DrumBeat: September 15, 2006
Posted by threadbot on September 15, 2006 - 9:13am
Suicide bombers try to hit oil refineriesSuicide bombers tried to strike two oil facilities in Yemen with explosives-packed cars, but authorities foiled the attacks and four bombers and a security guard were killed, the government said Friday.
The attempts came ahead of this week's presidential elections, in which President Ali Abdullah Saleh faces a serious challenge for the first time since he became head of state in 1978.
They also came days after al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, issued a videotaped threat of attacks on the Persian Gulf and on facilities he blamed for stealing Muslim oil.
West beams security focus on Gulf of Guinea oil
Western experts worried about the security of oil supplies from Africa's Gulf of Guinea have considered several doomsday scenarios, including suicide attacks by determined Islamist militants on offshore oil platforms.But many analysts say domestic unrest is by far the bigger threat to a region whose oil is growing in strategic importance to the West because of increasing volatility in the Middle East.
A road map to a Britain without fossil fuels
The first comprehensive account of the measures needed to ensure Britain does its bit to avoid dangerous climate change is published today with a warning that failure to act now will only require more drastic action at a later date.
BP finds leak at Texas City refinery cracker tower
The refinery, where 15 people died in a blast last year, is in the process of restarting following shutdown ahead of Hurricane Rita last September.
EnCana eyes U.S. refinery for oil sands crude
Shell Canada shares fall close to 52-week low after refinery leak
Hydrogen sulphide, or sour gas, started leaking from a valve in a hydrogen cracking unit at the plant in mid morning Tuesday, forcing the evacuation of about 1,400 workers from the refinery and surrounding chemical plants. There were no injuries.
Ten oil companies may renegotiate drill leases: U.S.
The U.S. Interior Department told Congress on Thursday that about 10 oil companies have shown an interest in renegotiating drilling leases that at present would allow the companies to avoid paying billions of dollars in royalties normally owed on oil and natural gas found in the Gulf of Mexico.The department mistakenly left out language in drilling contracts signed with energy companies in 1998 and 1999 that would have ended a waiver of royalties when oil and natural gas prices were at certain high levels.
GM vice chairman wants mass produced hydrogen cars by 2011
Ford slashes 10,000 more jobs, 2 plants
"The simple fact is that the business model that served us in North America for decades no longer works," Mark Fields, Ford's president of the Americas, said during a morning teleconference.
Toyota shifts to small cars in U.S.
Honda achieves breakthrough in technology to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass
China Aims to Triple Fuel Ethanol Output By 2010
Biodiesel to drive up the price of cooking oil
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.
Excellent stuff updated every Monday and Thursday for all you number-heads.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.htm
Their homepage is http://www.brook.edu
That is where I got the following information on page 29. The whole thing is an excellent read. We will need to be up to speed when we start talking about exports and, in this case, Iraq.
I posted a chart earlier which I will be updating soon with additional information.
Here is the raw data. Many thanks to Jack for the technical support.
This second graph shows Iraqi Oil production separated into its Export and Domestic Consumption.
And the next one shows the same data as the previous one, but as millions of barrels per day. I have also reversed top/bottom order of components for easier reading. Colors stay the same.
Here's a link to first post on subject
I cannot verify this data. I am going to be comparing it to EIA's numbers shortly. What I can say is that it clearly shows Exports rising and domestic consumption falling.
And remember - this is the most screwed-up country in the world.
All we need to do is to stay the course, not cut and run, and things are bound to get even better. Right?
A President can't do diddly to make oil, but he or she can do a lot to curtail oil production, such as starting an unnecessary war just as peak oil is looming, to lock down a sizable reserve, raise prices, and spur conservation in the short term.
Purely hypothetical, of course.
Starting an unnecessary war just as peak is looming? Did I hear you right, Sir? Should I call in the Secret Service? You're not turning Doomer on us now, are you? We have a shot for that...why don't you just try to relax.
Sorry. I saw 'The Sentinel' last night. Not a bad flick. Eva Longoria, Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, and, of course, everybody's favorite - Jack Bauer.
Not unlike '3 Days of the Condor.'
Purely hypothetical, of course.
Good to see you back, Lou. Give'm Hell.
There was an excellent article on this in the NYT months ago. If you read the Brookings report, they actually track average waiting times in line at petrol stations.
One possible explanation is that the real price of gasoline in country is tending more towards the black market price. Possibly cutting demand.
Something else I'd like to bring up is that I think pipeline attacks in Iraq may be overblown, no pun intended. There is a website that actually tracks these listed in endnotes of Brookings report. I haven't read through the whole list, but I get the sense(and this is pure speculation)that the "players" have more interest in making money from the trade in oil/gasoline than in disrupting its flow. We've seen this before. Most notably in Gaza.
Here's a Wa Post report on the Iraq gas price increase, from December of last year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122700929.html
Could it be a sign of increasing povertization - each month more people being priced out - and not necessarily an immediate "consumer" decision to not purchase?
Think about it. Let's say you could buy milk(or whatever you fancy) for 25 cents, but had to wait for between 1 and 4 hours in line to get a half gallon. Or you could buy the same half-gallon and as many as you wanted for $3 without any wait, on the black market(from Al-Sadr Brothers).
What would you do?
Then, let's say, one day, Maliki & Sistani Grocers raised the price of the official milk to $2. But you still had to wait the same four hours.
Now what would you do? Aaaah. Choices. Choices. Economics.
Of course, your wait in line would probably decrease for the $2 stuff, but the price of the $3 stuff might go up, and you may actually have to wait 15 minutes for it.
They have a term for this in the Middle-East. I forget the Arabic. But in English...it is "Market."
What would happen to American gas prices if all subsidies stopped overnight?
Fuel prices are heavily subsidized in many developing countries. In many cases, this is causing severe budget problems for the governments in question.
But from the Washington Post article and a few others I Googled through their news search, the Iraqi subsidy will take another bump if they are to meet the demands of the International Monetary Fund. Its probably going to see at least a doubling in coming months as they shift prices to ME norms.
Ah, but then you drop it to $20, and everybody thinks it's cheap, ans starts driving again ;-)
People killed by brutal uncontrolled sectarian violence don't buy gas?
Second point. Iraq looks real dangerous when viewed from the car-bombing, suicide-bombing, IED viewpoint. But I ask this. And I'm not kidding. And I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm serious. I don't know your answer. And I don't know the answer.
Do you think Iraq would be safer with no Americans, no Civil War, and no sectarian violence? What if it was at peace?
Do you think 20 million Iraqis driving around in "freedom" at 100mph in those lovely shitboxes they own would be safe? With no traffic lights. And no cops.
Where were those magic traffic lights going to come from?
I could go on. You want me to?
I think the word we all better get to love is 'Transition.'
Do you know anybody personally that has fought in a war, I mean someone close? If you do talk to them about it. It is not as funny as you think.
Sometimes you don't know which CEO you are talking to. I mean you always know the Dave you are talking to, but the CEO ... it's hard to tell. I will take it at face value and say we have found a point of agreement.
It takes guts to go over there.
In a word, yes.
Traffic in India is crazy, leading to a death rate of 221 per million people per year. (cite) It's a pretty high death rate in comparison to most places (about double the US's), so should make a good estimate of what Iraq's would be like.
Iraq has about 26M people (CIA World Factbook), suggesting they'd see an annual death toll of about 26*211 = 5500 on the roads. Right now, thay see that many dead every two months.
So, yes, it seems clear that Iraq would be much safer with no sectarian violence.
Also, why would you believe the numbers you get on Iraqi production o rconsumption? Deems like a "lips moving" situation to me.
People killed by brutal uncontrolled sectarian violence don't buy gas?
IMO it might be due to the owners of real estate that is flooding the market with no buyers and the ARM mortgages that bring bad news as well.
This makes for some folks who suddenly realize that they are in deep kaka and must make some lifestyle changes.
Of course it doesn't help much but this is their psychlogical ploy to convince themselves that they are really really doing something.
They are toast anyway but don't want to think about it.
So huge debts and no buyers...ergo less spending on stupid driving habits.
Check out this link from defensetech.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002756.html
If the military is importing fuel from turkey that would imply they are not using domestic sources.
At the same time if the power grid is so messed up how do you operate the Iraqi refineries? Are they self powered?
On-site generators, of course.
But this is an energy blog and in the energy industry 10% is well within any margin of era or maybe we can just blame our Iraq propaganda services.
If you want to see something really funky, check out the many different versions of Nigeria's numbers.
In a January, 2006 post, I predicted a severe net oil export crisis this year.
As more EIA data were released, I later asserted that the decline in US petroleum imports this spring, combined with rising oil prices, was evidence of declining world oil exports. I was repeatedly challenged on this point by, among others, Robert Rapier and Halflin.
IMO, there are three key pieces of data that support my assertion:
(1) Richard Heinberg, reported--based on an industry source--that Ghawar was down by as much as 40% from last year's reported production of about 5 mbpd, and the EIA reports that Saudi crude + condensate production is down by 4.2% from 12/05 to 6/06 (annual decline rate of 8.4%);
(2) The WSJ ran an article, based on an internal Pemex report on the Cantarell Field, which suggested a worst case decline rate of about 40% per year (from about 2 mbpd last year) in production from the Cantarell Field. Recent media reports (a decline of 50,000 bpd per month) and recent Pemex reports suggest that something close to the worst case decline rate may be happening; and
(3) From 12/05 to 6/06, the EIA crude + condensate data show that net oil exports by the top 10 net oil exporters (based on estimated consumption) are declining at annual rate of about 9.2%.
