 | The Forest and the Trees -- the Oil News Imbalance | The Oil Drum | Oil export - import model for the UK |  |
DrumBeat: September 20, 2006
Posted by threadbot on September 20, 2006 - 9:14am
SILVER SPRING, Md. -- Discovery Channel announced today that production has begun on FINAL HOUR, an historic eight-part television series that bridges the gap between science and action surrounding the most critical issues of our time. Set as hybrid of drama and non-fiction storytelling entirely based on scientific fact, FINAL HOUR addresses core issues of climate change, poverty and fears of peak oil. Rather than merely present issues, the series uses some of the world's greatest minds to present ground-breaking solutions to sustainability and potential means to save the planet. The series premieres in Fall of 2007.FINAL HOUR has been invited to participate in the 2006 annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton Global Initiative is a non-partisan catalyst for action, bringing together a community of global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most pressing challenges.
Amaranth future in doubt, may hit larger funds
Fund manager Amaranth Advisors may not survive the billions of dollars in natural gas losses it disclosed this week, and larger institutional energy funds may see some investors flee in the aftermath, industry experts said on Tuesday.
Scientists tell Exxon to stop anti-climate change campaign
Scientists shocked as Arctic polar route emerges
European scientists voiced shock as they showed pictures which showed Arctic ice cover had disappeared so much last month that a ship could sail unhindered from Europe's most northerly outpost to the North Pole itself.
The Russian presidential administration has developed fuel strategy for Russian electricity. Kommersant has learned that it will not emphasize growing gas supplies, of which, experts say, there is already a 30-percent deficit, but coal. Thus, Russian authorities will convert domestic consumers to coal and heating oil, which will unavoidably lead to higher electricity prices, but guarantee that Gazprom meets its export plans.
Russia tries to rein in foreign oil firms
Bolivia issues ultimatum for oil companies to renegotiate contracts
La Paz - The Bolivian government on Tuesday issued an ultimatum to oil companies, setting an October 31 deadline for them to sign new contracts following the nationalization of the country's energy resources.
Maybe Roubini is right and the US housing market will come down as Icarus falling from the sky, dragging everything else with it, including the demand for commodities. Under such a scenario it doesn't really matter whether oil costs a few cents more or less at the pump – it will by definition cost less over time. If US consumers stop spending the world will (be forced to) take notice and US interest rates will go down regardless whether short term gloom and doom can be avoided or not.
Economists wary of falling energy prices
Meeting ‘peak-oil threat’ will cost $20tn: US
LONDON: The world needs to spend $1tn a year in alternative fuels, starting 20 years before the peak in conventional oil production, in order to mitigate fuel shortages, a US Energy Department study showed.Production peaks in Texas, the UK and Norway were examined as part of two studies for the department that advised on “crash course’’ efforts to cope with an eventual shortage of gasoline and other liquid fuels.
The study, led by Robert Hirsch, didn’t predict when world production will peak, though Hirsch told reporters his guess is “within the next five to 10 years.’’
Oil is a finite resource, but is a topic that draws out seemingly infinite opinions
More Companies May Dig Deeper in Search for Oil
Safety fears force two-year delay to giant BP platform
Iowa company turns to ammonia for fuel
An Iowa alternative fuel engine manufacturer has reached an agreement with an irrigation pump maker in California to make the world's first ammonia-powered irrigation pump system.
Air Force Flight Test of Syntroleum Gas-to-Liquids Fuel Successful
Syntroleum announced that its Fischer-Tropsch (FT) jet fuel has been successfully tested in a United States Air Force B-52 Stratofortress Bomber aircraft.
[Update by Leanan on 09/20/06 at 10:44 AM EDT]
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending September 15, 2006: Oil little changed after lower-than-expected crude inventory.
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.
China to surpass clean-energy goals by 2020
And the best:
from New Poll Finds Californians Bullish on Renewable Energy.
http://odograph.com/?p=114
California is becoming notorious for passing meaningless legislation with great goals that are simply ignored, see most recently their Global Warming Legislation. Next to DC, Sacramento is the most broken government in the republic, at some point we're all going to find out how wonderful it is to have a government completely corrupt and unable to accomplish anything - of, by, and for the corporations - even the libertarians might find this a little distasteful.
