 | Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs? | The Oil Drum | Khosla Responds: "Imagining the Future of Gasoline: Reality or Blue-sky Dreaming?" |  |
DrumBeat: August 9, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 9, 2006 - 9:10am
When Oilmen Turn Sour on Crude |
|
Rebels blow up third Pakistani pipeline in a week
Tracing the trail of the NYRI high voltage power line
BP readies oil tanker spree after Alaska outage
Poll: High gas prices lower driving time
Worries rise over pipeline reliability
We're saved!
Russian Researchers Say Rains Boost Oil Reserves
A group of Russian scientists at the oil and gas research institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, led by Azary Barenbaum, have come up with a new explanation of the nature of oil and gas formation. They argue that huge reserves of hydrocarbons may take only decades to be formed, not millions of years, as earlier believed.
[Update by Leanan on 08/09/06 at 12:06 PM EDT]
According to the EIA's Weekly Petroleum Inventory Report, crude oil, gasoline and distillates all fell more than expected.
We're saved, part 2: Wal-Mart wants to sell ethanol
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Higher prices make gas at deeper depths economic, as well as gas from "unconventional" sources. But, its not cheap.
The lost rigs may tip the balance on future domestic US NG production. Either to a steeper decline (my guess) or the delta between a flat to slightly rising production vs. modest declines.
I think it was discussed before on TOD but this is a clear indication of where SA production stands now.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_m.htm
This is the monthly figures but change to "Annual" then click under "view history" for either "Gross Withdrawls" or "Dry Production" for yearly totals. Both are way past peak.
Right now we are in a drilling renaisance in natural gas domesticially. The practical economic production depth has expanded to about 20,000 ft. from the 12,000 ft. of 20 years ago, and we can now drill high temperature reservoirs. In addition non-conventional gas has become economic. With "bright spot" 3D seismic the economics have changed
I respectfully think the jury is still out on a natural gas peak timing. This doesn't mean I think that it is limitless, I just think we may not be at peak yet.
https://aspo-ireland.org/Newsletter68.pdf
Articles in this newsletter:
Newsletter 67:
2005 2010 2015 2020 2050 Total Peak Date
Gas Liquid 6.9 12 13 14 11 276 2035
URR= 2450 Gb, Peak date= 2010
Newsletter 68:
2005 2010 2015 2020 2050 Total Peak Date
Gas Liquid 6.9 12 13 14 11 354 2035
URR= 2500 Gb, Peak date= 2010
The rounding value goes from 2 in newsletter 67 to -25 in newsletter 68! no explanatations are given.
Given the amount of stranded gas out there, and the various economics regarding recovering it and, possibly, converting it into diesel via FT process, the gas liquids number is always going to be subject to WAG's, until the technology settles down a bit.
Note that the NGL numbers however make no meaningful difference in the timing of the peak or the shape of hte slope.
Who knows what amount of gas was flared in the past? A Hubbert linearization doesn't work for gas, and won't, imho, until we are about one-third of the way down the slope for gas. There is not the same time lag between discovery and production, or the same depletion rates. Just take the gas out of the chart, already, and go back to crude.
Although this doesn't favor much his work, one must acknowledge that the increase in NGL will not change the peak date, which is now set by the peak in the Southern Atlantic Offshore.
Also it is interesting to note that this new date of 2010 is much more close to those of his peers like Skebrowski or Laherrère.
People ARE looking for solutions to an ill-defined "problem".
1) I talked a utility executive (in charge of development) to join with 3 other utilities and jointly offer electrification to a large railroad for a ~1,500 mile section of line. The utilites would be willing to do this on a turn-key basis; or just sell power at the wire to the RR loco from utility owned system.
I HOPE that the first railroad electrification will start many more up in a cascade.
2) Talked two senior engineers at Landsvirkjun to look seriously into a HV DC line to Scotland (old plans exist). The UK will have serious problems starting in 2012/14 and Iceland could sell renewable electricity "at a good price" in competition with LNG imports. Perhaps average 1 GW.
The French see the same problem and are building an unneeded (by France) 1.6 GW nuke 50 km from England.
- Possibly matched a surplus high head powerplant equipment with a plant in Zambia that wants to expand. Also, suggested privatizing RR from Zambia to Tanzania with the condition that it be electrified. Transfer large truck movements to rail. RR ends at large copper mines. The Zambian claimed to have ear of the President (democratically elected). 20% of Zambia has electricity.
- Several leads for Chile, which is in a MAD rush for renewables. They are burning oil today for electricity due to shortfalls in Argentine NG deliveries and are planning for zero NG deliveries in 2 or 3 years. 30% to 40% of their electricity (depends on how wet a year) comes from NG.
Landsvirkjun plans to send a team to look at 60 prospects already defind by gov't. I told Chile that some wind turbines might be available from India (they are having trouble finding any for delivery before late 2008).5) I meet with local Streetcar President in Portland and was invited to join a new national group he was forming. Portland is planning for major streetcar expansion on both sides of the river as well as a new Green Line Light Rail opening in late 2009 and a commuter rail line.
Also meet with Portland TODer and a local consultant.
All in all, an extraordinary 11 days !
Unfortunately, its not easy to electrify US railroads due to the use of double stack container operation. Clearance under bridges and tunnels is very limited and installing catenary would be very expensive. On the other hand, double stack containers are very economically hauled even with diesel locomotives.
I am originally from India and help manage a comprehensive web site about Indian Railways: http://www.irfca.org.
I know that India is frequently mentioned in the context of rapidly increasing energy demand but it should be noted that India has been electrifying its railways at a furious pace over the past few years. See http://www.irfca.org/docs/electrification-history.html for more information. At this point most trunk lines are fully electrified.
This is for "simple" installations.
Digging holes for the concrete, and the concrete itself, to hold the towers is expensive.
And a mile is quite a bit of metal once you start walking it by foot.
Copper contact wire is usually suspended by carrier wire (steel and/or aluminum) with catenary support wires (like suspension bridge).
Straight trolley wire requires 100'/30 m spacing.
Yes, that is about right (perhaps add a few hundred thousands with recent copper price increases).
Right when the oil prices start ticking up someone wants to build more highway. Why do they need a highway, and not just build a 2 to 3 track railway and forgo the trucks?
I have not searched out anything new about it, just wanted to point out, someone has to pay for any road building, and it usually is us.
As part of a railroad electrification transition have you considered a 'plug-in hybrid' style locomotive? The concept I was thinking would be basically a Prius style drive system (diesel), with the ability to run on the electric line where available, but having the diesel for areas of interruption. This could be used as a transition locomotive.
Kevin
If there is a short diesel gap between electrification, the electric locos would be hauled along. Longer gaps and they would decouple and couple the appropriate locos to match what is coming up.
In switch yards there is the Green Goat and talk of other hybrid technologies.
Rail electrification is NOT some new technology but a century old technology with vast experience under a wide variety of conditions.
While you are "on a roll" I would really like you to contact Kevin Scheiffer, head of the DM&E Railroad about electrication.
As a land owner along the DM&E tracks I was at one of the meetings concerning the rebuilding of the entire track (all to 1/4 mile 110# rail [if I remember correctly] from old 90# short rail) + extending into Powder River Basin in Wyoming to haul coal east to power plants.
I asked M. Schieffer if they had considered switching to electric traction from diesel-electric and he said they had considered it and it would be lower cost operation, but that it would be "inconvient to interface with non-electrified railroads" and therefore they would not be going with electric traction.
My initail reason back then (a few years ago) was mostly to reduce the level of carcinogenic diesel exhaust fumes from along the entire system. Now it also to ensure that they will still be running when oil gets very expensive and/or in short supply. They are talking about running 45 coal trains a day past my farm (and through all the local towns)
Both the City of Rochester Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic located there are still fighting the expansion project (and slowly losing), but one thing that the DM&E could do to reduce the problems of the 45 trains a day going through Rochester right near the Mayo Clinic would be to promise to go all electric. This would eliminate the diesel exhaust problems and it would also eliminate most of the vibration generated by the train. (I can currently tell when the trains are about 1 to 2 miles away from the sound and vibrations of the diesel engines).
I even went to the expense and trouble to send him copies of both of Mr. Deffeyes books and also Mr. Simmons book. I recommended that he contact Mr. Simmons as the DM&E is trying to coral enough investors to cover the cost of the major renovation and expansion of the Railroad.
I (and all the people living within about 1 to 3 miles of the DM&E tracks) would be most appreciative for any help you or anyone can supply to get DM&E to electrify when they rebuild their entire trackage.
Thanks.
I think it's clear that as econ teaches, producers will adopt the least costly alternative. Since most of the harmful effects of coal are exernalized & borne upon society to shoulder the long term costs, coal will dominate our future energy. We are stepping back...hopefully we take those two steps forward again.
But that still doesn't make ethanol cheap or practical.
There is one small, minor thing I would like to see cleared.
Bush was reading about goats at Booker Elementary that morning. This visit was made public 3 days in advance. At the time there were an unknown number of hijacked planes above the Eastern US. The president was not moved, stayed put, and if I'm correct addressed the press later from his location.
Why wasn't he moved immediately? He could/would/should have been a target, ain't it? Then why wasn't he rushed out with an unknown number of hijacked planes in the air?
This is the dog that did not bark.
Just curious. Anyone?
Anyway it did not surprise me
Also, even though the level of threat was unknown, the persons piloting the planes were relatively inexperienced could they find an elementry school.
Also, no one had ever planned for this scenario, that is why it was so succesful. The guys who protect/move the president probably were back on their heels. We lost the initiative that tues morning at all levels. Armed fighter pilots in the air were seeking enemy fighters for awhile.
I do not think anyone is clever enough to pull of a conspiracy of this level. Someone would talk.
no government elected or otherwise EVER tells it's people the truth about anything they do. if they did there will be HUGE outrage by many people on just about everything they do.
as a side note you do seem to be Cherry picking. you believe word for word what happened according to the government yet you do not take their word for say oil supply?
at the very very least there has to be some cover up on the building of the towers, it's a federal REQUIRMENT that all sky scrappers have to be built to withstand such hits by airliners(full of fuel no extra explosives) and stay standing. because if someone in the company that built the towers cut corners then there needs to be a investigation of all the other buildings they built.
If you had an actual serious point to make - numbers, photos, maybe a power-point presentation, a podium, and American flags(or at least a bookshelf) behind you would be appropriate.
The one paragraph, halfway down on an old thread on The Oil Drum of all places doesn't exactly cut it. But keep trying. Hone your skills. Practice. Maybe someday.
Although, at the rate your going, by the time anyone believes what you are saying...It won't matter. I'd suggest looking for a new hobby. But if this is what you like, then, by all means, stick with it.
For the record. I don't believe it. Try again. That was a horrible job. B-/C+. You have potential, though. Losing the Anonymoose tag might help a bit. If you were Chuck Somebody, people might care.
Next on American Conspiracy! We have...
The bottom line, I guess, is that we humans do want to buy up lies ... especially the one about living forever ... or at least living happily ever after.