I respectfully submit that the available data show that we did have declining world oil exports in the first half of the year. Futhermore, I see no reason for optimism on the export front for the second half of the year.
My assertion that we are past peak is only partly based on the HL data. The clincher for me is the reported declines in production in the large, old oil fields, and I think that is why so many analysts are too optimitic--they are underestimating the effect of these declines.
In simplest terms, we are trying to replace the production from fields that were producing about 1.0 to 5.0 mbpd with fields producing about 0.1 to 0.25 mbpd. Historically, trying to replace big fields with little fields has not been successful, and I don't expect it to be successful now.
I do have a request for Halflin. Precisely, what are you predicting? If you view your role as being the resident skeptic, how about dropping the sarcasm?
A copy of my post on yesterday's open thread follows. My comments from weeks past, provided by Halfin, are in bold.
"As I said last year, I expect that by the end of 2006 we will be in the teeth of a ferocious net oil export crisis."
From 12/05 to 6/06, the EIA crude + condensate data show that net oil exports by the top 10 net oil exporters (based on estimated consumption) are declining at annual rate of about 9.2%.
"So, I expect to see $100 oil this year, but I don't think that it will stay there--in the short term."
Granted, I may have guessed too high. My point was that the production downturn, in the short term, would not be enoough to cause permanently higher--$100 range--oil prices.
As I discussed earlier, I did not start expressing concern about net oil exports because of US import numbers. My concern was based on the HL analysis. The point I was making was the anomaly of lower US oil imports and higher oil prices. I suggested that the higher oil prices were primarily due to importers having to bid the price up, because of declining net oil export capacity worldwide. And I submit that the EIA's reported production decline by the top 10 net oil exporters support that premise.
For a number of reasons, oil prices are going to be all over the place, but IMO higher oil production will not be among those reasons.
Saudi Arabia is vastly more exposed to its largest field, Ghawar (more than 50% of production last year), than Texas was to its largest oil field, East Texas (about 7% at peak).
Look at the number of "coincidences." SA starts declining as predicted by the HL method and Texas model. Heinberg reports a decline in Ghawar production when Ghawar gets close to where Yibal (same reservoir, same drilling practices) started crashing. SA starts importing fuel oil, and we get reports of a shortage of natural gas. Finally, SA, just like Texas, starts a frantic drilling program (all the while saying that they are cutting back on production "voluntarily").
Again, the reason the HL method works is that we find the big fields first. And I don't know how much more clearly I can say this--the big fields are almost certainly all declining.
Most of the large exporters are dependent on exports to fuel their economies and keep their rulers in power.
Currently the revenues from oil exports have recycled cash into the economy that is used to buy subsidized oil. However, there are at least two limts to how far this can go. First and more import is that without exports the countries can not earn revenue to buy anything. You can not eat oil, or drive it. Secondly their are diminishing returns to oil. Going from too little to enough is great. Going to having enough to bath in doesn't do much for you. Finally, as exports are curtailed, oil prices will rise and the returns to export will become even greater.
I think this is a useful analysis, but has an set of automatic regulators that change the dynamics long before an halt to exports.
I do think increased domestic demand will reduce exports to a point. If ME economies can diversify, this could be greater. But I don't think it is possible for it to be more than just another factor in inflated oil prices.
You may be right about countries needing money, but they need it now as well, and exports are going down. That may be partly explained by higher prices, but not all of it, for sure.
You could go further and evaluate at which point violence is likely to break out, inside these countries, as undoubtedly will happen in some places, as the pies turn to crumbs. That would change the numbers, but it's no use in this model, because it is "unknowable" for all intents and purposes.
You'd have to look at the minimum income the House of Saud would need to hold on to power, for instance. And so on, there are too many variables.
And again, it is not what Jeff is trying to point out.
Two recent examples of regions that have become net importers, after being net exporters, are Indonesia and the UK.
One key point is that a lot of exporters, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, are actively encouraging greater consumption by subsidizing energy prices.
http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/
Someone posted the link to the above blog a few weeks ago, and I have begun checking the website on a daily basis. Reading the damn thing is like walking out of your house every morning, knowing that an auto accident is going to happen at the same place and time every morning. It's sort of a morbid fascination.
Yesterday, they had a story about jantitors in California who obtained $450,000 mortgages, based on "stated income."
This is not going to end well. Regarding "The End of Suburbia," Jim Kunstler may have turned out to be an optimist.
Over at least the next year or two I expect oil prices to continue to fall (although not necessarily evenly as there may be sharp countertrend rallies) as demand declines, probably sharply. The kind of demand destruction that a deflationary depression would bring would be expected to create a temporary surplus of oil supply.
I agree that at a minimum, we are headed for considerable price volatility. Going against the prevailing opinion, the IMF just raised its price estimate by 20% for next year (see article below).
We may be facing an interesting tug of war between falling production and flat to falling demand.
Those wishing for lower oil prices may get their wish, somewhat in the same way that the characters in "The Monkey's Paw," short story got their wish for more money. (Their son died in an accident, and they got a check in the mail for his life insurance.)
In any case, I did advise everyone to base your plans on a 50% drop in income. . .
It may be better to base your plans on a 100% drop in income for half the year. I don't know how many employers and employees would agree to a 50% wage cut with full benefits. Better to imagine losing your job entirely for 6 months, and having to pay COBRA on top of that to keep your health coverage, assuming you're lucky enough to have it.
If you have the savings to deal with that cut, then cut your spending by half and put the rest into whatever you consider a safe/good form of savings/investment. I should start a blog of conditions in Michigan. We seem to be leading the way to the misery of the next few years.
AK-47's, barbed-wire, and a stockpile of aspirin.
Yeah, you should. It doesn't even have to be about Michigan. You have a certain sense about you that I think we could all benefit from.
Buy a ruger ranch rifle instead. Comparable price, better quality.
Sure you could by one of the ones already in circulation from before the ban, but last I checked I could buy a car or alot of other survival gear include several semi-automatic alternatives for the cost of one of those.
Also in a survival situation innaccurate automatic weapons are kind of silly considering that one of the uses, besides defense, for your gun of choice will most likely be hunting. Not to mention that automatic usage of your ammo, is going to run you in low supply pretty quickly in a survival situation. Accuracy and shot power for 1 shot kills are going to be your most efficient options in a situation where ammo may not be readily available.
An accurate hunting rifle with good stopping power is going to be preferable for most survival needs.
Or conversely an accurate low powered weapon for hunting small game due to the fact that you can carry more ammo for an equal weight, ala .22 rifle of some sort. Saw some collapsible .22 survival rifles in a recent Outdoorsman magazine(I think) when I was getting new tires for my car. Pretty neat, light weight, and because of their construction capable of being stored in small spots in your hiking pack.
Or option three is a shotgun of some sort, capable of handling different types of shot so that you can pick the right ammo for the situation (hunting or defense). Get a collapsible stock, and you also have one of the prefered close quarters weapons also.
Automatic weapons are mainly an advantage to militaries. For survival, avoidance of hostile situations, and efficiency in ammo(both in carrying weight and usage) and supplies are going to be WAY more important.
And which I can replece entirely with the labor of my own hands.
If civilization ever does collapse, I wonder how long it will take my kin* to go back to the Old Ways? The only advantage of the White Man was guns and technology. With those gone -who knows.
*I'm not full blood.
Aside from that my brother recently purchased a cheap 25 or 50 pound bow. He wanted to learn the basics without investing a lot of money. I'm tempted to get one myself and learn to shoot also. I was actually a decent shot back in Jr High and Highschool when I attended some summer camps. In fact one of the instructors said I was a natural.
As for the old ways, the white man may have moved in on the Native Americans with guns, but he had several other steps in the interim he made before he got there which could've been equally devestating to the Native American tribal technology base.
Guns were the direct result of an arms race between armor makers and bowmen(later riflemen).
There is a great documentary about the bow/armor arms race on the History Channel that they show every once in awhile. I forget the name of the show it airs on, but it is a show that has bits on the evolution of weaponry throughout various time periods and countries.
Anyhow, they show how armor makers responded in their craft to the evolving arrow heads and more powerful bow designs and of course vice versa.
Given that I expect there to be a fair amount of scrap around should a sudden collapse occur, I could easily see a resurgance of plate armors once combat devolves into more primitive weapon types.
A 7.62 variant of the G36C would be the best in my opinion. Which is still the G3.
This may be one thing in the woods. But in the city or suburbs, you might need a sister or a good friend playing quartermaster general.
Also ammo has a shelf life. I don't remember what it is, but the army rotates it stock, or at least they used to. Lately they have been using it as fast as they can make it.
One thing I will definitely go along with is buy a firearm that uses a standard round. Buying a gun that uses some silly wildcat round for when TSHTF is not a good strategy. I'm going with the standard army calibers.
I've always wondered if a better strategy would be to revert to the old black powder round. Is it time to invest in a lever action in 45-70. It's hard to make smokeless powder but fairly easy to make black powder.
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AR15_part1.asp
a 4 part series on doing everything with an AR15 and why it is preferred. Best article I have seen to date.
I liked it but the one problem is the barrel overheating.
You expend a lot of rounds and you need to stay aware of the barrel heating. It has vents but don't seem to do that well.
I will go with the AR15. Lots of refits. Can be built form the ground up and so forth.
The 7.62x.39 the Ruger shoots is a nice round BTW. If I could get another at a reasonable price I probably would. I put a Butler Creek folding stock, 4x scope,good sling and a few more changes. It was nice but again that heating. Quite easy to make it go to full auto but I stayed away from that. It wastes far too much ammo except for close in and thats when a good 12 ga. is much better, with 00 loads.