Los Angeles County has 5 supervisors for over 10 million people -- that's local government! At the nation's founding the constitution had 35,000 people for each Congressmen. The fact is the architecture of our government is broken, the old infrastructure of our politics has been destroyed, a completely vial and corrupt process of money, polls, and television rules.
We have a broken political and government system, it desperately needs reform.
On.
Correct.
Our entire system of government is broken. We are seeing the results we are seeing because the system has become clogged with vested interests.
Where's the political Drain-O?
Hugo Chavez makes some caustic comments about the smell of sulpher that hovers around the White House and proposes to Americans that they read one of their own as a first step in clearing the odour.
But his sense of humour and irony, his subtlety (LOL), even the accuracy of his content, puts the great white chief to shame. I'd pull out this one paragraph as being a poignant and perceptive observation:
"Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions."
Hugo is entertaining in an over the top kind of way, but at least he spouts some ideas and very occasional interesting observation. GW makes me shiver with his simplistic (much more so than Hugo's) mechanistic attempts - apparently mostly successful - at selected voter button pressing.
Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and Hugo's education programs for the poor for example.
I guess that answers it.
The only thing they need it would seem is Diebold Voting machines to to ensure No "Left-Wings" would get elected.
BTW, the "Coup" that nearly toppled them was staged by the CIA, not Unlike the successful one that changed Iran from a democractically elected president to a dictator in 1953, or the other hundred other examples.
<SNIP>
"In 1953, Iran had a democratic government. This is a very jarring thing for us to realize now because we are not used to seeing the word "Iran" and the word "democracy" in the same sentence. The fact is, however, that Iran was developing a long, rocky but democratic path in the early 1950s. For reasons which my book explains in great detail, the United States decided, in the summer of 1953, to go in and overthrow that democratic government. The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism. "
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/07/29_kinzer.html
"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know."
- Harry Truman
Same thing with Iran.
Chavez, like Bush, is a symptom of dysfunction and polarization.
(Yawn) Spare me your cliches.
read about the people in venezuela from their point of view...more poor people are dying and suffering since his rule than before he came into power. chavez cares more about his own agenda than the people of his country and wins hearts of poor people in other countries by throwing oil around when he should be doing more for the poor in his own country. its sad because we need that oil and allow ourselves to be insulted and disgraced because we are so dependent on the resource. chavez needs to recheck himself and there should be more news on how venezuelans are being treated. chavez is a charade and we're allowing ourselves to give into his nonsense.
"...there exists nonetheless sufficient factual evidence to prove that Chavez' regime is by far the most corrupt that Venezuela has ever seen. For instance the irresponsible manner in which the country has been indebted. In 1998 the internal outstanding debt was close to $2.000 billion, in contrast to $16.000 billion at present. Venezuela's banking system holds 64% of the internal debt at times when PDVSA's output capacity has decreased significantly. This translates into larger chunks of the budget having to be destined to service the debt, both internal and external, placing an extraordinary burden in the country's finances. The $2.500 billion deposited in the Inversion and Macro Stabilization Fund (FIEM), were pilfered by Chavez.... "
http://www.hacer.org/current/Vene52.php
In my own county we have 1 house elected representative for 45 000 people, but that's not usual, 100 000 is more usual.
Anyway, as the total number of citizen increase, the number of people represented by one representative increase even more. That's because you cannot increase effectively the number of representative too much. At one point even more representative does not increase actual democracy.
I can see that even in small local groups. It is often more efficient to work with a small number of people (3 to 7) than working with larger groups (8 or more). As the number of people increase, the increment of added value does not increase alike.
I did not make any actual research on this, it is based on observation of a number of groups (more than 30) I have worked with in the last 8 years.
The increment of added value in a group is somewhat following the same curve than the oil "creaming curve" that you saw in some Mathew Simmons presentation.
Also in any group of more than 10 people the following apply :
1 leader, no matter what
3 or 4 people involved more than the others
3 somewhat present but with less valuable participation
2 or 3 that we see only once in a while and giving only marginal effort.
I don't want to imply that elected representative are subject to the same distribution, but I don't think that I'm very far from the reality.
We have passed the point where a Revolution could do any good. We have gotten a National Government that will not allow a Revolution in the first place.