Each topic is very complex, be it Peak Oil (PO), or Global Warming/Dimming (GW/D) or Abrupt Climate Change (ACC) or the unexplained collapse of tower number 7 (WTC7).
With PO, it's relatively simple because the MSM explanation that we will not see a decline in oil production rates for decades to come, and we will live happily ever after, is just wholly implausible.
Similarly, the MSM explanation that we will not see a melting of the polar ice caps for decades to come, is beyond implausible, especially when we see the melting glaciers and the drowning polar bears now.
However, with WTC7 thing and the rest of the 9/11 story, it seems at first blush that the government story is more plausible than the 9/11-truth seekers story. So it becomes very confusing to try and sort things out --with the nagging question running in the background of: What can I as an individual do about it?
Maybe that is the same nagging question that runs through the minds of PO deniers or PO agnostics?
I will, however, believe that they may have known about the attack and let it happen in order to give them another excuse to invade the Middle East. They've known about PO and its associated problems for a while now, and the need to control Middle East oil supplies to guarnatee national security is obvious.
I suspect the President wasn't moved because all of the hijacked planes were in the Northeast, and he was in Florida that day.
OTOH, there is evidence that Gulf War II was a "go" well before 9/11. And that did have much to do about the estimated 110 billion barrels of black stuff. What was once seen as maybe the cheapest oil on the planet has now become the world's most costly oil.
I haven't made up my mind on this, but it certainly does happen -- Putin gained power in Russia after some government engineered attacks blew up apt buildings in Moscow and greased the skids for a war in Chechnya.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-satter043002.asp
The Bologna train station bombing in the early '80s also had complicity of government elements.
We have the cell calls of the passengers (some have said that cell phones don't work from aircraft, which is not true). Can we believe that all those calls were staged?
Speculation was that the WTC towers collapsed as the result of controlled demolitions. I doubt that you will find a qualified structural engineer that would agree with that.
There have been claims that the hole in the Pentagon was too small for a passenger jet. The actual diameter was 90 feet. There was little wing damage to the Pentagon for the obvious reason that the wings have very little mass and the exterior walls were reeforced concrete.
Hey, but I gotta tell ya that I haven't seen this film (unless it was the one I saw a couple of years ago).
There have been many steel frame building fires. Only three have had pancake collapses. All three were on 9/11.
This is statistics. It could be a million to one coincidence, or there could be a reason. Maybe the cement was substandard, or the steel reinforcement was actually painted paper mache, or some other reason. No, the steel was real. We recovered it from the debris pile and shipped it to China as scrap. Must have been the cement.
OK, maybe three meteor strikes at the same location at three different times? A million Iranian terrorists all jumped off chairs onto floors in a precisely staged maneuver to send reinforcing shock waves through the earth to NYC focussed on the buildings?
That should settle it. End of story. The idea that a controlled explosion is just truly absurd. But conspiracy nutters never use common sense. A conspiracy has to cause all major catastrophic events. The evil-doers in Washington, they think, are responsible for any and all evil that happens anywhere in the world. They are true believers.
I know, I know, I said conspiracy theory nutters should be ignored, not argued with. But consider this a psychological observation into the nature of the true believer, not an argument. ;-)
So why did these three, not two, but three, burning steel frame buildings, unlike any other burning steel frame buildings in the history of the world, pancake?
I no longer assume that Bush Jr. is smart enough not to do something that stupid.
Building 7 collapsed because 40,000 gallons of diesel was stored in the building and caught fire. The fire weakened the girters, causing them to bend, then collapse. There has never been a building in history that caught fire with 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel in it. That is why only that one has collapsed. The Twin Towers had the jet fuel burning. Burning jet fuel heats the girters much hotter than the building material burning could heat it.
But hell, why would I have to explain this. The very fact that the buildings collapsed from the point of impact proves the case. Case made, case closed. Anyone who cannot understand that has my pity.
if you're gonna eat what ever your feed maybe posting at the gerber's site would be more appropriate.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
if it doesn't eyeball right it aint right,
anyone who can't understand that has my pity
I don't need your pity I need you to pull your head out of your ass
and for a future reference keep this kinda bs on a 911 site there's no need for it here
I have real concern with this statement but I just don't think any real energy needs to be spent debating the issue here.
"The explanations put forth by the conspiracy theorists are orders of magnitude more ridiculous than the official explanation of what happened"
if you'd like to create a divide between yourself and others ( you peak oil freak) use the word conspiracy. I'm just trying to understand this fucked up world and perhaps give my six year old son some sort of grasp on the situation. (NO I'm not teaching him that BCR blew up the wtc)
again I don't think it's appropriate here
I see you as low hanging fruit. and you undoubtedly see me as an idiot. fair enough. let's leave it at that.
but as I've said before their are about 6.5 billion realities on this planet let's keep that in mind
So I have made the move from coincidence theorist to conspiracy theorist a little before him and a little after you. Not different from him or you, just a little earlier and a little later.
40,000 gallons of diesel or jet fuel is equivalent to 320,000 pounds of paper. Make that 480,000 pounds because the paper has some clay by weight. Or about 240 tons, or about 240 cubic yards. That's about as much paper, let alone other flamable materials, as on any floor in any skyscraper fire that has happened before.
Think with words instead of feelings.
Gee, I'm young but I can't recall any stories of fully fueled 747's slamming into buildings at over 300 mph. Its asinine to totally disregard the Raw explosive energy expelled at impact. After the initial explosion fire cooked the steel and everything else it could consume. The stories above were literally cooked like in an oven.
If you believe that the US gov't blew it up then it's logical to assume you think the gov't actively used the highjackers as cover. The highjackers were the bombs that were detonated, so why would the gov't help when the hijackers were doing all the work already?
There are no available facts to substantiate a controlled destruction other than, "it couldnt be this or that."
Lastly I do find it interesting that the Pentagon side that was struck was the ONLY side that was JUST RECENTLY reinforced to handle an attack. The other four sides were far weaker and would have caused more damage.
Too many unanswered questions. Too many problems with the official story. Dig deeper, WTC7 is the smoking gun. Is it possible that whoever was responsible for actually bringing the towers down had foreknowledge of the aircraft impacts? It has to be so, unless of course you believe the official story.
You just have your facts wrong.
Alan, I'm a long time reader of this site. I go back before your time. I also have a huge amount of respect for you.So I will attempt to spread some "wisdom."
Don't bother. Don't get upset. Just run with it. Have fun. Play.
I used to try to argue. But I got religion.
The Twin Towers/Bldg 7 thing comes up about once a month here. I didn't know shit about structural engineering before 9/11. Now I'm an expert.
This is the case with many other Americans these days. Being a Boston native, I can tell you, Bostonians for the most part are extremely capable of commenting on the Big Dig. We know how much a steel bolt can hold. Or whether(that's whether, not weather, Fleam) or not epoxy should actually be applied in every bore-hole as the blue-prints specify. This comes from a history of cement landing on our head. Much knowledge has been gained from incidents in New York and New Orleans as well.
Don't get angry. Just sit back and judge. Personally, I'm looking for much more specific data from Anonymoose. Semi-entertaining.
About five years ago, when I had money, I ordered a 30 square meter photovoltaic system for my roof. Up and running about two years later (various government and Euro-subsidies, endless bureaucracy).
I applied for a contract with the French state monopoly, EDF, to buy my juice (I'm not an off-the-grid dropout, I just want to contribute what I can to keep civilization running). I didn't like their contract a bit, in fact it would have cost me further monies (which I no longer had by that stage) to upgrade my household electrics to the level where they would condescend to buy my production.
They were offering about 15 euro-cents a kwh for a 20 year contract. I vaguely thought : if I wait a bit, they will lose their monopoly and I can sell it for a better price to some German outfit.
So I let it rot... and I have in fact been injecting electricity into the national grid for about 2 and a half years, for free. Gimme a chocolate medal, somebody.
Now it turns out that the French guvvermint in their infinite wisdom haved upped their offer to 55 euro-cents a kwh...
So, by giving away the power for a couple of years, I can now sign up at a price that will pay back my installation in about 5 years, instead of the original projection of about 15.
France is now, finally, offering about the same purchase price for solar electricity as Germany. Let a million panels bloom.
Apparently most loco locals are more worried about wind turbines killing birds than they are worried about energy supplies or costs...
Blissfully ignorant, fat and happy for now, the "meek and obediant follow their leaderz down well trodden corridors into the Valley of Steel... " (thank you Mr. Pinkest of Floydz).
Of course, utilities are not happy about all the wind and solar electricity entering their grid. It makes planning more difficult for them.
There is no progress unless the government forces utilities to connect renewable energy to the grid for a fair price, no matter what. In terms of scaling up renewables, the German concept seems to be the most successful.
There is a lot of politicing on this one, not sure where it will end up ...
That's the problem for my area - municipal utilities run by civil servants whose main goal is to keep their chairs warm and to continue collecting their paychecks.
Right now the only alternative is to wait until the locals pull their heads from their least clean orifice (or from the sand), or to buy land in an area outside my municipal (but then there are still the local zoning rulez to contend with...).
Local poliTICs are fascinating - right now my Locals are planning for another White Elephant School that will last 50 years and require bussing childrens from all over the county. No Brains, no headaches I guess.
But, luckily, energy policy is a national matter, so the federal government could pass the "law on the priority of renewable energies". The law that first forced utilities to connect renewables to the grid no matter what was passed already in 1991, by the way.
I have a friend who is a photographer specialising in alternative energies, he recently spent a lot of time taking pictures of bioclimatic, solar-panelled housing in Freiburg (you know, there are two sorts of Germans : those that live in Freiburg, and those that wish they did...)
And we were talking last week about his plans for building a small, energy-efficient house. He said, no solar panels, we'll add them later when we have more money...
I've got a feeling he'll be revising those plans now!
Two of my local municipal utilities are not even sure they are going to get even ONE bid from a wholesaler. I think they will be getting their knee pads out pretty soon if you know what I mean ;)
assholes are not good places to stick your head when TimezUp.
\
and how much do you have to pay retail per kwh
consumption? I pay 21 cents per kwh in Texas.
1€ (euro) = $1.28 US right now, so that 55c they will be paying me per kwh is about 70c US.
The new contract proposes to buy all I produce (unlike the old one, where they only bought the surplus after self-consumption). I buy power back from them at a much cheaper rate... (actually six different prices : day/night, normal/cold/very cold day.) Ranges from 5c to 50c a kwh, averages around 8c. I could get flat-rate power for 13c, but I prefer to consume off-peak as much as possible.
So, assuming (from memory) that I'm producing about 2500 kwh per year, and consuming about the same, and including the powerco's fixed subscription charge :
I should be spending about 350 euros ($450) a year, and earning about 1350 ($1730), on a zero-sum electricity game...
Not bad for what was originally a quixotic gesture.
But I feel awful for the pioneers who are tied to 20 year contracts at the old rates.
You should know that there is a EU directive stating that by 2010 12% of the energy consumed in a member country has to be renewable, 20% by 2020.
You should know that there is a EU directive stating that by 2010 12% of the energy consumed in a member country has to be renewable, 20% by 2020.
before but was never answered. How can you be paid
or pay for electricity at more than one rate in
a month? My meter only registers only total usage.