May I suggest the Barrett 50 caliber, recoiless, semi-automatic sniper rifle? It'll cost you about as much as a used car, but carries quite a punch and is built for accuracy and repitition.
But post Apocalypse it's just not very practical. It weighs a ton, a box of ammo will give you a hernia and the sound of one firing will draw every looter in a 10 mile radius.
I think if you're talking about an apocolyptic situation and you desire a gun for personal protection, you're going to be talking about a handgun...which can be easily transported and won't interfere with other movement, and probably a larger bore bullet of abundant production...which would probably be a .45 ACP or 9mm. If you want a ranch rifle, defense or hunting, 30.30 semi-auto is probably the way to go. Shotguns are a whole other story.
Here's my question:
Were the US 07' housing collapse to precipitate the world's first global economic depression, would Peak Oil still be relevant?
My opinion is that the demand suppression caused by a global depression would push the beginning of the geologically-mediated downslope out a few years, and would flatten the downslope. Oil prices might drop in absolute terms, but would rise in relative terms. The effects of peak oil would compound humanity's misery, but it will do that anyway, no matter which limit we run into first, or which factor triggers the shakeout.
If oil consumption is reduced on a massive scale (global depression) then prices fall, production is curtailed and geologic 'peak' is pushed out x number of years.
Once entrenched in said global depression, the socioeconomic effects of Peak i.e. global depression, would effectively be cancelled would they not?
Let me illuminate...
45,000 jobs are being cut at Ford, 1000s more at GM, Intel, etc. and it's oft said that for every 1 job cut at GM, 5 more go with it from supporting services.
Thus, 10s of thousands of Americans (who proportionately use more oil than anyone else on the planet; Canadians being the exception) are about to have their lives and consumption patterns drastically altered.
Extend this scenario into housing (the lynchpin of the US if not world economy outright) and suddenly, there's plenty of oil to go around no?
Things need to get very bad for there to be the signifcant political changes needed to restore economic justice to America.
The peak should be pushed out in a global recession, but that's a minor point. The larger issue IMO would be the recovery. With abundant energy supplies it aught to be a matter of time before a recovery happens. Without those supplies, the recession never ends and you wind up with the PO effects anyway, just that they started with the global recession, but would be "finished" by actual PO effects.
My question:
Is there an even marginally efficient alternative energy scheme whose main limitation is manpower? (rather than land, water, nuclear engineers, etc) I'm thinking about public works.
India's solution (valued equally as an energy source and as something for the poor to do) is making biodiesel out of Honge and Jatropha.
IMO, low interest rates were used after the dot-com fiasco as a means of stimulating the economy (housing in particular) from 2001 to present -during which time- the price of oil showed little signs of slowing American consumption or economic growth.
Geology is absolutely non negotiable, however, if we find ourselves in a global depression before Peak... how relevant is Peak going to be? How far out will Peak be pushed?
- but that "exuberant" economy was fictitous, based on cash-out refinancing of houses, spurred by a perception of endless rise in house values and low interest rates. So in truth PO did slow the economy, albeit with a delay.
Idea Answer: A World War - whew thanks for that!
Idea: Depression (not recession) hits this country in the next 3 years. How do we get out?
Idea Answer: We retrofit our entire infrastructure to cope for sustainable energy.
No I don't think this will work, but it's a start.
Before Hitler's Shock and Awe campaign in Poland began in September 1939, western countries were on the road to recovery (economic growth). The New Deal in the US and other western government actions to stimulate demand began well before the war and provide the primary explanation for the end of the depression. Demand was of course given a great impetus in certain countries by pre-war, wartime and post-war militarization. Nonetheless it was state-led demand stimulation that ended the depression, not war. Would the west have been wealthier (questions of the depletion of natural capital aside) in 1950 in the absence of war? We'll never know.
The second half depends, IMHO, on production decline rates and how quickly households can switch to lower energy transportation. We'll see. I think we're in more of the position of the mid-70s recession, which hurt many households, but only resulted in minor demand reduction. It took both that recession and the early 80s recession to really changed things for a while. OTOH, the housing bubble bursting suggests a much bigger downturn this time.
Most likely, Yes.
- Oversea nations may not be as severely impacted as the US. Its quite possible that China and India may continue to increase their demand for oil and gas.
- An economic depression would likely decrease new oil and gas development. Oil Companies will be less inclined to develop new fields if demand and prices faill. However, as the existing fields deplete, there won't be any new projects to offset declines, have global production could still face steep production declines.
- An economic depression will likely lead to further geopolitical volatily. Nations will likely turn to domestic concerns and ignore issues and events occuring oversea. For instance support to spend 100s of billion on ME security would disappear. Some exporter may face revolts, and increased corruption and decreased stability. This will likely result in reduced maintainance of oil infrastructure (such as occured in Iraq after the first gulf war). Other nations might use nationalism and nationalize all foriegn assets, which would likely reduce production and exports.
My gut feeling is that Oil production declines will preceed a major economic recession, although its too early to determine yet. Its likely that Western nations will begin to reduce interest rates in order to stall economic declines. With falling commodity prices (Oil, Gold, etc)Central banks will have the leverage required to begin reducing rates again.Is not a large part of China/India's respective energy consumption based on fostering industries that supply or service first world economies?
Perhaps, but internal demand for consumer goods in India and China is growing strong. Plus, China has enough credit, Trade surplus, and buying power to run deficits for many years.
Now with the scope that HF have taken on, the only power the FED has is to issue money to cover positions. How much they could quietly manage to cover, who knows. But the FED will try ANYTHING it can to avert a collapse, it is a profit making institution after all. Bernanke can't order the CAT5 hurricane away, but he can set off bombs all around the hurricane in a vein attempt at trying to push it farther away from here and now.
Good question.
Gee, what's changed?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asLnUyY63OCs&refer=home
* IMF Raises 2007 Oil Forecast to $75.50 on Supply Risk (Update1)*
By Gavin Evans
Excerpt:
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The International Monetary Fund raised its 2007 oil-price forecast 20 percent to $75.50 a barrel, citing the risk of cuts in supplies from major producers as consumption rises.
Thanks for the advice. I'm checking with my insurance agent to see what kinds of Mortgage Payment policies they provide. Sounds like off the bat they have them for death and disability, but not sure about unemployment.
Seems like this would be a wise choice assuming there isn't a massive economic crash, in which case the insurance company would probably become insoluble and the mortgage lender's private armed reposession agents would drag me and my family out of our (their) house and throw us in the indentured servant transport wagon to work the fields.
On the other hand, let's say the banking system crashes and physical possession is all that matters in ownership. I could happily grow my veggies only to see them stolen by all of my neighbors, resulting in death by starvation.
So perhaps I'm positioning myself and my family for a long and prosperous future of extending our days on this earth by being slave laborers. At least we'll have some assistance getting food into our bellies.
Whatever =)
Tom
This is a typical falsehood perpetrated on us by the survivalist community. In any "crisis" situation where widespread starvation is threatened, theft from gardens and farms is going to be the least of our concerns. Short term, growing crops is not a solution to starvation.
It only take 5 or 6 weeks for food deprivation to kill people. There is little that you can grow to maturity in that time other than some greens. Learning organic gardening will help you in the long term. But to survive the short term crisis, learn how to forage. Even food storage and a rifle are not good enough, because there's always the possibility that someone with more fire power will come along. Foraging, however, you eat it as you find it. And the most that gets stolen is what you just collected.
I have no expertise in this so take it for what it's worth. Let's say you bought a house for $500k, it is foreclosed upon and sold at sale for $250k.
1.The mortgage company may have the right to force you to pay the difference between the sales price and your mortgage. It depends upon how your note was written. I forget the exact term for this.
2.The IRS may go after you for taxes on the difference between the mortgage and the price when sold after foreclosure based upon the "foregiveness" of the debt.
3.Your credit rating will be shot. Many companies now consider a person's credit rating before hiring them. Therefore, you could be turned down for jobs for which you are qualified.
4.A landlord may also turn you down based upon the assumption that you may not pay the rent. As a landlord, I consider a person's history important. Unless I was hard up for a tenant, I'd turn you down since I lose money each time tenants come and go (cleaning, repairs and lost rent).
Finally, there is the matter whether you'd have to go through bankrupcy. This isn't a free lunch either.
Todd
The term you are looking for is "deficiency." Every note I've ever seen (and I've seen thousands) states that the borrower is liable for any deficiency (ie. the differnece between teh balance owed on the note and the recovery from the sale upon foreclosure.). Sorry, but your on the hook for it.
California has an anti-deficiency law which covers the original "purchase money loan" on an owner-occupied home. The original mortgage is covered by anti-deficiency law, but as soon as someone refinances the loan that anti-deficiency provision goes out the door. In states like California, refinancing might be the last thing one would want to do to get out of trouble.
That is such bull$h1t. I suppose what really gets me about that is the way they determine credit. I know someone that's around $5,000 in debt on their credit cards and they have a fantastic credit rating. I'm well in the plus side of things, don't have a credit card and pay cash for everything, but my credit rating is probably garbage.
Option B: Get a Credit card but be sure to pay the amount due every month. You should carry a credit card for emergencies anyway. Beside you can use it to anoy the credit card companies, they really hate it when you pay the amount in full!
This is the reason that we have, for now, decided not to buy a townhouse in a "Kunstler Kommune," i.e., a New Urbanism community. If I could talk my wife into renting in a Kunstler Kommune, I would sell our house and move in a microsecond. For now we are at a stalemate. I don't want to buy, and she doesn't want to rent.
