economy really can sustain growth with these oil prices ...

Speaking of the economy: "The federal government keeps two sets of books.

The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.

The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm

Nothing like heading into trouble while riding a mountain of debt.
Actually, it is related, but on the demand side, not the supply side.  It also has a lot to say about American's ability to adapt.  Going back to the 70s/80s again, our consumption dropped in the early 80s because of a severe recession and people's decisions, starting in the 70s, to pay for greater efficiency.  This is one of those situations where the least painful way to deal with higher prices, due to less supply, is to spend money to save money.

If people don't have the money to spend, they can't buy efficiency upgrades.  Between high debt levels, borrowing on the back of the now-deflating housing bubble, stagnant incomes, increasing inflation, the trade deficit, and future unfunded mandates, most people aren't going to have two sticks to rub together, much less ten grand to plunk down for a solar setup or twenty grand for a more efficient car.

Almost makes me think we're doomed...  Woah, gotta go outside and get some sunshine quick!

My gut is telling me there will be a recession, but that might not happen.  If enough people believe in a "soft landing" they can make it happen.  After all "consumer confidence" is the big feedback loop.  As others like to point out, a lot of our US economy is based on people earning money from other people's discretionary purchases, spending it on their discretionary purchases, begin again ...

In terms of "The One Percent Doctrine" and worrying about scales of problems with their associated probabilities ... I think recession is lower scale but much higher probability than collapse.  And I think it is a mistake to only think of recession as a component of (the lower probability) collapse.

Consumers shrugged off higher gasoline prices in July and grew a bit more optimistic about the economy, a private research group said on Tuesday.

but also

Energy costs have had a cumulative effect over the course of the year on shoppers, said Janet Hoffman, managing partner of the North American retail division of Accenture, a consulting firm. "Consumers are just starting to feel their shrinking disposable income."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/25/ap/business/mainD8J34I5O2.shtml

OK that TAPPED thing is a perfect example of what's going on here in the SF Bay Area. Older guys getting laid off, and being out of work for years because they have a house to refinance and live off of. The drop in status generally does mean their wives are likely to leave them, kids stop calling 'em, etc though. And the ones without financial reserves end up working at Home Despot or someplace. I suspect a certain number end up in the local homeless shelters. However the article is about guys who have options choosing not to work, and that sounds like a reasonable choice - if you don't have to work flipping burgers, why work flipping burgers? The problem is that most of the financial resources these people have are their "forever appreciating" houses which are not doing that so much any more, so they may well have to flip burgers soon.
House appreciation doesn't pay the monthly mortgage or property tax.
House appreciation has been so extreme in California coastal cities and other "boom" areas that it has been paying the mortgage and tax etc. And for a few years there interest rates were going down. So, people were re-financing, at a lower interest rate, taking $50,000 or more out, and living on that. I think there were ways to diddle the taxes too. That paid the mortgage and taxes, because of the decreasing interest rates the mortgage payment often ended up lower. It was insane. This was reality just a couple-few years ago. Since then, interest rates have stopped going down, and instead have been creeping up, People have been trying to just keep their mortgage payments the same instead of lowering them, and often doing that only by extending the length of the mortgage - 40 year mortgages are an option and there's been talk of a 50-year mortgage. And everyone's been hearing too much about the dreaded ARMs or Adjustable Rate Mortgage, where the first few years are interest-only if that.

A friend of mine was pulling money out of his house yearly and this last time got less, $20k instead of $50k. It's OK with him since he's figured out that he's not going to live to be 150 years old or something, and he'd rather pay payments that are about the same as rent would be, to keep living in his house that he's had forever. What's going to get interesting is when he can't pull anything out, since I think those house "withdrawals" are all he's really been living on.

And everyone's been hearing too much about the dreaded ARMs or Adjustable Rate Mortgage, where the first few years are interest-only if that.

So do you think the ARMS are not going to matter?

I took that to mean that they are a widely reported problem.

Also see "HELOCs"

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/31/real_estate/helocs_from_hell/index.htm

No, I meant that to mean "we've all heard how horrible and dangerous ARMs are, no need to rehash that".

The nastiest is one called the "Option ARM" where you decide each month which of 3 options you're going to use to pay that month, the full regular payment, interest only, or some other thing that still allows the balance to grow and is the least out-of-pocket. Guess one the average overworked, overextended, American is going to most likely choose?

No, the ARMs are a huge problem and have been hugely instrumental in building up the bubble.

This is the classic case of MSM directing everyone to do something they shouldn't.  Can't blame 90% of the population for doing it... all their friends are!

Everyone will begin the move back to fixed now (at a much higher rate) since that's what the commercials are saying they should do (funny it's the same companies that said "get an ARM" 4 years ago).

The corporations are experts at getting into the "consumer's" pocket... they've been getting much better as time goes on too.

I misunderstood you.  I emphatically agree and believe that housing can bring it all down through defaults on fannie mae bonds, due to defaults on mortgages which would induce a radical recession, maybe a depression and prices do not rise.  I haven't made my mind up, but I can see that as a possibility.
So far Andrew McKillop seems to have accurately predicted the fact that increases in oil prices within a certain range (less than $100 per barrel) would paradoxically increase economic growth.  However, as implied above, $100 dollar a barrel oil would likely be a tipping point in terms of negative economic impact.  That said, obviously many people on the lower end of the economic scale are being very obviously hurt by the current prices.  Of course the poor have generally failed to benefit much from the US economic "growth" of the recent past anyway.
I know, that's a really interesting idea ... but of course I reject totally that someone can name a tipping price.

No, I think his effect is going on, but unfortunately other negative effects are also happening at the same time ... increasing debt, etc.