I read on this site all the time about people using
power at night or other off peak periods in order
to get a cheaper rate but my meter doesn't know
when during the month I used the power.
In a bizarre quirk, power we actually pay for can be offset by power we generate, but the minimum fee cannot. So, there's actually some incentive to be a net power producer for fewer months. We're paying for the priviledge of giving the utility free power and I think it sucks. One of the Democratic candidates for governor wanted to change this, but he lost in the primary. I have no idea whether anyone will make any changes about this now.
I thought about getting peak metering, but why bother? It's an extra 100-200 bucks, and the best I can do is still...break even. If California ever gets back to paying for xs power, I may change meters. I work nights, so it would be perfect. Asleep during peak hours, using my job's electricity at night :>) And, if they pay,( or when TSHTF), I might plug in my seasonal creek. Just not worth it right now.
The $5 is for being connected to the grid. The alternative is to buy a battery system and get off the grid completely. Pretty expensive way to save $5 a month.
Rat
Is Hezbollah on the verge of destroying Lebanon?
By Michael Young
Posted Monday, Aug. 7, 2006
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2147260/
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2147260/
Interesting it did not note the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens of all religions.
On the whole I thought the article was balanced, but then what do I know, I tend to side with the Israelis. I wonder if you had a chance to read the article I posted yesterday about Israel and Iran?
It is clear from the opening shots that Israel "shaped the battlefield" by destroying communications, power, etc. throughout central and southern Lebanon. Then they made the mistake of underestimating their enemy and not sending enough troops. Instead of the usual scene of guerrillas shooting over their shoulders as they retreat, or fighting hopeless, suicidally, they are fighting professionally as well as fanatically. As the NY Times reported in last weekend's Week IN review, "A Disciplined Hezbollah Surprises Israel With Its Training, Tactics and Weapons," (sorry, lost the link when I saved it) Israeli soldiers are being met not Banzai attacks with swords, but disciplied soldiers with wire guided anti tank missiles.
Since the soldiers on the offensive want to return home in one piece, while the defenders would just as soon die gloriously, we can bet that it will be a long war. Israel's offensive is going slowly, and in some places has stalled out in fierce fighting right at the border.
We would assume that Israel, since it is unified on this war, and has the US' backing, will eventually prevail. But Hizbollah has a great deal of strategic depth to which they can fall back, as well as enormous and growing support from the rest of the Arab world. Indeed, think of the psychological value: this is the first time Arabs have ever been able to stand up to the Israelis and fight for more than a few hours. The first time Ever.
My worry is that this war will merge with the war with Iraq, and turn into a major regional struggle, one I am not confident we will win; or can even imagine what "victory" would resemble.
But the sophisticated weapons manufacturers will sell modern weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israel may still win. They are smarter and have much, much, more money, and access to our most sophisticated munitions. Don't count them out just because they are acting like children throwing a tantrum.
Israel has been underestimated before. They could just be building up databases on where fire is coming from so they can crush Hezbollah all at once by deploying large numbers of modern remotely guilded weapons and just going everywhere at once. Trading one robot for one jihadi is not a losing exchange.
It's bad ass. Small and compact, built in red dot laser sight that creates an accuracy that is unprecadented. It's designed for urban combat and street level operations. It's more powerful than the M16 with little recoil. It's scary how awesome this gun was. At the end of the episode they said they had begun using them in certain units. I suspect these are being built now at light speed. Anyone see this episode?
Very good insight.
There are Israeli's prepared to die and they are dying. Don't sell that short, but yes, their are a lot on the other side who buy into the 70+ virgins hype.
I would add that Israel mismanaged the start of this campaign by falling between two stools - i.e. not keeping it low key on the border OR knocking out Syria (which may still occur), and,
Israel has leadership issues in that the military is being run by an Air Force General, for the first time ever, and like in Kosovo, they want to solve problems with air power at 20,000 feet, and,
The political leadership of Israel is not an experienced bunch with a ton of military in their background.
Hey, and Hezbollah is well trained and well equipped by Iran. The bad guys get a vote too.
I always loved the quote from von Moltke the Elder, "The enemy has only three possible plans, and he will always choose the fourth."
No real facts. just "straws in the wind". The US gifted bunker busting bombs to Isreal, sequence of diplomatic efforts, etc.
I agree with you on this. I was just making an aside. The Los Angeles Israeli Consul was on radio here today and he pointed out that his University has had a professor blown up on the way to University, and a friend is in the hospital in Haifa, and I have not seen that on CNN.
Yes, I thought the Romancing Iran article so good that I printed it and will parts next time I go on radio.
I must say that my thinking about the Middle East is going through a fundamental change. I am re-examining my thinking based on a PRINCE OF THE MARSHES just out about Iraq and a ex-soldier who fought for the Druze in the Lebanon Civil War. Both think we should just stay out because of our ignorance on both sides of the Republican and Democratic Party equations.
The Druze officer said that you were dealing with two complex minds, the Jewish and Arabic minds, and throw in 3000 years+ of civilization (yes I know it goes back further than that, but not with the "modern" religious aspect).
Politically, since politics is the art of the possible, I would not want to be the President that stood up before Congress/the nation to say we had lost the Middle East and all its oil. He/she ain't getting re-elected anytime soon.
But Pat Buchanan is not the answer either.
Most all of us at TOD know where the energy answer lies, but again, the art of the possible is key.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060807&s=behe080706&c=2
It's more likely that you are wondering how your plans and prayers for certain British aircraft went awry today.
Better luck next time .... not.
It seems Oil CEO is right that you can't seem to get beyond one snarky little sentence.
No
No
The answer is NO
No. If fact the whiff of that thought never even came anywhere near our stupid little brains.
Now Fuck Off - You Fucking Stupid Prick.
And if that isn't clear, ask one of the brilliant assholes you hang out with what it means.
Stay clear of any thread Jack, Step Back, or myself ever makes - ever again.
We have no need for your services.
And let Fleam know when you see him.
It has been hinted at, and joked about, and stated straight out, ad naseum, repeatedly.
You cannot claim that you have not been warned repeatedly.
You have absolutely no ability to engage in any even semi-rational debate on any level. You add nothing - NOTHING - to any discussion here. You are a troll.
If you there is anybody here who has a use for your one-sentence bullshit or your rabid anti-semitics, then hang with them. But stay the fuck away from us.
Do you get it? Don't Answer. No, Really, Don't Answer.
Go back back to whatever rock you crawled out from under and stay there, asshole.
Peace.
I am also not an expert. I do think it is possible for Lebanese to resent the fact that Hezbollah has taken their country hostage and to want it back. If I were Lebanese, I would be angry at both sides, but more so at Hezbollah.
My point in posting this is to show that the situation is more compex than the one-sided hysteria that usually characterizes discussions on this issue.
Lebanese who manage to maintain sophisticated, rational political reasoning during wartime may well wish the Hezbollah to be destroyed.
However, I have seen numbers indicating that 86.9% of Lebanese support Hezbollah against Israel:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12698
(I have seen elsewhere, this number drops to about 70% among Christians.)
Similarly, there are surely very many Israelis who think their government's invasion plan sucks sh*t. But I don't think you would find many who would back the Hezb against the IDF. Because, y'know, there's a war on.
Not rational, I know; but if I were Lebanese, and an Israeli bomb fell on my house, and maybe killed my grandmother, I'd more likely be pissed off at Israel than at the Hezbollah.
Whoever gets elected in 2k8, I just hope to god it's not someone else that AIPAC has tentacles in. Fat chance.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2006/08/09/why_the_world_hates_the_jews
Yup. If I oppose Israel's invasion of Lebanon, I'm just like Gibson...
I agree with most of the article, but that sort of hyperbolic conflation is very damaging.
But based on the angry and uninformed rants on the subject here, the Mel Gibson/age-old specter comparison does apply in some cases.
I oppose most hyperbolic conflations, but not all.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050704fa_fact
I think that Israel has recieved a thousand times the per capita foreign aid of the rest of the world. I think that they recieve preference over every other Middle Eastern nation. I think that it is in their interests to perpetuate the current situation, where we give tons to Israel and anyone that questions it is deemed anti-semitic and attacked by the jewish community as well as the vast majority of Politically Correct politicians. I think that Neoconservatism has its roots in Jewish pro-Israel interests : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Neoconservatism.2C_Judaism.2C_and_.22Dual_Loyalty.22
Look at Cynthia Mkinney's primary, which turned from being about hitting a police officer + being demonized for it, to a national referendum about whether her pro-State of Palestine views were allowed to be aired in Congress:
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/080206/mckinney.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200607/POL20060731a.html
Yup. "We" have madrassahs set up all over world preaching vile hate 24/7 to their babies. It's all our fault. The "blame" (monkey poop) is in our corner of the ownership society. If only we stopped helping the last vestige of democracy and sanity in the ME, things would be much much better.
No matter what you say Squalish, you are still an unbeliever infidel to "them". They still intend to behead you ... after they finish with the Jews ... then they come for you. And who will be left to cry out in your defense? When they finally come for you?
There are about one billion Moslems and about six and a half billion people on this world. I would worry more about the Chinese, myself.
We imported forty million legal and illegal immigrants in my lifetime, and they had twenty million children. What's wrong with importing six million Jews? They make this country a better place, so why share them with the Arabs that don't even want them?
I could certainly use some Mossad and IDF people beefing up our defences if we do have to fight a war with China, and it would certainly terminate our war with the Moslems.
If after a week we'd told Israel to stop offensive actions or we'd yank their aid, and proceded to send in humanitarian assistance, we would have at least a place to stand in negotiations with Iran. Revolutionary concept - public opinion matters in diplomacy.
But that's not the goal, is it? The goal is to invade Iran/Syria. Because doing otherwise would be anti-semitic. Because it's an election year, and people need their Other to posture against. Ahmadinejad is playing on anti-US sentiment to build his base, Bush is playing on anti-Iran sentiment to build his base. And the neocons now have their airbases to bomb from.
There is the counter-argument that our support of Israel is in our strategic and national interests. You may not agree with it, but it is certainly there. It seems rather silly that we would act according to the vaguely defined views of a minority consisting of those like yourself.
Be clear, when you said public opinion, you meant Iranian public opinion, right?
No the goal isn't to invade Iran and Syria, don't be silly. We can have a decent discussion here, some of us already are. But we need to knock off the hysterical nonsense. I'm asking nicely.
Before Isreal invaded and occupied Gaza and Jordan, there was no Hamas and in the first few years of occupation, no effective resistance of any type. Then some riots (put down with live ammo, not tear gas & rubber bullets) as Isreal took Arab land and water for their settlers. Then step by step Isreali repression has created a stronger, more extreme, more violent and more terroristic opposition.
Hamas & Hezbollah are a direct consequence of Isreali actions as occupiers. Isreal thinks the "iron fist" will break the opposition when in fact it only breeds a more violent and stronger opposition.