In any case, we have a small mortgage and very short commutes, 10 minutes each for my wife and myself.
It is "interesting" to watch the housing meltdown proceed. The new ornament on for sale signs in the area is increasingly "Price Reduced."
Now, of course, the trick in all of this is when does the banking system collapse?
David,
This is something I've often wondered about. In places where hyperinflation (financial collapse) happens, do people just pay off their mortgage and own the house free and clear?
If the currency collapses, do you own the house? Or does the government try to reinstate your debt in the new currency?
What happened in the Weimar republic?
Thanks in advance!
Garth
That said, peak oil spells the beginning of the end for globalisation unless we come up with a total energy solution - a seemingly insurmountable problem in the current political and corporate climate.
So thee is a 50/50 chance we never see hyperinflation again. I'm hedging o.k.?:)
Marco.
I've been on a bunch of different boards over the past few years (Energy, Precious Metals, Economic, etc) and there is always a debate about whether we are going to see Inflation or Deflation. I've seen good arguments for both.
Housing collapse is deflationary, for sure.
But Bernanke has stated he intends to do whatever it takes to avoid deflation.
All of the future liabilities of the US Govt however are inflationary. They'll be paying for prescriptions with dollars. Healthcare with dollars. Social Security with dollars. US Bonds with dollars...
How do you think the US government is going to bail out the Pension Guarantee plan, or Freddie Mac?
I don't think they'll let them default. Not while they have the printing presses.
But I could be wrong.
A fast housing collapse would be deflationary, but a slow one is actually inflationary (using the definition of inflation as a general increase in prices, not the Austrian school definition) for a perverse reason. When the commerce department calculates the housing portion of the consumer price index (something like 40% of the total), they don't use house prices. They use something called owner's equivalent rent, along with real rent. The owner's equivalent rent is intended to be what an owner would pay to rent their own property if they were renting it instead of owning it. It's calculated based on rental property rates. (Here's a good quick summary of how this works, and here's a Marketwatch article from May on the same topic.)
The problem is that the housing bubble depressed rental rates for many years. People were so interested in buying housing, there were fewer people chasing rentals and that caused a drop in rental rates. This showed up in the CPI as low inflation, even though housing prices were headed through the roof.
Unfortunately, many of the people being foreclosed out of their houses are now switching to renting. That coupled with the reduced demand for housing because of sky-high prices have increased demand for rent, and rental prices. As a result, the housing portion of the CPI has been running higher than normal, and is probably going to keep pushing the CPI higher for a while yet.
I'm in total agreement. 12-36 month bust, followed by 10-12% inflation. Maybe worse. Especially if energy gets real expensive.
The leaders of this country don't want to put up with that any more than we do, and I feel like at some point leaders' hands would be forced and I really could see the US wanting to push the reset button in a world court.
a. people realize the PO is near, and conserve.
b. people wont realize PO is near and be forced to conserve when it hits,
c.this house of cards called our banking and lending system will collapse and a recession to end all recessions will hit.
d.GW will become undeniable, or its effects will at least, its already is undeniable, and people will conserve.
c. is the wild card, and as always unpredictable. in any case, the end result is going to be the same, and the advise to people here does not change. I believe Westexas stated it best, "economize, localize,..."
Like GW, this debt-based economic model, is an experiment on a global scale. I would say it is a crap shoot on whether inflation or deflation will dominate. It is, however, a sure bet on how it will turn out - badly.
Well, that's the beauty of a fixed 30 year mortgage. My mortgage rate is fixed.
I'm under no delusion though - I realize lots of other people have ARM's or Interest only mortgages - and their panic selling (foreclosures?) will mean lower prices in the short term.
If we get a deflation, hopefully I'll have an oppurtunity to refinance at an even lower interest rate.
If we get inflation, I just have to hang on long enough untill I start seeing it in my wage.
I recall something to the effect that debtors were seen chasing creditors down the street, trying to pay off mortgages with money that would buy a loaf of bread.
http://tinyurl.com/prwd6 ( http://www.frugalsquirrels.com/ )
Basically, it sounds like the banks in Argentina came out OK in the end.
If you're curious about life in general post-economic collapse here's the parent thread:
http://tinyurl.com/pmvts ( http://www.frugalsquirrels.com/ )
or
http://www.buildanark.net/argentinean.html
His answers to questions and comments in the forum are fascinating, as well.
Echtra,
Thanks for those links. Hadn't seen them before and found them very interesting.
Garth
The tricky part is the details of: "keep the savings in the bank" - which "bank"? What kind of account? Will TIPS (US inflation-linked bonds) really help in case of strong inflation? Is cash under the mattress best, in case of deflation and bank failures? Are credit unions a better bet than commercial banks?
Deciding whether to Pay off a mortgage is a function of the effective interest rate you're paying (figuring in the mortgage tax deduction), vs. the interest rate you can get on the money in a savings account.
Outside of that, of course, it's always nice to have 6-12 months living expenses saved up and in the bank.
What do people think of tax deffered retirement savings right now? Would I be better off to take the money and save it in various diversified sources myself?
Garth
I agree with your sentiment. I've often thought of my fixed rate mortgage payment as rent. Paying it down doesn't mean the payments get smaller. And unless you've got a huge wad of cash to pay it down, it doesn't bring that last payment appreciably closer.
I say you should save your money in the form of gold and silver in a nice hefty (but discrete) far away from any bank. Safe deposit boxes are risky when TSHTF because the bank has the right to look at all of the stuff you're pulling out of the box and may very well feel compelled to relieve you of anything of value.
Here's an interesting link for you.
http://cmi-gold-silver.com/small-survival-gold-silver-coins.html
Tom
I would add that I don't expect governments to last much longer than the banks. Federal governments will hold on for awhile with gradually diminishing ability to exert influence. But I expect most local governments to simply cease functioning.
As most money today is not cash but electronic impulses, there is really no limit to how much inflation there can be. Human reluctance to believe in the money is the only barrier left.
Local gov't can also evict you if you don't pay the property taxes due. First they will put up a lien, if you can't pay the taxes the local sheriff will evict you and put your home up for auction.
>I'm guessing that the number of defaults will eventually get so huge that banks will go under and the entire financial system will be unable to even attempt to follow through on claims they may have on property.
I wouldn't count on that happening. For the most part banks don't hold the debt on mortgages. Today, Banks are service providers. They handle the paper work and collections and charge a service fee. The debt is bundled up into groups of multiple mortgages and either offered on the bond market or to the GSEs. In a Financial meltdown, Banks will make tons of money by simply foreclosing on the home and putting it up for auction. They'll charge a service fee (for the service of foreclosure and auction). Whatever amount remains will go to the bond holders, and the difference will hang on you. Because of the new bankruptcy laws, that debt will follow you for the rest of your life. The bank can go after any income you make until the debt is paid off (charging interest to boot). Did I mention the banks will be able to collect service fee's to garnish your wages?
On the banks, I understand how it works. But consider this. If suddenly 15% of the houses in the country are being defaulted on, what kind of value do you think they're going to get in an open market auction? I don't care what the bankruputcy laws say. The banks don't want to be stuck holding thousands of houses in a market where they either can't sell them or can't get a price even close to the paper value of the loan. They can only make money if there are people willing to pay for these houses.
And, no, banks can not garnish your wages.
- They would be consider dead beats and a drain on local gov't services. By evicting them, these people will have go some where and be someone else problem. If these can't pay there bills it's probably because they are unemployeed. The unemployeed have the time and motive to commit crimes (theft, etc). But removing these people they are reducing their exposure to crime.
- Even during the Great Depression, there were people with money. Some enterprising individuals might snap up properties for pennies and convert them into multi family dwellings. Or they could simply gut them for profit (copper pipes, applicances, etc).
> If suddenly 15% of the houses in the country are being defaulted on, what kind of value do you think they're going to get in an open market auction?They'll simply dump them on the auction market and collect whatever they can get. To simply write off all this property is silly when there still opportunity to make money. Its very likely that the angry bondholders will want them to proceed with foreclosures and collect whatever they can, even if its pennies on the dollar.
>The banks don't want to be stuck holding thousands of houses in a market where they either can't sell them or can't get a price even close to the paper value of the loan.
You seem to not understand how mortgage banking works. Banks don't care about the value of the loan. They don't hold the debt and don't own the property. What they do care about is collecting service fees. Foreclosures are just another option for them to collect more service fees.
>And, no, banks can not garnish your wages.
Sure they can silly:
http://www.bankruptcylawfirms.com/Garnishments.cfm
http://www.batorredman.com/CM/FSDP/PracticePage/Bankruptcy/Bankruptcy.asp
The New Bankruptcy laws past last October make it much easier for credits to seize assets and pursue wage garnishments.
Yes, there might be some speculators out there willing to take some chances, but if you think that there's enough to soak up 15% of the total housing stock..., well I'll just say I don't see it.
Are you sure its me that doesn't understand how mortgages work? In the end, someone holds the mortgage and their going to be left holding the bag. I don't much care if that's banks, "finance companies" or independent investors. (Funny though that you keep saying the banks will foreclose. The bank can't foreclose if it doesn't own the mortgage.
As for your claim that banks can garnish your wages - please take a closer look at the links you provided. Only courts can garnish your wages (well, not completely true, ths IRS and Dept of Ed have been given special authority by congress to do this). Now, consider again that 15% of all homes in the country are in default. Just how well do you think a court system (dealing with a sudden fall in funding) is going to be able to process all these claims? And remember, we're talking about people who have lost their jobs - so what wages do they have to garnish?