Isreal left both Lebanon and Gaza only due to military pressure, they retreated under attack. It was not an act of compassion (if Ghandhi were in charge of the Arab resistance, Isreali would not have retreated and the settlers would have multiplied).
Is there a simple solution to this problem? If so, what is it?
But more importantly: What should Israel do? Can Hezbollah be dealt with as an equal partner(adversary) across the table? Can they be trusted? Does the fact that Hezbollah's avowed/often-stated long-term goal/strategy is to wipe Israel off the map matter? Does it matter that this is much the same case with Hamas and every other faction that is "resisting"?
Should Israel simply exchange 1500 hundred prisoners every time their opponent captures 3 of theirs? And then when Israel has no prisoners to exchange, start handing over bits of land?
Where exactly does this other path lead?
What should Israel do?
Honestly, what would you do?
A wing of Hamas that did not agree with the elected leadership abducted one Isreali soldier but asked for all the women & children in Isreali jails to be released.
If I were the Isreali PM, I would offer a majority of prisoners freedom IF they promised to vote yes on the plebiscite. And some other very unexpected gesture of good will (increase water to Gaza by 10% ?) Create hope that the Palestanians would see something other than an iron fist from Isreal. Make a public statement that if Palestanians formally acknowledge Isreal's right to exist, then Isreal will acknowledge Palestine's right to exist as a viable. workable state with a transit corridor between Gaza and the West Bank.
There is more, but it will require time to consider.
As a first step the Knesset would formally apogolize for the Arab villages massacred by Irgun and Sharon's Unit 101 and by Isreali mercenaries and offer compensation to the relatives.
Say that politicans are poor sources of moral wisdom and that Isreal would appoint a rabbinical council and a second Isreali Muslim-Christian council to determine the elements of a just peace and ask the Palestanians to appoint their own council or councils. Humbly ask that each council member read the works of the other religons (I have read most of the Talmud (the Gemara, the 4th Order is relevant) and it influenced my moral reasoning) and that the different councils meet periodically.
In addition ask that the Isreali councils periodically suggest concrete measures towards justice (I would hint to councils: equalize the charges for water for Palestanians & settlers, so all pay the same price).
Also strongly state that racism has no place in Isreali society or Judaism.
Details could be added (I am amused by the idea that the Dalai Lama could be an honest broker between the councils).
A true commitment to justice as a basis for peace, rather than self-interest and overwhelming strength, would change attitudes and could lead to a just, lasting peace.
Working through religious councils that focus on justice (an intractable concept in this case !) could create new, and better realities.
Can I have another "Amen" for that brother?
I respect a wide-range of opinions on this and any other subject. However, the topic seems to be dominated by comments such as "What a ridiculous article" from people who don't offer any support except their self-righteousness and lunatic ravings from Fleam.
I thought the article was interesting and provocative. I don't know much about the Beirut Center and their website is in Arabic. Maybe they are unbiased. But maybe not. Maybe people surrounded by terrorists don't feel free to speak. Polling is difficult in the best of circumstances and clearly this is not one of them. The TNR article does provide a counterpoint to the poll.
I agree that many Israelis have mixed feelings, as do I.
(http://www.beirutcenter.info/default.asp?contentid=692&MenuID=46
Related article: Caution flags are raised over the corn-based fuel
In contrast to that, BTL remains tax free.
But this is over 40% less than the conventional excise duty of 47 p/litre ie 70 Euro cents/litre or $3.40 per US gallon.
Add VAT at 17.5% on top of the product + tax price. No wonder gasoline is $7.11 per US gallon!
I caught CNBC early this morning. They had a guy on there named Charles Hammel. Hammel is an advocate for BP workers in Alaska. Hammel said he warned BP in 2004 that there were serious corrosion problems with the pipeline. He said BP workers reported this problem to him. He said there is about 1000 miles of "flow-line" in Alaska. He said the entire flow-line is like Swiss cheese. He said BP responded by trying to figure out who was talking to him.
BP workers in Alaska were told, by BP officials, to cut back on a chemical that helped control corrosion in the pipeline, Hammel said. Hammel said he raised concerned in 2004, brought to him by workers, to BP officials. Later on CNBC a BP spokesman for BP, one Daren Beaudo, said it was "absolutely untrue" that they ignored concerns. He did not deny that they were warned of all this in 04 however.
Beaudo said the Alaskan pipeline was installed as a "quarter century pipeline". CNBC did not pursue this remark but according to my calculations, the pipeline was installed about 35 years ago. At any rate I think this means that if ANWR is ever opened up, and I believe it will, it will mean an entirely new Alaska Pipeline. Beaudo said BP expects to be in Alaska for the next 50 years.
CNBC remarked that they have a crew on their way to Alaska. We will be hearing much more on this story in the future.
Thxs for this report. So the question is: did BP topdogs cut back on corrosion protection to maximize short-term profits or was this intentional to maximize long term profitability? If the pipeline is shutdown for a year or more to replace 1,000 miles of swiss-cheesed pipe, when it finally comes back online: what will be the barrel price of oil then? IF $150/bbl--topdogs look pretty brilliant, but any price higher than pipeline replacement costs can serve their profit levels nicely.
The other reason might be to financially strangle Alaskan Govt. The $6 million/day royalty loss due to shutdown forces Governor to cutback stupid stuff. It might also induce Feds to give generous taxbreaks or incentives to Alaskan IOCs so the pipeline will be in good shape to transfer ANWR when it comes onstream, if it ever proves to have economic volumes.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
What this does do however is add a new complication to the ANWR argument. If it requires a new pipeline, for a lot less oil than was in Prudhoe Bay, then it might not be drilled.
I have heard a lot of estimates of how much oil is in ANWR, but most of them run from from 3 billion to 6 billion barrels, with 3 billion being the most often quoted.
"Why some of the world's smartest investors are betting billions on clean energy"
A "cultural movement" would be good news, wouldn't it?
Beyond that the ponytails to suits thing is funny, and perhaps cautionary, as an echo of the early World Wide Web and Open Source days.
Saudi Arabia Begins to Face Hidden AIDS Problem
Would the Saudis really play with numbers like that? I thought they only knew how to over-report.
Crude Oil down 1.1 million barrels.
Gasoline down 3.2 million barrels.
Distillates down .2 million barrels.
This is about was expected for Crude oil, but a much greater draw than was expected for gasoline. Distillates were expected to be up by .8 million barrels, so this draw was also unexpected.
These figures, along with production and other figures will be available on the web at 1PM Eastern Time at:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp
Weekly Petroleum Status Report
Starting in May, imports fell off rapidly while domestic production increased substantially. Stocks were at a low point in May then rose in the normal range until just recently. Now the BP Alaskan oil is off the market and not available to west coast refineries. This development is not reflected here.
Finally, they've been motoring like there's no tomorrow. Maxed out at 9.6 barrels a day.
However, tomorrow will come.
Turns out, nobody caught a tuna. One guy hooked one and lost it after eight hours. 39 boats out there, one tough tuna. I guess that fish should have won the $12,000 prize.
Maybe next year's tournament will be fishing for manatee in the Hudson...
(To the extent that PO reduces overfishing, that's a good thing.)
It is beleived 90% of the big fish are gone. In 2003
http://www.nafo.ca/about/media/oth-news/2003/big-fish-extinct.html
By the way, a 1000 lbs bluefin tuna can make up to US $ 100.000 at the Tokyo fishmarket, so they ARE going the way of the dino's.
Crude: -1.1 mbbls, Gasoline: -3.2 mbbls, Distillate: -0.2 mbbls
Talking heads on the Bloomberg/Squawk on the Street sites this morning after these figures came out. Two said that it would have to get to $125 a barrel for a USA recession to start happening. If over $100 it would still be 1% growth rate in the GNP.
One of the guys said that a big event would be "if Iran went out of business." I loved that line. Said it would spike oil to $90. I think that is a bit conservative.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=e31364f2-f42a-4b91-940e-ef06ce096299&k=633 52
I wonder how much longer these Clownish Conz will be considered "well-respected" by anyone other than themeselves?
"Regardless, for some energy experts, the choice to gloss over political realities is a flaw that marginalizes CERA's work."
In DannyBoy "Jerkin'" Yergin's world the Energy Industry apparently exists in a bubble immune to poliTICs and in which projections count more than realities.
I can't wait until next year's Daniel Yergin Dayze - we're having a bonfire with an effigy of DannyBoy on the top.
The fun part of this is that he loves to say things like, "The end of oil has been predicted five times in the past and it never happened."
The man is a five star hypocrite, liar and oil company paid hack apologist.
But that never stopped anyone. Just look at every republican and most democrats out there. All bought and paid for.
Oh, I believe that his real nickname is "Jerkin the Gherkin" Yergin.
So, we're now supposed to believe that nuclear is going to be safe, plentiful and (best of all) really cheap? Half a century ago it was supposed to be safe, clean and "too cheap to meter." Instead, and even with heavy government subsidies, several utilities suffered signficant financial damage. And half a century's nuclear waste is still multiplying in steadily corroding drums.
If wind can increase in cost 70% in a year or two, I imagine that nuclear will be in an even worse position; though that won't prevent us from ramping up with new nuclear power plants over the next few decades. Mining is becoming increasingly more expensive (the technology is improving and getting cheaper, but the sheer volumes required to be processed to get at lower grade ore, combined with more stringent mining regs, AND the skyrocketing cost of things like huge rubber tires, all send the final costs sky high. Read the material on Tar Sands, and apply it to mining uranium.
And, to add to the costs, fighting the local neighbors for permission wont' exactly make them any cheaper. Even the solidly Republican state of Nevada is tired of being a nuclear dumping ground, and elected Democrat Reid specifically to stop Yucca Mt. from proceeding.
In all likelihood, the new nuclear facilities will be hard pressed to do more than replace the old facilities that need to be decommissioned.
World oil supply poised to outpace demand - CERA
HOUSTON, Aug. 8 (Reuters) - With continued high prices, strong investment and unconventional sources, there should be plenty of oil to meet demand through 2015, despite disruptions, a research group reported on Tuesday.
Cambridge Energy Research Associates said a field-by-field analysis projects worldwide capacity should rise to 110 million barrels per day in 2015 from 88.7 million bpd currently, with unconventional sources growing in importance, CERA predicted.
"This capacity growth would accommodate rising world oil demand so long as there are no major disruptions in the actual flow of oil, for political or other reasons," CERA Chairman Daniel Yergin said.
"The current worldwide aggregate disruption in production of 2.3 million bpd is about 2.6 percent of world capacity. That disruption, along with geopolitical risk, has driven prices into the mid-$70s.
"In this very high price environment, companies are diversifying into unconventional assets. These unconventional liquids will loom increasingly large in the world's oil supply - going from less than 25 percent today to almost 40 percent by 2015," Yergin said.
CERA's Peter Jackson and Robert Esser said the specter of peak oil output is not imminent. They also found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, production of lighter crudes is growing faster than heavy grades.
The pair analyzed existing fields and 360 new projects -- 250 new non-OPEC and 110 new OPEC undertakings -- all expected to start production by 2010
The study found strong potential growth in both OPEC and non-OPEC sectors to 2010, with both OPEC and non-OPEC growth slowing between 2010 and 2015, but OPEC growth remaining relatively strong.
CERA estimated OPEC operators will add 7.6 million bpd and non-OPEC producers 5.7 million bpd to 2010. OPEC operators will add 5.3 million bpd from 2010 to 2015 while non-OPEC producers will add 2.7 million bpd, the consultants predicted.
The analysts assessed the 10-year consequences of current supply disruptions and assumes that disruptions over the next 10 years will "average more or less the same magnitude as the current level with a similar impact," the report said.
"The ability of E&P companies to collectively grow global production capacity at a rate allowing a comfortable supply-demand buffer that will absorb supply disruptions and manage these risks will be a critical factor in ensuring global energy security," the report said.
CERA, based in Cambridge, Mass., is a consultant to energy producers, consumers, regulators and investors worldwide.
ne please critique this? I am flabbergasted
Dan Pillar, with the Fort Worth Star Telegram, wrote a story based on our buddy Dan's comments. Following is my e-mail to Dan Pillar:
Dan,
If you do a Google News search for Daniel Yergin, you will find my article on the Energy Bulletin (Daniel Yergin Day) regarding Mr. Yergin's prior predictions.
Alternatively, following is a link to my Energy Bulletin articles: http://www.energybulletin.net/news.php?author=jeffrey+brown&keywords=&cat=0&action=searc h
Based on the Hubbert Linearization (HL) method, the Lower 48 and the North Sea both peaked in the vicinity of 50% of Qt (URR). Russia peaked in the middle of a broad plateau centered on 50%.
Mexico just crossed the 50% mark, and their production is falling, led by the crashing production in the Cantarell Field, the second largest producing field in the world.
We know that three of the four largest producing fields in the world are declining. The only remaining question is Ghawar, and we now have credible reports that Ghawar is declining. In my opinion, the recent Saudi decline of close to 7% is confirmation of this.
Which brings us to the world. Deffeyes estimated that the world crossed the 50% mark in late 2005, and world crude + condensate production is down 1% since then (EIA numbers).
Yergin has consistently been wrong about oil prices and production, and in my opinion you are doing your readers a disservice in not pointing this out.
BTW, Canadian crude + condensate production is down by 11% since December, and the WSJ reports that oil production in Venezuela is falling.
Regards,
Jeffrey Brown
Jeff: Thanks for your information.
Dan Piller
Star-Telegram
At this point the only evidence is indirect. Sure, SA production is down but by choice or geology? But without independent outside analysis, we really won't know until we see the fire.
One thing bugs me. I seem to remember Yergin saying that oil would fall to $38 a barrel last November '05, yet I can't find that factoid anywhere on the 'net. I can't credit him with that if I can't back it up.
Again, Saudi Arabia last year was at the same stage of depletion that Texas was at when we started declining. Also, oil prices up 15% to 30%, and the Saudis voluntarialy cut production?
2004 Forbes Column:
Digital Rules
Capitalism's Amazing Resilience
Rich Karlgaard, 11.01.04, 12:00 AM ET
Excerpts:
Energy is one of the two leading risks in the global economy. (Terrorism, of course, is the other.) Just take a look at one industry already suffering from oil shock--U.S.-based airlines will lose $5 billion this year. That loss matches the bump in fuel prices. Ouch. Then there's China, which has climbed to the world's number two spot in oil consumption. China uses most of its oil wildly inefficiently to generate electricity. Oil consumption by cars barely registers--now. But during the next four years, China's oil imports will double as the Chinese give up their bicycles. Biting your nails yet? Here's one more sobering oil fact: The world has only a 1% short-term cushion. This makes for a very volatile market.
Given these facts, where will oil prices be a year from now--$75 a barrel? $100?
Wrong numbers, says Daniel Yergin. Wrong direction, too. Try $38. Yergin knows oil. He is a founder and the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consultancy that has 230 employees, with offices worldwide. He is also a recipient of the United States Energy Award and a member of the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board. A former Harvard professor, Yergin is best known for his Pulitzer Prize-winning book on oil, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power.
Yergin's prediction of cheaper oil prices is noteworthy because he doesn't dispute any of the alarming facts cited in my opening paragraph. Not that he would. The facts came straight from Yergin's own mouth at the recent Forbes Global CEO Conference in Hong Kong. I jotted down Yergin's comments while listening to him speak at a dinner. Then he gave a formal speech the next morning and, fueled this time by highly caffeinated tea, I again took notes, just to be sure. Yergin is pretty clear about his predictions. He says oil demand will rise, yet prices will drop. How can this be?
Answer: capitalism's amazing resiliency. Oil prices rise--oilmen become innovative. They work, they invest, they put their heads to the task, they apply technology, and pretty soon they'll discover how to extract oil profitably from oil sand. Or open wells in deeper water. Or scour the planet for new sources using scanners thousands of miles in space. As Yergin reminds us, oil output is 60% higher today than it was in the 1970s. Not many sages from the 1970s would have bet their reputations on this development. The opposite sentiment prevailed back then; experts said the planet was running out of oil. Wrong.
Yergin says he's always asked when oil will run out for good. He shrugs. He's willing to say the world will need 40% more oil in 2025. Hard work and technology probably will find a way to meet the demand.
It's really said that CERA is generally viewed as a reliable source for future energy trends. They need to be as objective as possible but it seems that DY tends to spin the facts.
He mentions that the peaker's said that the North Seas would run out but that they are still online. But, as we know, what was said was that the production would peak and then decline. He evades the reality of the current decline by simply stating that production is still online. That is just plain misleading.
BTW, as a lay person speaking (or typing), this is a great site. I greatly appreciate the expertise of the posters and give a thanks to all.
cheers
Petroleum is mentioned only one time in the entire book, The Limits to Growth. On page 66 of the paperback edition, petroleum is listed in Table 4. That is the only place in the book where the word is found. In Table 4, it gives the US Bureau of Mines (who later changed their name to the USGS) estimate of world oil reserves. That number was 455 billion barrels. The table gives years that number would last, (static 31, exponential 20). Then the table gives the number of years with expected new discoveries, which the authors estimated to be roughly 5 times current known reserves. That number, using exponential expected growth, was 50. But of course we did not have exponential growth because we had the Iran-Iraq war. Now we have other problems.
I find it ironic that the Club of Rome was too high in their estimate of total world oil reserves. Five times the then current known reserves of 455 billion barrels turns out to be 2.275 Trillion barrels. Counting oil that had already been consumed in 1972, that would put total UUR at over 2.5 trillion barrels. About .4 trillion barrels too high. The Club of Rome was just too damn liberal in their world oil reserves estimate. Oil will not last nearley as long as it would if they had been correct.
IF Yergin & CERA are smart: they should strategically position themselves by offering their traditional, optimistic 'straight-line analysis' and a more pessimistic 'political-logistical' analysis-- then let the consumer of this info personally decide whether to be cornucopian or doomer. Otherwise, their continued string of bad oil-pricing predictions will marginalize them--Yergin's Pulitzer fame will only carry them so far before they are ignored. By 'riding the fence' and then offering both boom & doom predictions: it would allow them to continue their MSM visibility as they could always point to whichever analysis best answers the media questions. In short, with a targeted market segmentation strategy: they could always look like geniuses and keep their jobs safe.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Lots of consultants prefer not to say "The Emperor has no clothes".
It's funny. Once in a while I discuss oil issues in an argentinian forum with a local energy consultant. He told me some weeks ago that in 2010 there would be a lot of new production. So I asked him to give me his sources. "CERA reports" he said.
And on top of that, he thinks he's a very, very smart guy.
Best
Fernando
That's an increase of 13.3 million barrels per day by 2010, or over 3 million barrels per day per year. That is totally and completely absurd. Never in the history of the world has oil production increased that far that quick. So far in 2006, world average production is up 105,000 barrels per day over the average for 2005. But production in April and May has been considerably lower than the same two months in 2005, we are headed in the wrong direction. Any chart shows that oil production has reached a plateau and CERA has oil suddenly increasing faster, for longer, than any time in history.
In short, Daniel Yergin and CERA is full of it.
Not true. YOY increases in 2002 and 2003 averaged almost 4mbd, with a few months (Dec03, Jun and Jul 04) having well over 5mbd yoy increases. We went from 76mbd in 2002 to 84mbd in 2004.
We've been through plateaus and even multi year declines before and we've always come right back up as soon as the economy recovered. My personal theory is that the current plateau is due to a flat-lined economy masked by understated inflation stats. I think we might even have recession by Q1 2007, again partially masked by Orwellian statistical subterfuge. Oil use will naturally decline, and prices in real terms might even decline. Nominal dollars/barrel may continue on upwards.
The difference this time around might be in the recovery. By the time the economy recovers from the coming recession, we may have passed gross liquids peak without realizing it, especially if Canterell, Gawhar and Burgen have all peaked. I still maintain that NET liquids peaked sometime around 2000 +/- 5 years.
Last four years, change from previous year, All Liquids:
2002 -761 mb/d
2003 +2,609 mb/d
2004 +3,439 mb/d
2005 +1,356 mb/d
Total increase over 4 years= 6,644 about half Cera's estimate for the next four years. That is an average of 1.661 bp/d per year, not the over 3 mb/d Yergin and Company are predicting for the next four years.
No we did not!
2002 76.957 mb/d
2004 83.005 mb/d
You were off by almost 1 mb/d on both figures, putting your figures off by a total of 2 mb/d. At any rate Yergin's figures were for four years.
I rest my case. Never in the history of the world have we increased oil production by that much that fast.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t14.xls
Ron Patterson, the Darwinian
The numbers I was referring to were monthly YOY numbers, sorry for not being clear:
mon yr YOYdelta
Dec 03 +5,882
Jan 04 +4,863
Feb 04 +3,138
Mar 04 +2,488
Apr 04 +3,358
May 04 +2,996
Jun 04 +5,601
Jul 04 +5,278
Aug 04 +3,704
Sep 04 +3,300
Oct 04 +3,108
Nevertheless, expecting a sudden reversal of the recent plateau/declines back up to the fastest pace of 2004, in a time of economic slowdown, makes CERA seem delusional. If the increases of 2003 and 2004 were just spare capacity being opened up, then its even worse.
Next week, can I be Ron, and you be Freddy?
No, Freddy...Oh, I forgot, you are not really Freddy are you...anyway, it has never increased that far that fast ever before in the history of the world. And it is not sporting of you when we were talking about a four year gain to try to bring it down to two years.
And why the hell are you posting monthly data? Because of storms, maintenance, and whatever monthly data just jumps around all over the place. Just look at what happened last October as compared to two months prior. Yergin was talking about four years of gains and you wish to talk about monthly fluctuations?
I repeat, four year gain of 13.3 million barrels per year, (averaging 3.325 million barrels per year)has never happened before in the history of the world. And even Freddy Hutter cannot twist the data to make that statement untrue. Oh, I forgot again, you are not really Freddy. ;-)
If we just drill enough holes for 4 years instead of stopping after 2, we'll have all the oil we need until 2010, don't you think? [wink,wink]
Whew! this Freddy stuff is hard. Let me try one more...