Your reponses seem to be assuming that the gov't, legal and financial systems could continue to operate just as they do now. If the "shock" really were of the size I'm hypothesizing, its hard to see how that would be so.
Tom
6k people being evicted? hmm, and half their neighbors on the edge -in the GD after awhile folks got together and ran off the creditors with guns
in that case, i expect a return to the past
Auctioning off homes is a way for them to continue to pay police salaries. The new owners will also pay property taxes also adding income to support local gov't services.
>In the end, someone holds the mortgage and their going to be left holding the bag. I don't much care if that's banks, "finance companies" or independent investors. (Funny though that you keep saying the banks will foreclose. The bank can't foreclose if it doesn't own the mortgage.
The banks will foreclose on behalf of the bond holders who will be anxious to get at least some of their money back. The bond holders aren't simply going to walk away with empty pockets if they can help it.
> Only courts can garnish your wages (well, not completely true, ths IRS and Dept of Ed have been given special authority by congress to do this).
Yes that's true, but it will the banks (or collection agencies) that will go to court to make this request, and it will be the banks that recieve payments. I made the assumption that you understood that.
>Just how well do you think a court system (dealing with a sudden fall in funding) is going to be able to process all these claims?
Court fees. The courts will require charge fees for their services. This will come out of the wage garnishment.
>Your reponses seem to be assuming that the gov't, legal and financial systems could continue to operate just as they do now. If the "shock" really were of the size I'm hypothesizing, its hard to see how that would be so.
Your also assuming that you'll be able to hold on to your home before this happens. Its going to be a considerable period before the the situation reaches this point (years). All during this time, if you lose your job and default, someone will proceed with a foreclosure on your property. Do you really believe that you be able to hold on long enough? I wouldn't count on it.
>Yes, there might be some speculators out there willing to take some chances, but if you think that there's enough to soak up 15% of the total housing stock
It probably depends on the neigborhood or area. Some areas will be desirable over others. The areas least desirable will probably be inner city properties where the crime rate will be high. But of course for the same reason why some doesn't want take over that property is probably a good reason why you wouldn't choose to remain there.
Rationalization:
If we enter into an economic depression millions of people will lose their jobs. This will either inundate the financial sector to the point where it's paralyzed and possession equals ownership (squatter's rights), or me and millions of my friends will join hands to become the new face of energy, replacing tractors and excavators to get work done.
Either way, we're going to be poor. I've never lived in a third world country. It should be an interesting experience. Hopefully I'll have a better view than I've got in this windowless cubicle.
To keep your sanity, just remember: Impermanence. The things we take for granted, our posessions, our jobs, our way of life, none of these can be guaranteed indefinitely no matter how much planning is done.
Tom
In the future we're all going to be a lot poorer.
It will probably be quite sometime before it reaches that point. What are the odds that you'll be able to hold on to your property before it reaches that point? Probably close to zero. I don't know where you live, but if its in a urban area you'll probably not want to remain there when squatters become the norm. Think about crime, drug use, violence, and gangs that will no longer be kept in check by the local law enforcement agencies. You'll be on your own.
> I've never lived in a third world country. It should be an interesting experience. Hopefully I'll have a better view than I've got in this windowless cubicle.
Interesting perhaps, but definately not safe. I'll take boring and mundane and safety anyday.
>me and millions of my friends will join hands to become the new face of energy, replacing tractors and excavators to get work done.
I doubt that will happen. Tractors and excavators will still be cheaper and safer for employeers than to deal with hundreds of depressed labors.
>The things we take for granted, our posessions, our jobs, our way of life, none of these can be guaranteed indefinitely no matter how much planning is done.
I'll agree with you on this statement.
Best of Luck to you.
I'd speculate that those people who defaulted would probably be granted Amnesty, if it occurs in GREAT numbers,(sound familiar?, illegal immigrants, when the Govt can't control whats going on, they throw their hands in the air, and grant amnesty to all involved. Pat themselves on the back for correcting the situation.)
Those who managed to endure financial hardship to retain their home will be penalized with a higher monthly payment than those who defaulted.
Me cynical? YES!
The GOV will own all the bad loans.
Ironically, The Gov owning much of your debt, is not unlike the the old USSR.
Anyway, Fanny and Freddie are probably unsolvent in terms of the value of their assets(today) in relation to what is needed to cover their debts.
All your debt will be added together(credit cards, mortages, student loans, etc) and when you hit bankruptcy court, the judgement will be XXX owed, (again) with payments for the rest of your life nearly..
On the other hand, I think that you present your case with a certain humility, which is lacking from those who point to your lesser "market calls" and cry foul. Chin up!
I don't really do predictions, however I like to report on what the market thinks. They're lots smarter than me.
Looking at January crude oil futures options, the market thinks the chance that oil will be < $60 at the end of the year is about 25%. The chance that oil will be > $70 at the end of the year is about 29%. And that means that the chance that oil will be in the range $60-70 is about 46%.
So roughly a 50-50 chance that we will be in the $60s, 1/4 chance we'll be less than that and 1/4 chance we'll be greater than that. The chance of seeing $80 by the end of the year is only about 8%.
Before someone pops up about how inaccurate the market has been, let's keep in mind that TOD's prediction record has not exactly been stellar:
http://theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/29/15449/2233
Only 2% predicted that oil would drop all the way down to $63 as it did yesterday and today. As they say, the future is hard to predict. At least with the market we get quantitative error bars on the predictions. The market's also always willing to back up its predictions with cold hard cash, so if you're upset because people believe obviously-wrong market predictions, at least you can have the compensation of getting rich.
Colorado Energy Coalition announces "The Plan for Colorado's New Energy Future" (be nice if they had a link to, you know, the actual plan)
Renewable Energy a Reality in Downtown Salt Lake City
Jacksonville Will Make Own Biodiesel
Branson launches $400m eco-friendly fund (for "environmentally friendly fuels")
Wrightspeed X1: "Amazing: Electric Car Pwns Ferrari"
BP Ensuring Alaska Won't Be Drilled
34-year Old Oil Tanker Moratorium Being Violated
I'll stop there, but it's kind of amazing how much "environmental" news is really energy, oil, and transportation news these days ...
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/NEWS/606010399&SearchID=732569 24539576
http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=15038
Rat
I think the key thing is:
They are talking about spending $4M just for an EIR and enegineering study for the Ell River Canyon. They may say going to Eureka -eventually- but I bet they never go beyond Island Mountain (which I think doesn't require going through the canyon). In any case, all of this is way more than the Willits by-pass.
Also note that while they say they have the bucks, as far as I can see, evrything will be publically financed.
Todd
A few years ago, I finally decided a by-pass is necessary. But, ignoring the theoretical considerations of the effects of PO on travel and all that, maybe a good rail system would get enuf trucks off the road that we wouldn't need it.
It would sure help the highway out. Hundreds of container trucks hauling that pulp mill from Eureka (destined for China) just pounded the snot out of the road. Don't know if you have been south in the last 9 months, but the grade was getting like a roller coaster. (Note; T knows where I'm talkin'...Ridgewood Grade; they have been repairing it forever. Legend has it an old Indian lady put a curse on it. She didn't have to; 50 inches of rain, blue clay, and the pounding produced by all the trucks is enuf of a curse).
M Rat
I suppose we should mention that we are talking about Hwy101 in Mendocino County, CA which is the main north-south coastal highway.
To me, the irony of all this highway work is that it is predicated upon tourist traffic. My guess is that truck traffic hasn't increased all that much with the demise of most of the lumber mills. As far as Ridgewood Grade goes, they should have left it two lane like it was 30 years ago.
Todd
Assumptions:1.Peak is right now 2. Steady decline rate of 2% (which I consider steep enough to cause real problems)
Question: How much more oil does the world need to pump?
Answer: Over 4.3 trillion barrels. Obviously, if the peak is many years out and at a higher amount, this 4.3 trillion is an understatement.
Is the number adjusted for conservation, reorganization, demand destruction, and alt-eng contributions?
I mentioned this because all the time in the MSM (sometimes on TOD) you hear "we have XXX years of consumption at current rates". We are not going to consume 85 mbpd continually and then stop on a dime because the tank went empty, so the statement in quotations is ridiculous and should be dispensed with.
Seriously, I assume you did that for some number of years, probably decades, and are surprised by the resulting totals.
Yes, the cumulative oil production needed over decades to maintain a fixed 85, in the face of a 2% decline, is large. It is equal to 4777 days at current production.
Good thing we don't really have to produce that much "on a dime."
So, now that we see you are looking at decade long trends, where are your conservation and alt-fuel adjustments?
I think the key, which even cornucopians accept is that we have to transition to something. No one expects 100 million barrels per day a century from now (ok, maybe a few abiotic oil types).
So I think the meaningful numbers are the ones we face in the next 1 to 3 decades. Based on the idea of peak oil now, or soon, that is when we make our transitions ... to efficiency and powerdown, and/or to alternative energies.
That's the big open door to a moderate. I might transition to walking and biking even more than I do now.
Would a cornucopian really like a hybrid future plotted by Alan and I? Biking around town and hopping on the electric train to go further?
I think not.
This then drives us towards considering coal (last gasp fossil fuel) and nuclear as interim (possibly decades to a few centuries depending on how it is used and managed) energy sources while we figure out how to most effectively scale up solar, wind, hydro, etc.
And once you open the nuclear pandora's box, then a whole host of other issues arise.
The potential crisis has always been social and psychological. The technology (purely looking at technology) has always been there with nuclear, coal, solar, wind, hydro, etc. The problem is how do we get from where we are to where we need to be before oil becomes a serious problem and whether we can make that transition in a timely fashion. Failure to be timely can be just as deadly for our civilization as failure to do it at all.
No, you are not a cornucopian, odograph, but there are some big question marks regarding your expectations and since they are your expectations about how this can be solved, it is not unreasonable for others to demand more clarity where those expectations seem vague. I know you shy away from trying to be too specific but what if astronomers found an asteroid headed directly towards earth and expected to impact in 50 years? At some point in that process (and very early preferably) we'd need to get real specific about how certain problems get answered. You can't afford to wait too long and "hope" that an answer automagically appears. This is why people question others when they can't pin down their future scenarios any more clearly.
On the flip side, you have the benefit of pointing out that often (not always but often), humanity does pull rabbits out of the hat. The fear of many is that there may not be a rabbit in that hat this time.
Imagine a cancer patient. You can accept that you have it and passively hope for it to automagically go away or you can aggressively attack the future with current knowledge, incomplete and imperfect as it is. Too often your answers, odograph, seem like the cancer patient hoping for the miracle cure. Most people here are hoping for an aggressive therapy program using the best information we have now. This is why I believe people frame your arguments as cornucopian.
With California's new policies to address global warming, they have effectively banned coal from their grid unless the provider can bring the co2 emissions down to a combined cycle natural gas plant. So, really, in California, at least, the transitional fuel looks like natural gas, not coal. I'm guessing this couldn't be scaled up to a national level, much less a world wide level.
I would say ban all new coal plants and coal plant expansions but I'm beginning to come around to the view that it's too late to do much signicant about global warming. We screwed the pooch and really should have begun to get serious over 30 years ago. On the other hand, less coal would be a good thing for the environment and people's lungs regardless of the global warming issue.
Now as to my expectations and how precise I should be ... remember the old one about being granted responsibility without athority? You are asking me to be responsible for a future I do not control.
Oh, I can do a little. I can try to be energy efficient in my own life, and throw a few bucks to the national wind/solar organizations, to a couple national cycling groups, etc. Beyond that though, all I can do is observe and watch my imperfect human projections evolve over time.
There are a vast array of futures possible from this point forward. I think what will happen is that a minority of us will make efforts toward sustainabilty, but that the majority of the north american population will lag. That will mean, I think, a scramble. But I have hope that a scramble will be effective. I look at what happend in a few short years of national emergency in WWII, and picture that extended, for a couple decades.
Of course, if things change and it starts to look like the adjustment period will be less than 1 decade ... I might be loading up that sailboat and heading for the south seas.
BTW, the Hubbert "theory" (the empirical choice of the logistic curve) predicts a faster-than-exponential decline in rate of extraction. That's why it is a parabola (increasing slope), rather than a triangle (constant slope) in a semi-log plot. If that pans out, we'll see, e.g., 2% at first but increasing after a while to 4%, 8%...
But we don't really know what we need. Look back at my first post of the day, and it lists the kind of adjustments we'd need to know to come up with that kind of number.
HaH! And I have a bridge to sell you too....
Seems like what anyone might have guessed-no wonder my numbers shocked me- they were totally flawed from the beginning. Same thing happened to me at LTCM.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/09/15/tainted.spinach.ap/index.html
The most striking thing about all this to me, is that they are having to issue a nationwide warning because 90% of the country's lettuce is grown in one area of California.
Um, hello? This should be a wake up call to all those who think a centralized food system is a good thing. (And yes, I know better, but it would be nice if people actually thought for a change.)
Meanwhile, I'll go get some local spinach at the farmer's market this weekend from the guy down the road. And not worry too much because it doesn't come from California.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2447619&page=2
Has this really been localized? Might it be an unfortunate effect of organic practices and fresh leaf crops? I suspect that the bagged vs. open shipping might contribute ... but a lot is left to be determined.
... and of course for some of us California produce is local.
You are trying to point the finger at organic produce now. Organic produce makes up such a tiny percentage of all produce that if it were organics, they would have all ready found the exact source. And, it wouldn't have affected as many people in as many states because no organic lot is that big.
Nearly all produce is shipped bagged versus open-leaf, btw.
Properly composted manure would probably be OK, but I would watch out for where the fresh stuff comes from.
Animal dung is another common source. Either the dung is used as fertilizer and intentionally placed in the field or orchard, or wild animals (deer, etc.) deposit free fertilizer.
Me: I hate it when this mud gets on my water bottles. (spit)
Buddy: Ah, this is a horse trail.
That's not how it happens. Usually, the problem is with food that touches the ground. And the way we process it afterwards - even "natural" or "organic" food.
In one recent example, the problem was unpasteurized apple juice. (Poor parents bought the "all-natural" juice for their kids, thinking it was better for them. It ended up killing some of them.) Apple juice is often pressed from apples that have fallen on the ground. The juice of thousands of apples may be mixed together, and a few bad apples really can spoil the whole batch.
But I do have a serious question in here. I can understand the eColi problem when it comes to meat as they have a built in food source that allows them to multiply. But when it comes to vegetables and a little bit of eColi getting brushed on or rinsed over it, how virulent are these little suckers - I mean they're being transported 1000s of miles, say 3 - 5 days from field to consumption and there still strong enough to kill?
An aside - When the radish sprout event happened in Japan they tracked it to a particular farmer - he (perhaps naturally) complained of being made a scapegoat. But the "scientists" there "proved" it "could have been" the sprouts by growing some in an eColi laced liquid medium. Low and behold, eColi appeared in the leaves.
Alas, being bacteria, they reproduce.
Though usually it's only children, the elderly, or the immune-compromised who actually die of it. Healthy adults may wish they were dead, but usually don't die.
"One Bad Apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl,
I don't care what they say,
I don't care what you've heard,"
Summer 1970!
And I will walk 20 yards over to my vegetable garden and pick some, minutes before eating it. Here in NH, I plant an early Spring crop and replant in early August for a Fall crop - spinach prefers cooler weather. Kale and swiss chard, ditto.
OK, back to making/canning tomato sauce... it's that time of the year!
- sgage
One must go where the sun is, veggie-wise - no sunlight at the backdoor :-) 20 yards is the walk out the front door and around the porch. More like 10 yards as the crow flies...
Still working on the permaculture angle...
- sgage
I've been doing PC since 1998 and I still make lots of mistakes...uh, I mean... I get lots learning opportunities.
Care to share your recipe for tomato sauce? I'm looking for a good one.
A lot of the recipes call for a bit of sugar, but that is over the top - even without sugar it can be oversweet.
Enjoy your sauce!
- sgage
As Homer Simpson might say: "Mmmmmmmmm, viruses."
Kind of ruins your appetite doesn't it?
The new practice is currently planned for use as a method to combat Listeria contamination on food and the viral cocktail will be sprayed on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products. There is potential for wider applications.
The original announcement from the NY Times (may require registration):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/us/19viruses.html?ex=1158465600&en=cee39556fcd47d4f&ei=507 0
I found this well written critique by a nutritionist:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron7.htm
- will we ever see an article saying: "consumers should not drive or ride in cars, given a multistate outbreak of car accidents that only yesterday killed a hundred Americans and injured thousands..."? The way our consumerville culture emphasizes some dangers and glosses over others is mind boggling.
http://www.aspo-usa.com/fall2006/
Don't know whether to laugh or cry.
He is a very good writer and a passionate speaker. I am guessing that he believes that he researches a topic well and then synthesizes an opinion that he communicates very effectively. My guess is that his sources are lopsided on this one. I would change my mind on that if I see him consider and reject the arguments of RR and others.
OK, so I will. Ethanol for sugar has an energy balance of 8.5 - 10.
Thank you for another fine opportunity to address the misconception that all ethanol is similar to grain based ethanol.
The same stuudies explain that sugar is cultivated on abandoned pasture land, is not typically irrigated and is not nearly as fertilizer/herbicide intensive as corn.
By the way, I agree with Engineer Poet that the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine doom liquid fuels as a long-term solution to fueling vehicles.
The Brazil example does not apply very well to the US for reasons Robert Rapier has laid out clearly (although part of that is a bizzare system of subsidies that makes sugar in the US very expensive).
But for the next 20 years in countries such as Brazil, Thailand and other tropical countries - particularly those without oil - ethanol will be a part of the solution to waning energy supplies.
Worldwatch does some nice things (or has in the past), but really lost their marbles over biofuels. That leaves a Japanese study, which must be viewed in light of the fact that Japan is very eager to get countries to produce fuels of whatever kind, as long as they burn. "I tell you it's safe, now sell it me."
The argument that marginal lands are the mainstay for sugar cane, you can't really believe?! Abandoned pasture gets the highest yield for sugar cane? Why and how would that be? Where's the logic? Brazil's been ethanol caning for decades, and what do they produce on all that land? They are the prime case to prove the limits to biofuels.
EROI numbers for biofuels are so widely all over the place, they should be treated with great care. Palm oil's EROI is much better than any other, or so they say, but what's the use of that when Borneo and Malaysia have no forest cover left? Will you incorporate the damage from that in your EROI?
One thing you can count on: for the next twenty years ethanol, any kind of it, will be a prime factor in destroying what's left of the ecosystem.
Globalized capitalism has no way to deal with ecological problems like this. All of the free ecosystem services (water, air, living soil) are priceless. But they're free, so they're worthless. It's the tragedy of the commons writ large.
To quote Stuart McBurney, ecology into economics won't go.
- sgage
Brazil has been cultivating cane for 200+ years.
Sugarcane (technically a grass) is one of best crops in the Americas for both soil and the envionment.