Today's plunge from $77/barrel all the way down to 76.4 PROVES that the Alaska pipeline closure is just a minor blip, nothing to get excited about, and already discounted by the market, which is obviously preparing for the huge glut of supply that will hit the market when the pipeline comes back online next January. As we roll into the historically low demand period of Feb-May, we can expect the already bloated storage situation to become critical unless OPEC regains some sanity and cuts production drastically next spring. Otherwise, expect crude-in-storage to start squirting out from all kinds of embarrassing places as the pressure builds.
That was fun, kinda got into a groove towards the end there.
Add in the abiotic oil which is going to start spewing from the earth in giant fountains any day now, and we are looking a crash in oil prices of biblical proportions.
That was not the argument. I said it had never happened ever before in the history of the world, and I was absolutely correct in that statement! End of that story!
However that being said, the gain in 2003 and 2004 was due to two factors. One, OPEC opened the tap that they had deliberately closed in order to raise prices. They have no other taps to open.
Second, Russia was recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fields were opened up that had previously been closed for political reasons, and had deteriorated due to no maintenance. The gain in Russian production this year will be about 2.5 percent instead of the 10 percent gain in recent years. In short, Yergin's numbers ain's gonna happen.
Now you are getting very good at being Freddy. Keep up the good work and we will give you the Freedy of the month award.
Note that the Russians have been talking about year over year production gains, but the EIA--so far--shows falling production since December.
In fact, of the top 10 net oil exporters, seven are showing declines since December, and the other three are flat.
Thanks,
Rick
But just expecting crude capacity to be unchanged then, and conjuring up 4 mbd of currently-existing capacity, are sufficiently silly ideas to maintain CERA's reputation.
12 fields representing 1,485,000 bpd new production capacity are confirmed on stream
7 fields representing 1,015,000 bpd new production capacity are confirmed to most likely be comming on stream later this year.
11 fields (maninly ME OPEC) representing 1,455,000 bpd new production capacity have no recent information available. Some of these may already be on (e.g. Ghawar Haradh GOSP 3) while others like South Pars 6 & 8 are unlikely to come on before the end of next year.
The fields that are already on will not be producing at capacity. Furthermore, production data for smaller projects are not recorded.
To state the obvious - capacity erosion has matched new capacity during the first 7 months of 2006 resulting in a production plateau. There is no reason to believe a wall of oil is heading for the market during the remainder of the year, although the Azeri-Chirag fields in the Caspian will be ramping up now that the BTC pipeline is open.
I'll prepare something a bit more comprehensive to post tomorrow. Got a spread sheet with summary data and links which I'm happy to share - how do I get this linked up?
Verdant Says Tidal Power Sites are Being Tied Up
A couple of points. Some of my joint venture partners probably wish I were a "former" oilman, but I am still in the game. Also, in regard to the East Texas Field, we use the energy equivalent--from total fossil fuel + nuclear sources (not just petroleum)--of the East Texas Field every 30 days.
The only thing worse than seeing oneself online is my next challenge. I just got the DVD of the two part PBS debate on Peak Oil. I may, depending on how bad I was, publicize when the debate will be broadcast.
Speaking as somebody who is as straight as a water buffalo, I don't think you looked half bad.
The Peak Oil debate, which was basically me versus ExxonMobil and Michael Lynch, is going to be shown on the McCuistion Program, which is syndicated on PBS.
I've decided to watch the DVD after two or three glasses of wine tonight. If all else fails, the Bush Administration may be able to use the DVD as a new way to "persuade" people to talk.
Is there any way to get that program online so we can all watch it? I don't think I'll ever see it any other way.
Super G -- is there a way for us to do that?
I'm glad you are going all out on education, the only way to begin to make a difference!
I sent a link to my brother in law in Houston, who owns a couple businesses. We go camping and I tell him about peak oil, and he says I'm "fucking with his head." But it's gotten him thinking.
But how to translate the growing recognition into action? What sort of action would actually make a difference? THat's the tough part. It would probably require he sell his companies, sell his mansion in Sugar Land, and change his lifestyle. But then what about his employees who are dependent on him? (he's probably the best boss in the world. He REALLY looks after his employees.)
I think the action part of the equation inhibits the understanding part. If someone "gets it," then what do they do? They can't all become urban homesteaders, can they?
I think this is also the big difference between Global Warming and CFCs. CFCs could be phased out, but what can you do about fossil fuels?
But enough of that. Congratulations WesTexas!
Good jobs should not be eliminated. Encourage him (and his employees) to look across the board at their companies energy use. Conservation can only help the bottom line.
at the same time their competitors will use what they refuse to use, forcing them to either grow and compete(which negates all their gains in conservation) or up and die.
conservation is mainly a pipe dream along with efficiency, both will only work if some all powerful third party dedicates themselves to enforcing that everyone takes part.
think bob-shaws earth marines but many many times more powerful. without it any short term gain is eaten up later by growth(more people) or some people just not doing it. the former because no one will think long term once the short term gains come in, they will be all happy about the illusion they solved the problem and now it's back to basically things as usual. the latter because no matter what you do, no matter what you say there will always be people who will out right refuse to do what you say, even IF you manage to somehow convince everyone in your country to go along with it you will NOT be able to get all the other country's to do the same. it only takes one that decides not to follow to ruin every thing you worked so hard for.
Respectfully - I completely disagree.
There are people (more then you might think) that will pay for green. There are states where people can opt to pay more to get their electricity from Wind power. Whole Foods market charges a premium for fresh organic food. You don't always have to be the cheapest to win.
"Respectfully - I completely disagree.", and more than respectfully, I agree with ggg71.
TrueKaiser seems to be making an argument that only waste builds wealth(??)
We will leave aside that this idea goes against every single idea of business and good monetary stewardship in history. Waste has never built wealth over the long haul, if it had to compete directly against efficiency.
This brings us back around to the example given by Vinod Khosla, the ethanol proponent. I differ with much of what he believes, but he said one thing in his defense of ethanol that rang true. What the early adapters, the "tinkers" will buy may be interesting, but it is the trajectory of what will save the average person money and be adapted by what folks here call "the sheepies" that will decide the fate of new technology. I will give you a short example, a friend of mine. A middle aged legal assistant I know drives a Toyota RAV4. She moved down from a full sized pickup several years ago, and bought it new. When I asked her why, she said simply, "It does the same job, and it costs less to drive." Can you get anymore direct than that....Jevon's paradox didn't seem to enter her thinking. The other day, I was talking to her. The RAV4 now has over 200,000 miles on it. I asked her what she thought of the new hybrid Toyota's, since she had been so happy with her Toyota, with gas high, would she get one? She astounded me with her knowledge......"Not yet, I can still afford the gas at this price, and the RAV will probably make 300,000 miles. Thats another 3 years for me, and by then, the batteries will be so much better....."
There you have it. THAT is how a revolution will come. People are already watching, reading, listening. As always, the cautious and astute will get it right, and the revolution will come. I will keep it short, and draw you a brief scenario, a longer one and more detailed on request:
The size of the gas electric hybrid market will grow, just like the home computer market, and the color TV market, and the radio market did before it. 2, then 4 they 8 then 22 percent of the market....the batteries will improve (they already have more than most folks know) by 10, then 20, then 30 percent....trucks and buses and vans will adapt hydralualic hybrid drivetrains, then efficient Diesel engines, then gas turbines, not those cornball "rocketship" ones of the 1950, but the efficient microturtines, by firms like Capstone, that will drive alternators and hydralualic pumps....and fuel consumption will level off. Of course, as we know, oil production will be leveling off too....and there will be mixing....gasoline yes, but gradually less....natural gas, yes, as efficiency and Distributed Generation and modern heating and cooling take the load off of natural gas consumption, and propane, and biofuels will be in there, methanol? of course, some, but it will only be one part of a rapidly fracturing pie.....and newer fuels in smaller volume (bio-butanol, compressed sewer gas, methane from waste?), but more and more, the electric grid. Houses, cars, and people will be tied together through electronic "convergence" getting more information, able to move about, able to enjoy clean and efficient housing, interesting high tech recreation, while not even noticing, NOT EVEN NOTICING, they are consuming less.
And then, someone notices the price of "energy" in whatever form has leveled off (when? was it a year ago, two...who notices when energy costs go down, we just enjoy...). They see the photovoltaic panels on roofs, how long have they been there?.....the windmills on the edge of suburbs and towns, how did they not pay attention to those when they were built? It was like the cell towers! How many people see cell towers now and wonder, "when did that damm thing get there?" If they read financial journals, they would see the articles, "30% more electrical rail in last decade boosts electrical equipment market shares. Here are the best plays." DAMM they would think, why wasn't I in on that at the front end? Another article says that electric controllers in hybrid vehicles have made profit for high tech heavy industry. I could have bet this stuff across the board! It's just like the tech days, but now it's too late to make the real killing!
---------------
And the generation that remembers the Yom Kippur War, and the Arab oil embargo, and Iran hostage crisis and the Iran Iraq War, and the "Peak Terror" of the early 2000's (Campbell and Deffeyes themself were still around then! Getting up there in years, but still here) look around, knowing their last remains of the day, to use the words of one who can really write...., and now in old wisdom know that a world 5000 and more years in the making will not fall apart so easily just to amuse them.
The children of the once afraid are working in professions and industries not even thought of when the "old folks" were so frantic, laser heated liquid air to drive a ceramic turbine, with the air compressed and liquified by super torque windmills? It's still expensive, say the young, but (the magic words) "the price is coming down fast."
And the children and grandchildren will find new things to be frightened of.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
It depends on what kind of businesses he is in. If he is not on the nondiscretionary side, I would advise looking into transitioning into something that will be still be needed if consumer's income falls and if food and energy prices go way up.
Not something to look forward to !
Too many gay water buffaloes is one reason their population is endangered.
:-)
That sounds like an insult to gay, lesbian and transgendered water buffalo everywhere.
What would it take to organize a mini-conference in Austin?
I think that the best way to do this is to get an academic cosponsor. A university sponsor gives you a facility, resources and credibility. People also don't generally hesitate about writing checks to universities. I had some contacts with the Greater Dallas Planning Council (GDPC). The event was cosponsored by SMU and the GDPC, with underwriting support by Chesapeake Energy and Boone Pickens (and others, including yours truly).
A lot of people have a kind of love/hate relationship with Jim Kunstler. But if you really spend some time with the guy, you realize that he is really a man in mourning--for what the country used to be, for what it has become, and what it could have been. In my humble opinion, it would be a great idea to do Simmons/Kunstler symposium, Part Two. I'm pretty good at fundraising, if someone would like to push the idea along.
Kevin
k4ddogs at yahoo dot com
Just a thought.
Boy, do I know how you feel. Moving to Alabama was quite a culture shock.
Talking in tongues, snake handling, full immersion baptisms, believing that the universe is only 6000 years old and full of demons. Sometimes I feel like I'm a time traveling anthropologist. At one point, a few years back, the governor got up on stage and danced like a monkey to prove that evolution was not true.
insert hommer acting like a chimp while trying to get a bottle of beer open.