Roughly 1% of Brazil's suitable farming land is planted with sugarcane or 4.5 million hectares.
Vinasse is a nutrient rich by-product of production that is used for crop irrigation.
The mills produce electricity for itself and surplus for the grid.
I all my research, I have yet to come across an EROEI of cane->ethanol production that is less than 8-1.
And that I do not have faith in.
So here's sighing right back at you.
This is patently not true... photosynthesis is ~0.5% efficient as compared to PV at 15% and Stirling-solar is claiming ~40%...
So efficiency-wise, your arable land would be better covered with PV panels... (and, I guess in theory you could even have "the best of both worlds" since you still have 60-85% solar energy to grow your crops...)
The only advantage of the photosynthesis route (sugar-to-ethanol or bio-diesel) is for some limited liquid fuel uses where greater energy density is required... aviation and maybe, long-distance trucking.
Hopefully, emerging battery technologies can bring the efficiency of pure electric to personal transport..
I merely highlight the success of the Brazilian sugarcane->ethanol industry as a counter to your argument that said practice shows the limitations of biofuels.
The opposite is true - Brazilian ethanol production proves that biofuels (in this case ethanol) can in fact be produced economically in a sustainable fashion with a net EROEI - faith not included.
I see nothing countered. Somone says 8:1, and that's it? No thermodynamics? Anything you don't just find, like oil, will be subject to regeneration rates, and thermodynamics as far as I can see.
So why don't they, or we, do it, and get the energy discussion over with?
If you are sure something will give you an 8:1 rate into eternity, all you need to do is get on with it. Shell and Exxon and everybody will be kissing you all over, because you have solved their biggest worries, all they have to do is buy land and processing facilities and they are set for life. And beyond,
So again: where is the problem?
As toilforoil says you have a misunderstanding of thermodynamics... this is not a closed system. So it is no "free ride" (something for nothing)... you are not getting more out than you put in.
I mean... what is the EREOI of food; of firewood/lumber... would you consider that a free ride? No.
Think of it as diffuse solar energy concentrated into plant form over a whole season and released/burned in a short period of time.(Low energy-long time >> high energy-short time)
So what is the catch?... essentially only one... the land for growing sugar in USA is fairly limited... and would provide miniscule dent in American liquid fuel imports; besides displacing land currently used for food.
Of course, the only risk in this bio-fuel strategy is the inevitable destruction of forests in suitable regions for more fuel-producing land... eg sugar in Brazil; palm oil in Indonesia.
Finally, there is one other factor for all bio-ethanol production that doesn't get sufficient mention:
In a low energy future... EFFICIENCY IS EVERYTHING... there is no way we will be able to afford to burn ethanol in an ICE... Burn it in a CHP device, develop an ethanol fuel cell, use it as chemical foodstock; even drink it!!... but don't intentionally piss away 2/3 of the energy as heat to the atmosphere...
Go to the yahoo energy resources group. As it isn't particularly efficient to search through all of his posts, find one Milton Maciel, an advocate for and grower of organic sugar cane, involved in the sugar-cane to ethanol development and debate for decades, researcher and consultant and in possession of a good deal of information and insight, and in possession of sincere environmental and humanitarian concerns. E-mail him with your thoughts and ask him for his views, other reports, scientific evaluations of the EROEI of sugar cane and whatever else you need. Ask him for an explanation of how and why sugar cane can be grow until planetary heat death on the same ground.
In Canada, we are permitting the industrial rape of the boreal forest and our own rain forest. It is not grain production on the prairies, which is responsible for this. Similarily, it is not sugar cane production in Brazil which is responsible for the loss of rainforest. Milton can explain to you how depleted pasture land, in the appropriate environmental zone, is transformed into sugar cane plantations, with an ongoing reconstruction of the soil.
Sugar cane cultivation does not find suitable conditions in Amazonia. Perhaps its cultivation is suitable for other rainforest locales around the world, but I don't know this. Milton could probably answer this question as well as provide information on the required growing conditions for this gift from nature.
The case for ethanol from corn or bio-diesel from soybeans is at the very best pathetically weak. I have insufficient information about the palm oil situation, including information about the range of environmental conditions that will support palm oil plantations. I certainly worry that production for export can have severe humanitarian and environmental consequences and admire Monbiot for raising this concern. And I hope that within a century or so our progeny can reverse the environmental damage that producing for wheat and other agricultural exports has done to Europe, North America and Australia, among other locales.
There is a case worthy of debate, though lacking information, that any fuel production, which has an EROEI of less than 5 to 1, is not sustainable.
But this is not the case for certain agricultural crops used for particular energy applications, such as sugarcane for ethanol and switchgrass for solid heating fuel.
Nor is it the case that these latter crops will necessarily reduce food production or wreak environmental destruction. It is in fact arguable that the contrary will be the result as we search for concentrated solar to help maintain food production. And restoring some of the footprint of native perennial grasses like switchgrass restores habitat.
Q:
Switchgrass->ethanol does work, however, no one has built a commerical scale cellulosic operation as of yet. There are I think 3 plants slated for commission in 07' - Iogen's being one of them and Abengoa another.
BTW Iogen has had a million litre a year demo facility up and running in Ottawa for some time now.
As for why Brazil is not blanketed in sugar cane, that has to do with suitable growing conditions and competitive demands for land in the right areas. As for why, ethanol producers don't get all the available cane, that is about the ability of sugar producers to compete at the farmgate.
Ethanol production in Brazil receives zero subsidies. That in itself should tell you something about the positive EROEI of ethanol from sugarcane.
Somethings are not too good to be true. They are just true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/us/15energy.html?hp&ex=1158379200&en=291624f0d44f67a9& ei=5094&partner=homepage
They must be in catabolic collapse. The population must be plummeting. A severe economic depression for decades now. Their neighbours must be coming to steal their wives, their pigs, their children, their goats. Yessir flat energy consumption for decades, California is a living Hell on Earth, the future we all have to fear after the peak.
Washington Monthly and New York Times explain:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009505.php
When you compare the map of national gas prices
http://www.columbusgasprices.com/Price_By_County.aspx?state=OH&c=usa
With the chart of republican senate seats in jeopardy
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/senateBalanceofPower.htm
Then throw in the prudhoe bay oil production cuts, you get an interesting correlation between gas and politics.
Remember very blue states and very red states are not easily influenced so only swing states matter.
Also this graph is informative. It plots presidential approval ratings verse the reciprocal of gas prices.
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/gasindex_files/NEWBUSHINDEX_28670_image001.gif
I believe Gray states exactly what you said in your post.
He says "what is the point in focusing all our energies on trying to make our position more sustainable? ...Wil we not be better employed preparing to cope with the disruption than by pretending that it can be stopped?" I don't think he's arguing for sustainability, at least based on the snippet posted by roel. The way I read it, he's saying we're shit-canned and should spend our energy learning how to minimize the pain.
Tom
The acceptance offers no guarantees of survival, there are zillions of possible warming effects, but you can try.
So instead of building more dams, move to higher ground, that sort of thing.
This is from Science, the top U.S. scientific journal. Even today's CO2 levels are enough to melt the ice sheet in Greenland and cover most of Florida. Coastal cities around the world will be inundated. Costs will be enormous, incalculable. Again, this is with today's CO2 levels. And even the optimists expect that even with stringent controls we will roughly double CO2 levels before they level off.
So yes, I'd say it's very appropriate to be concerned that we've already gone too far. This is the real "inconvenient truth" that we face. This Monbiot guy's failure to face the truth is just intellectual cowardice.
What does facing the truth mean? It means that we have to accept that our only choice is to work towards advanced technology that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This is philosophically horrific to environmentalists, who generally hate technology and wish we could go back to a pastoral lifestyle of hard labor without mechanized aid. The last thing they would want to see is rockets blasting chemicals into the upper atmosphere to reduce solar heating, or fleets of ships seeding the Antarctic ocean with iron to cause plankton blooms that sequester CO2 on the ocean floor.
But in my opinion this is our only choice, to avoid the catastrophe which is already upon us. CO2 levels are already far too high, we have passed the tipping point, and at this point we can't solve things with conservation. We need technology, we need to intervene and take control of the situation. Luckily there are a number of solutions on the drawing boards, and realistically we have several decades in which to act. By that time we should have many options which are technologically feasible, some of which are likely to be quite inexpensive to boot.
It's also philosophically horrific to technocrats who understand the Law of Unintended Consequences. Given that we created the problem by doing something we didn't know was going to have global effects, I'm uncomfortable with attempting to solve it by doing things we know in advance will have global consequences. TANSTAAFL, and all that - Mother Nature always charges you for lunch.
Doing things like this also implicitly underwrites a continuation of Business as Usual. If we continue on that path, even if we solve this problem we will merely bump into another limit a little further down the road. There are plenty of such limits waiting for us. As a result, I'm most in favour of doing things that get (some of) humanity off the BaU treadmill, and will give as many of us as possible the tools we'll need to cope with a changed world. It just seems safer to do that than to tinker even more with systems we don't really understand.
I see proposals like seeding the oceans or the upper atmosphere as evidence of the most astonishing hubris.
Drawing boards? Like trillions of dollars a year of sulphur bombs?
It's the kind of scheme that perfectly answers Bob Shaw's question:
"Are humans smarter than yeast?"
Stratospheric Sulfur Could Stall Global Warming
Tell me, you plan to shoot GM for pursuing Hyrdrogen cars, or Toyota for pursuing hybrid technology, or all those guys pursuing solar,wind,hydro,tidal,geothermal energy.
Those are all "Technofixes" to Global Warming.