A (very) liberal religious group composed of people of all faiths and walks of life. Here's the link to the UUA: http://www.uua.org/
Of course, I suspect that in the Peak Oil world, the bar is, shall we say, probably not too high?
Email to we_happyfew[at]hotmail[dott]com
I think the extra 2 million a day from the CERA report is the supposed 'excess capacity' of the Saudis.
As for the rest, I'm interested in what we CAN do, but I'm more interested in what we WILL do. Or really what we ARE doing. Which includes wars and droughts and tuna and manatees. And collapses and extinctions and "conspiracies".
So, Vinod, enjoy making your money. I'll bet ya some morning you'll wake up and say "uh oh"...
Please do post on it. Find a specific area of disagreement, and address it. I believe that's what he needs. He has heard the same criticisms from me again and again. He needs to hear some of those specific criticisms from TOD readers. Give him your best shot.
Anyway, I've gotta stop spending so much time here, as much as I love y'all. Time to make more of my stained glass mosaics for Xmas (if we're still doing that this year...), as long as the system keeps functioning I need to make some bucks. Just bought a car - '02 Corolla, 36MPG!!. Car payments again, ugh...
I am a first time poster, long time lurker. As my name and bio suggest, I am a proud member of the oft maligned, but wildly successful(sorry, I know its not polite to open with sarcasm)airline industry. I've been "peak aware" for a couple years now, but have only truly convinced over the past few months, thanks in no small part to the constant postings by westexas and others. As I have obviously chosen what is probably the most vulnerable industry in the nation to our energy crisis, I have since begun retooling my self as a wx forecaster and or climatologist...work in progress, but I digress. I have really become fascinated with the many different points of view represented here, and look forward to joining the debate.
From what I've seen so far, the problems seem to be generally acknowledged, but potential mitigations seem to be either less than technically adequate(by themselves) or not popularly acceptable. Disregarding the "die off" crowd, not meant as an insult just a simple disagreement, the biggest challenge seems to be that of will, the will to acknowledge the problem, and the will to do something meaningful about it.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
~Confucius
As an air traffic controller, I'll be right behind you. I'm currently trying to adjust my lifestyle to match my reduced income as a future unemployed ATC. I hope to exit the company while there's still a decent chunk of pension left. Anyone who's flying should be doing the same (if their pension hasn't already be decimated).
Glad to see I'm not the only one in this beleaguered industry aware of our faults. I do wonder what will become of air travel over the course of the next decade. I foresee a severe contraction, but certain things simply need to be sent via air. Considering that today air travel encompasses only a small fraction of total liquid fuel use, I cant believe that air travel will completely disappear, at least not in the near future.
The market for jobs in the atmospheric sciences is really tight unless you plan on getting a masters or PhD. Climatology is the worst. You can probably find something in forecasating if you're willing to move to some generic Hellhole, USA. The budget for "Climate" just keeps getting slashed year after year and forecasting is progressively getting turned over to computer programmers, there are few real forecasters left. So here would be my advice...figure out something else. My suggestion is to try Hydrology or environmental engineering and see if you like that, I imagine water is going to be a hot topic in the years to come.
The troubling part of all this that now its August 9th and Not one sign of a Hurricane troubling the Gulf of Mexico. A whole season ago, by this time in August we had gotten up to the L's This time our next windy guest will be named in the D's. Something fishy here, where are the hurricanes? Oh yeah, BP has leaky pipes, who needs hurricanes! Ah so sad to see gas going up again. Looks out to his van, Humm maybe I ought to at least crank her up this month see if she still runs. Pity I need to travel the end of the this month anyway.
I hope no one was planning on buying a big gas guzzler this week.
Oh and Hi to all you Current or Former residents of Huntsville Alabama. I am a former, though I still visit on a regular basis.
Know it well (or should say that I used to, as I lived there from the late 50s to the late 60s). Dad worked in the "space program."
Boy Scouts, Little League, hunting for arrowheads in the cotton fields...many fond memories of the place. We last lived off on Mt. Gap Road (off Memorial Pkwy), on the south end of town.
Yeah, I know about the "changes." I visited last around 1980 and found that much of my old turf had been paved over. Even the little creek where I used to fish for bream was gone. They had cleared the banks and routed much of the stream through large concrete culverts.
Yuk.
Well, there is no accounting for taste. I think that Jim also quoted me this week. I'm the friend that told him that I thought that the Left's (fully justified and understandable) hatred of Bush is driving a large percentage of the Left completely insane.
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm
There are a few cotton feilds still down on the west side of Memorial Parkway between Airport Rd and Weatherly, just not many.
Ron Paterson is a former Huntsville native.
I worked for 5 years with Intergraph in Digital Mapping, there was not a happy ending.
Jeffery, Keep up the good work!
I agree with you fully on both counts. Bush is the worst president in my memory. But he has one great political talent. The very sight of him drives his opponents to idiocy.
The left's fixation with Bush is driving them crazy and annoying the hell out of the rest of us.
I think it is the other side of the world's turn to get hammered - a super-typhoon is currently bearing down on China:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/08/news/companies/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes
"Why Wal-Mart wants to sell ethanol
E85 is available at only a tiny fraction of gas stations. But Fortune's Marc Gunther says the giant retailer is poised to change that."
Boy, is it complex. They estimate it will add months of design time to the project...and that's probably optimistic.
And unintended consequences - or maybe declining marginal returns? - have already reared their heads.
Because there's so much paperwork to file now, and it's so difficult and expensive to comply with the new regs, people are just not doing it. They're building their projects without permits, and hoping not to get caught.
And because the rules are much stricter in "urban" areas, some areas which are not urban are declaring themselves to be urban in order to control growth.
Companies have found that it's not worth jumping through all the hoops to build in an "urban" area, so they go a few miles down the road to an area which is not "urban." That's right - environmental laws are contributing to sprawl.
Having spent most of my professional life as an environmental engineer/consultant, I know all too well of what you speak. I would venture that more environmental manpower is spent preparing environmental permit applications, environmental impact statements, environmental due diligence reports, emissions reports, remediation plans, etc. etc, ad nauseum than is spent on actually cleaning up hazardous waste sites or in curtailing air and water pollution.
That is why the environmental field is no longer fun. The current regulatory structure was devised by lawyers for lawyers. It is a perfect example of process over substance. I don't believe in the environmental field anymore and am glad that I am out of it. It was a very good field to be in while it lasted but no more.
My prediction is that, in general, environmental considerations will gradually go by the wayside as the energy situation gets more and more desperate.
However, one thing I would be willing to bet the farm on: no one is going to be able to build a new nuclear power plant anytime during the next 10 years anywhere on the East Coast from Virginia to Maine. Hell, it'll take a couple of years just to go through the permitting process, then there will be the inevitable citizens' NIMBY law suits, political machinations, and other impediments. It just ain't gonna happen. So much of all this talk about nuclear power (which I happen to favor) is purely academic.
I am sure that they will all be built at the site of existing nuclear power plants. That will minimize siting problems.
I find that ludicrous, because maintenance has gone out the window since the '50s and '60s. In the name of "productivity," the workers who used to do that kind of thing have been fired. Instead, we're going to low-maintenance designs, such as using 18" pipe when 8" would do. (Clogs less.)
Another layer of complexity in a system that's already too complex...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14258758/
This should be plenty of confirmation that the war is about water, assuming they are reluctant to retreat when the UN force arrives.
They are more interested in it as a barrier to movement, that's why they destroyed the bridges.
Seems to me that the main thing fuelling the Israeli reaction, and Israeli politics in general is not water, oil, or even defense per se, but revenge. It's interesting to note that, as the death toll mounts, the ratio stays at 10 to 1.
According to Israeli moral calculus, one Israeli civilian is worth ten Lebanese civilians. That'll sure teach somebody some sort of lesson. Surely.
In a Biblical sense, Semites are peoples whose ancestry can be traced back to Shem, Noah's eldest son. The ancient Semitic populations were pastoral nomads who several centuries before the Christian Era were migrating in large numbers from Arabia to Mesopotamia, the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River delta. Jews and other Semites settled in villages in Judea, southern Palestine.
Those Lebanese are semites, while many Israelis are not (as the originated elsewhere....)
There is one thing I won't stand for, and that's spurious accusations of anti-semitism. Maybe you could explain to me what part of what I wrote is close to anti-semitism.
The 10-to-1 ratio can be independently verified. Its constancy as the war progresses, makes me wonder if it isn't a matter of policy.
If it is indeed policy (Hezb missile killed three Israeli civilians yesterday? OK let's look for a village where we can kill thirty Lebanese civilians) then it can't be explained by any rational war plan that I know of. It can only exacerbate and prolong the war, and would seem to be driven by irrational desire for revenge.
Now, I have no idea as to why the expression of this idea might be close to anti-Semitism. If I postulate that Palestinians or Lebanese are driven by revenge in certain acts, am I guilty of this same thought crime which you will not stand for?
Accusations like yours are a form of intellectual terrorism which are intended to shut down rational debate. I don't intend to be shut down.
It would be nice if you would independently verify it rather than say it can be.
Look, while I may disagree with some of your other points, I'm not going to take issue with them here. I'll let you have your day.
I suppose anything can be "independently verified" these days. But on this ratio thing: The total death numbers I'm seeing suggest more like 6-to-1. If we want to talk about only civilians, there is an article above that suggests it could be as low as 3-to-1. The constancy issue presents a serious problem for you. But I'll wait until you show me your numbers on that before I elaborate.
I don't think the matter is trivial, as apparently you don't either since you are using it to apportion culpability and possibly pursue accusations of war crimes. I don't agree with this stance and simply hope for a quick and lasting peace, however I wish you would be more careful with the numbers you are throwing around.
So please, verify away.
You have postulated a 3-to-1 ratio for civilian deaths. This is a pretty clear indication that you are ill-informed about the issue. Sometimes, accurate data may lead to changes in one's world view (see Peak Oil).
Here are some numbers from today's Guardian :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1842195,00.html
(at the end of the article)
So the overall ratio is pretty close to 10 to 1.
The civilian ratio, however, is more like 25 to 1.
While I still disagree with you, You've proved that your are paying attention. I admire that.
I follow the conflict quite closely. Sick as it may seem, I've got a running spreadsheet on casualties. I'm extremely informed. So it would seem that your clear indications need to be rethought.
When do you think a cease-fire will happen?
I'm surprised, given that you claim to be paying close attention, that you challenged the 10:1 ratio, and postulated other, preposterous ratios. Isn't it time to put up or shut up with your casualty numbers?
As to when there might be a ceasefire : It might be pretty soon. It seems that the IDF is not attaining its assigned objectives, therefore a deployment of Lebanese and international troops in the south would seem to be an excellent option for Israel. And for everyone else. One can only deplore the fact that there was no serious attempt to obtain this by diplomatic means (though that would probably have required the US to act as an honest broker).
On the other hand, the Hezbollah might not wish for a ceasefire, if in fact they are holding their own as well as it appears.
Have you seen this Christian Science Monitor article, indicating the Bush sect wanted Israel to attack Syria?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/dailyUpdate.html
I want to say that I really appreciate your discussion here. You are keeping this on a completely professional, rational, intellectual level. Something I wish would happen more often on this web site. Many thanks. I haven't read the article yet, but I will. I'll be right back.
By the same token, I don't demonize Americans when I say that the prosecution of the Iraq war has in some instances seemed to me to be motivated by revenge rather than any rational plan. One of the (many) turning points of the war when some American contractors got lynched in Fallujah in 2004, which led to the siege and virtual destruction of the city. It seems that the decision came from Bush (certainly it's in character for him), the military were against it.
"War is the terrorism of the rich and the powerful;
Terrorism is the war of the poor and the powerless."
- Peter Ustinov
Trained soldiers are more effective than untrained soldiers, but trained soldiers cause government expenditures for training, goverment expenditures cause taxes, and taxes cause smaller families.
Search for Kipling's "Arithmetic On The Frontier".
Its been claimed that Hizballah and Hamas intended to do a prisoner exchange, 2 israeli soldiers for 1000's of lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. I guess Hizballah is saying 1 Israeli is worth 1000 Lebanese.
The light rail passes directly in front of the church where the conference will be held. The church is about four blocks away from the Museum District station, along Fannin.
There is also a bicycle rack in front of the church. :-)
Alaska Calls Hiring Freezes, Wants BP held accountable for the state's losses:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/oil.alaska.ap/index.html
More Oil Workers Kidnapped in Nigeria:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/09/nigeria.kidnappings.ap/index.html
This happens much more, and there will be an exodus of foreign oil workers from Nigeria. Looks like the Nigerian 'disruptions' aren't going away anytime soon!
now, that's funny.
Here's an update on the break in the Druzhba pipeline (Samara-Bryansk-Polotsk, with a branch to Lithuania). An interview with a Transneft vice-president, Sergei Grigoriev, appeared on www.delfi.lt a few hours ago. He says that the crude that would have gone to the Mazheikiu Nafta refinery is now going instead through Odessa and Yuzhni in Ukraine. Odessa was previously scheduled to get 570,000 tons in August, now it'll get 970,000 tons (Rosneft and Lukoil being the beneficiaries). Yuzhni was previously scheduled to get 80,000 tons, now it'll get 320,000 tons.
So, the bottom line: no evidence of a drop in Russian exports, at least in connection with the Druzhba problem. The crude will be re-directed through other pipelines onto the export market.
Interestingly, here's a quote from Mr. Grigoriev (my translation from the Lithuanian, which was almost certainly translated from the Russian in which the interview was conducted -- how many Russians speak Lithuanian??):
"If [Europeans] can find an alternative to Russian crude, which nobody has been able to find so far, we at Transneft would just rejoice. That would mean that somebody has to find more crude or order would at last be restored in Iraq, or the crude price would fall. I don't know where [the Europeans] will get their crude, and why Russian companies should have to suffer on account of that."
Very interesting, indeed.
A technical note: the section of pipeline near Bryansk that had the accident was built between 1964 and 1974. Same age as the building in which I live. I sure hope Soviet buildings hold up better than Soviet pipelines...
Thanks for the info!
"Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July, at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824
Chris
God willing, we will
destroy the BTC pipeline
In so far as you seem to know so much more than I do, tell all of us where your information comes from.
I merely mentioned an ambush which indeed took place. I did not go into motives or recount the whole sorry history of conflict in the region.
Also, did you see the picture & caption? Do you have a sense of humor? By God, I hope so 'cause you're going to need it in the future.
-- Dave
Source for an incident in a war? Does anybody have a database of all the little skirmishes going on in the Israeli/Arab war? Almost certainly. Anybody on this panel know where it is?
Somebody is supposed to be in charge of deciding which dead Arab's family gets a "Martyr" pension from the Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah and the other armed resistance groups, and they probably know. If I read Arabic I could probably google it in a minute. Tell you the guy's name, phone number, street address, and whatever else you want to know.
No kidding about the "Martyr" pension. Read a story about some Arab family complaining that they didn't get one because he wasn't directly involved in combat or even killed by a stray bullet, so they didn't get one.
Matter of fact, they probably do have a web page someplace. I'll go look.
Bet I find the Israeli soldier's name.
--from an article 6 years ago (Feb. 2000)
Read also about the cult of martyrdom here
Strange, the terrorists have ranks, pensions, medical plans, survivor benefits. When do the terrorists become soldiers?
If one wants war, one can ALWAYS find a casus belli.
The trick is not finding how to start it, but in finding how to stop it.
Jewish leader wants crack down on Canadian Hezbollah demonstrations.
I'm not hysterical
They're taking over the streets of Canada! Let's suspend civil liberties before it's too late!
Sigh. Awaiting the crazy responses... I'm supposed to write a piece for Matt Savinar on Israel & Hezbollah. Maybe that is unwise.
My view is simple. Hysteria on both sides raises terrorist risks (witness today's news about transatlantic flights from Britain). Acts of terrorism at this time will affect the already precarious oil markets. If the terrorist act strikes at oil production, the effect will be worse. All this is called blowback.
My advice to all the childrent of Abraham is calm down.
-- Dave
They are know for their outrageous statements: Adam Aptowitzer, the Ontario chairman of B'nai Brith Canada's Institute for International Affairs, was widely criticized by Canadian Arab and Muslim groups after he made statements on the October 19, 2004 Michael Coren Show (a television talk show airing in Canada) defending the use of "terror" tactics by Israel against Palestinians. Aptowitzer argued that such actions were permissible when used to prevent deaths, saying "When Israel uses terror . . . to destroy a home and convince people to be terrified of what the possible consequences are, I'd say that's acceptable use to terrify someone."
wikipedia
Does this statistic--a million vs. at most a few hundred--mean that the U.S. was morally wrong to bomb Japan?
Ethicists may debate endlessly, but without U.S. bombing, the Empire of Japan would probably still rule China and much of Asia, not to mention Australia and New Zealand.
War is nasty business.
I am opposed to war.
Once a war gets started, it makes sense to follow tactics that will quickly bring it to a close and prevent a replay, as the U.S. did against Japan and the Allies did against Germany and Italy.
Note that the seriously considered alternative to bombing and then invading (before the A bombs) Japan was to blockade the home islands of Japan and starve half or two-thirds of the population to death while continuing fire bombings--whatever it took to get the Japanese High Command to give in.
Sometimes a war does settle an issue, as it settled the question of whether Japan was going to establish by force their "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
We lost a lot of merchant marine sailors before Pearl Harbor. Man for man it was a lot more dangerous sailing merchant marine ships than navy ships.
And as for the Japanese, it was one dead Japanese civilian for every dead Phillipino civilian. The Chinese account has not yet been closed. Or the Korean account.
Unless Kim wants those bombs for purposes of revenge.
I have to laugh at all the twaddle and nonsense being peddled about how the U.S. is the most hated nation on earth.
In first place for most hated is Japan: Many millions of Chinese are still alive who remember the atrocities the Japanese committed in China (not to mention Korea, Indonesia, etc.). The Chinese have long memories and tell stories to their grandchildren.
The Germans are much hated for reasons similar to the Japanese; ask any Russian age seventy or older about Germans . . . .
Russians themselves are much hated--and with good reason.
Many with long memories hate the Turks, the French, the Belgians, and even the English.
On the most-hated nation list, I'd have to put the U.S. somewhere around fifth or sixth place--nowhere near the top.
OK, that's enough out of me, I have to go work on somebody's blog :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
YES! This is exactly what I tell my wife. She's always wanting me to scrub the bathtub. But I tell her those rings are hydrocarbons in formation and shouldn't be disturbed.
Meantime, let me go put a steak over my eye.
Recommended!
Using the latest scientific techniques: Greenland is now melting three times faster than earlier predictions.
------------
SYDNEY, 10 August 2006: The Greenland ice sheet is now melting three times faster than predicted, making the likely rise in sea levels this century larger than originally feared, according to a U.S. study published today.
In a study published in the online issue of the U.S. journal, Science, Jianli Chen and colleagues at the University of Texas in Austin have calculated that the Greenland ice sheet has been melting at an accelerated rate since 2004.
The researchers now estimate that about 240 cubic kilometres of the ice sheet is disappearing annually. This is a staggering three times faster than the rate estimated in the past five years.
The difference in estimates can be attributed to increased melting in the past one and a half years and, most importantly, to the improved filtering and estimation techniques from GRACE.
----------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Condi Rice's response to the glacial melting in Greenland.
Satirical, of course. =]
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
In contrast to my early satirical posting, this one is a serious note about Mexico as the agony of the election recount gets underway. Is the shooting of newspaper employees the first sign of what lies ahead?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Western Prudhoe Bay may be shut down
Great find! Hopefully, it will be a leadoff article by Leanan tomorrow. I wonder if the December pipe delivery, assuming it is on time, can be installed, tested, and govt. approved by their January re-opening estimation date--that seems extremely optimistic to me. The pressure from Alaskan revenue officials to get this restored and flowing will be enormous on BP mgmt.-- the field workers will have to be extremely self-safety conscious to prevent their injury. My gut feeling is that BP will discover that much more pipe will need to be replaced than publicly admitted so far. Time will tell.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The biggest lawsuit since the breakup of Standard Oil is slowly working through the court systems worldwide. This will be even bigger than the protracted controversy of the Microsoft Anti-trust Action. This lawsuit goes to the heart of what constitutes fair competition and supplier pricing control over consuming markets.
Can you imagine if similar court cases were brought against EXXONMOBIL, BP, GAZPROM, PEMEX, PVSDA, OPEC, and other worldwide corporate energy suppliers? I encourage everyone to read this CNN article of purported conspiracy and collusion where AMD accuses INTEL of making offers its customers cannot refuse. Mind-boggling in its ramifications if it can be legally extended to the fossil fuel industries worldwide.
I have no idea what is the truth in this controversy.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
West Coast gas at $4/gallon? CA has a twenty day supply--can they shift to other sources in time?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-08-09-west-coast-usat_x.htm
--------------
LOS ANGELES -- California and the rest of the West Coast are bracing for a possible big jump in gasoline prices, the likely result of BP's halt of crude oil shipments from its main Alaskan field.
The next wave of price increases hasn't hit yet, but experts warn the spike will begin in a couple of weeks. Price shocks could rebound from Washington state to the Mexican border and hit Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Hawaii, too.
For a while, the West Coast will have to get by on reserves. As of this week, there are about 55 million barrels of crude on hand, about a 20-day supply. There's also a 20-day stockpile of gasoline, says Paul Tossetti, director of market analysis for PFC Energy. Additional tankers are being chartered to bring oil to the West Coast.
If gas prices drift much higher than $3.40 a gallon, motorists would start driving less, predicts Tom Kloza, analyst for the Oil Price Information Service. He says $4-a-gallon gas is "really hyperbole."
But David Purcell of Pickering Energy Partners won't rule out $4-a-gallon gas, saying, "It's a lot more likely than this time last week."
--------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?