Technology got us into this mess and Technology is going to have to get us out. Its either that or collapse(sudden or slow doesn't matter), and chances are the climate and environment will suffer a WHOLE lot more, through war, famine, and the scavenging of resources should collapse be the option.
That's a pretty brazen statement. Why should technology be the "only" choice? Check out John Hamaker's book "The Survival of Civilization" if you want a non-tech solution that would be doable if the political will existed. But the truth is the political will does not exist, not for his solution, nor for yours.
Beyond that, your faith in technology (along with your gratuitous jab at environmentalists), may demonstrate more about a lack of imagination than about any potential "solution." Did you stop and consider that it was "technology" that got us into this situation? Did you consider the problem of unintended consequences?
Frankly, the idea that we might start trying to "manage" the global ecosystem frightens the dickens out of me. We have an extremely poor record at "managed" systems. Even the human ones were pretty poor at, much less the natural ones.
I don't consider your brand of techno-enthusiasm any less dangerous than those who believe we will find "some" technology to transition away from oil.
Given the choice between the mucked up mess of a global ecosystem that we currently have and the possibilities of what some "eco-management" approach would f&%* up, I'll take my chances with the current mess.
Not most of the environmentalists I know. Nice straw man though.
"The last thing they would want to see is rockets blasting chemicals into the upper atmosphere to reduce solar heating, or fleets of ships seeding the Antarctic ocean with iron to cause plankton blooms that sequester CO2 on the ocean floor."
Darn right, and not because environmentalists hate technology. It's because those are a couple of batshit crazy ideas to anyone with any sense of complexity science. We do not know nearly enough to know what the unintended consequences of such measures would be. And they would likely be very long term/irreversible.
"We need technology, we need to intervene and take control of the situation."
Spoken like a true cornucopian engineer. The hubris of that statement is mind boggling. We can not intervene and take control of the situation - we need to get out of the way and let the system work.
If you really need to indulge in engineering wetdreams, stick with the "giant mirror in orbit" thing. At least then we can stop the experiment instantly when something goes wacky. Or try CO2 injection into oilwells, or something like that. Don't go juicing up the oceans with fertilizer - you're liable to end up with a gigantic dead zone.
What we "need" is to learn how to pull back from the coastlines in an orderly fashion, and to learn how to cope with changing climate patterns.
We simply don't know enough to go messing around in the ways you suggest.
- sgage
I wouldn't rule out intervention altogether. Reforestation and other planting might make some difference by locking up some of the CO2, while we wind down on the CO2 production side. I just don't know if anything can be done about melting permafrost and the accelerated release of methane.
A lot of future living might well be underground.
Time to walk the Beagle and then head over to hear Kunstler.
But really, perhaps, many of us, are just attached to the status quo. Perhaps we need to learn to live with the consequences of our actions. Not that it is likely that I personally will have to live with anything horrific. Although, you never can tell, especially if you believe Lovelock.
http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/Simmons.html
It brings up an interesting question of whether citizens of oil exporting countries (esp. Islamic) will increasingly take the view that whatever oil is left in their country must be rationed and conserved as much as possible for future generations. Many already view the relatively good price Westerners are getting for their oil as tantamount to theft. The result is likely to be more attempts to sabotage production.
In the late sixties to early eighties, my father-in-law was a high-ranking State Dept economic advisor and a good portion of his assignments were in the Middle East. He recalls that back then the average person in oil exporting countries had very little sense of the finite nature of their black gold. That is no longer true.
Does Washington think it can head off the urge to hoard by pressuring ME countries to join MEFTA thereby using free trade agreements to ensure global access to remaining oil reserves?
With today's news of the pope's quoting of a 14-th century Byzantine emperor causing an uproar across the muslim world, the "clash of civilizations" route to WW3 seems more likely than ever.
Of course, GM is in heap big trouble and doesn't know which way to jump. That's not news, we've all seen that happening for years now.
The important subtext in this statement is contained in two references: the first to the use of non-petroleum fuel, and the other to the year 2011. What Mr. Lutz is telling us with this statement is that GM has figured out that Peak Oil is for real, and that the decline in the world's oil supply is
going to be indisputable by 2011.
GM knows they've already lost the fuel efficiency wars to the Japanese, but they are still faced with the problem of corporate survival in a world of shrinking oil supply and rising fuel prices. So they are thinking about a trying a Hail Mary pass, and hoping to reinvent themselves in an alternative energy universe.
The problem is, they are showing the same inability to innovate in that universe that they showed in this one. Hydrogen fuel cells are an unbelievably low-percentage technology to hang your corporate future on, especially over the next five years. Battery electrics, maybe. Plug-in hybrids - absolutely. Fuel cells? GMAFB. Peak Oil is for real, but General Motors is not.
sgage - nice to see another NH TODer! Greetings from Weare!
GM recognized that it can't be the hybrid car company so instead, they are trying to corner both the flex-fuel and hydrogen sections of product placement. Meanwhile, both Toyota and Honda are moving into ethanol territory because they realize that the Hydrogen Economy is nowhere to be seen.
Unfortunately what goes for GM goes for the country.
And as posted earlier...
I was in attendance for the launch of Canada's premier R&D hydrogen fuel cell center this week - Peak Oil is definitely not the impetus behind the research, nor is the concept even on their radar.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/09/20/230837.html
From that link...
Based on the gasoline power unit featured in the BMW 760i, BMW's hydrogen combustion engine boasts the most advanced technologies such as BMW's fully variable VALVETRONIC valve drive.
The main modifications to the engine involve the fuel injection system adapted by BMW to the special attributes and requirements of hydrogen.
MEES released their figures for July OPEC production. 29,890 thousand bpd, down from June's 29,980. MEES's OPEC figures show they peaked in October, 2004.
If production has really climbed for at least one month/month, perhaps they finally have enough new wells to compensate for what looks like rapidly accelerating declines from old ones. And, they state that they will shortly have 100 rigs looking for oil, so they may in fact increase output... maybe not for long. Definitely trying hard.
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/saudi_arabia_prod_rigs_april_2.png
in reference to bagged spinach and E coli
http://www.biotech-info.net/ecoli_GE.html
Its ok tho, I am sure Technology will save us(provided a buck can be made)
Good day
Knock,Knock,Hello,Anybody home?
I had hoped to get some feedback to the link I provided above. My error, I can see the one time poster zanth and his retarded inane poll takes precedent, so in keeping with what is really important on this forum I am conducting a poll.
What should Briteny Spears name her newborn baby boy?
- Justin
- Brian
- Mark
- Peter
next all important questionShould wannabe Jon Benet murderer Mark Karr be sentenced to:
1) Insane asylum
2)Champagne brunch on carnival cruiseship
3)Breakfast at Tiffanys
4)Complete reading of the pros and cons of ethanol
finally
Who will win Fox Celebrity Duets?
write your favorite here.
This forum is fading and fading fast.
OOps I know how important spelling is on this forum it should be Britany not Briteny my bad
Thank you. Poll is closed.
Lets see, taking the statistical average of the number of respondents, dividing by the number of questions they did not answer, multiplied by the IQ of respondents and we statistically come up with the number of respondents. a/b*c=x. Amazing. Math is our friend. :) ;) :/ :(
I am POed
.
Its been in the back of my mind that at least part of the ME game is nothing more than the US attempting to flank the Chinese on the western border by land and have the Chinese hemmed in by sea on their east. In otherwords... like the strategy used on the Soviets.... containment.
The internal push for a militarized Japan with almost no mumblings on the matter from the US, the now very prominent place Iran has in the news as a possible target to attack, the positioning we gained in Afganistan and Iraq, combined with an ever strengthening Taiwanese naval and missile defense capabilities, China has to be feeling it.
This isn't meant as a pro or con opinion on the matter... simply an observation that keeps getting momentum everytime I see pieces on the board move into place.
Zanth asked:
Total responses: 46
Age 25-29 11%
30-34 7%
35-39 15%
40-44 15%
45-49 9%
50-54 17%
55-59 15%
60-64 9%
65-69 2%
Single 22%
Married 62%
Divorced 16%
Rural 22%
<50,000 pop. 9%
50-200,000 17%
>200,000 28%
Suburban 24%
Maybe now that we have advertisers, they'll be interested, too!
But it looks pretty evenly distributed to me. Perhaps there are a few more 50-somethings...but then, the boomers are in their fifties now, so that wouldn't be surprising.
But this is the sort of stuff that makes me go all "Alex Jones" - you'd think a rag like Car and Driver would be independent, but here is this guy blatantly lying on CNN to sooth everyone. And the crazy part is, lots of people buy it! They don't wait anymore to change history, we do it as we go.
I think you're giving them way too much credit for intelligence and importance by assuming they're trying to shape public opinion in the sense of it being a Grand Plan. They're simply too narrow-minded to see the big picture.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/11/231845/209
Also, be sure to read at Real Climate if you want the details.
Things aren't getting any better...
The real "Final Frontier" for
producing hydrocarbons
Just waiting for the ice to melt
http://www.amqua.org/news/news/eosforum2006.pdf
I just love science, or, what passes for it these days...
know what i realized tonight, bout the second round? I work for Darth Vadar! I'm a fucking storm trooper!
now how the fuck do i desert and where the hell is the rebel alliance?
Resistance is futile.
Leaders of the rebellion have been sucked into the TV Death Star and have emerged as American Idol wanna-be's.
Sorry.
Better luck next time.
(The next time being when the Universe collapses into its own worm hole and then re-emerges out of the hiny of the worm hole as something that sounds like a big bang.)
I was drunk off my a** last night. I had NO business being online.