I have Fixed it so that people may comment on my short story about "A future as I saw it" What is still scary is I think it will be sooner rather than later.
dan-ur.blogspot.com
Have fun, just remember we have the technology to do it today.
'Time to hold these companies responsible,' attorney general says
MSNBC staff and news service reports
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924286/
Updated: 12:13 a.m. MT Sept 20, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO - California filed suit against the world's largest carmakers on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars.
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.
Lockyer, a Democrat, said the complaint states that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a "public nuisance" by producing "millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide."
Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to global warming.
Lockyer's office said that "under the law, a `public nuisance' is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property."
"Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing," Lockyer said in a statement. "Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."
Lockyer said he would seek "tens or hundreds of millions of dollars" from the automakers.
The lawsuit names Ford, General Motors, Toyota and the North American units of DaimlerChrysler, Honda and Nissan.
Activists welcomed the move.
"Industries responsible for the pollution that drives global warming should expect more suits like this until we have effective national legislation to stop global warming," David Doniger, a staffer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.
Carmakers earlier sued to block a 2005 California law that would require them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on new vehicles.
California and 11 other states are also involved in a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court is expected to hear that case during its upcoming term.
Reuters and sylvester80 contributed to this report.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924286/
Let me rephrase that and add a bit:
Activists, MOST OF WHOM DRIVE, welcomed the move. "Why should I, the user, be held accountable when I can point fingers at the dealer?", one activist asked.
We are never going to get anywhere until people are willing to accept a higher degree of personal responsibility for the situation we are in.
Good point. Until everyone understands and then cooperates to mitigate the Tragedy of the Commons finger-pointing gets us nowhere. Optimizing the squeeze through the Dieoff Bottleneck by detritus powerdown and biosolar powerup, along with universal cooperation on voluntary birth controls is the best strategy to reduce the coming postPeak violence. Will we have the wisdom to proactively restructure our society to localized permaculture with 60-75% of us laboring in the fields?
Otherwise: Requiem
---------------------------------------------
It really will be back to the good old days! Shouts of "BRING ME HIS HEAD" will ring through the land, slaves, scalps, souvenirs and trophies of all sorts, ... exciting possibilities limited only by our ingenuity.
The good news is that recycling will finally become fashionable! We will see feral children mining the dumps for plastic to burn (Pampers) so they can heat the hovels they are forced to live in. The strongest kids will set traps for fresh meat -- rats -- while the weaker kids will eat anything they can cram into their mouths (old shoes, styrofoam peanuts, newspaper soup). Pandemics will sweep the world, punctuated every so often by explosions as abandoned nuke plants go critical. Leaking dumps and tanks will spew PCBs and radioactive hazwaste into the feral food chain spawning surprising new shapes for young mothers to enjoy nursing. [54] Toxic chemical fires, blowing garbage and trash, genetic mutations, filthy water, cannibalism ...
As the Easter Islanders say: "The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth".[55]
The situation will be especially serious for a short time because the population will keep rising due to the lags inherent in the age structure and social adjustment. Then mercifully, the population will drop sharply as the death rate is driven upward by lack of food and health services.[56] Trapped in obsolete belief systems, Americans won't even know why their society disintegrated.
A hundred thousand years from now -- once the background radiation levels drop below lethality -- a new Homo mutilus will crawl out of the caves to elect a leader. Although we have no idea what mutilus might look like, evolutionary theory can still tell us who will win the election. He will be the best liar running on a platform to end hunger by controlling nature.
How could it be otherwise?
------------------------------
Recall my postings on the false detritus-fueled humanimal ecosystem that overlies our actual ecosystem. Until we are willing to cooperate in mitigation of both sides of Jay's Thermo-Gene Collision--we will be going in the opposite direction of optimizing the coming squeeze. Such is life.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Cheers
I welcome this suit.
Robert Rapier:
As to your comments about activitists, so what? Their position is utterly irrelevent to the State's case. It is relevent apparently as a chance for Robert Rapier to again place himself in some kind of ethical castle far above the "activists".
Unfortunately the climate problem is global and urgent. We need to accomplish all sorts of steps at the same time. It is simply not workable that we shall do nothing until all people, as judged by Robert Rapier, have accepted personal responsibility.
Robert, it becomes apparent that for all your thoughtful posts, when it comes to action you stand for absolutely nothing. I say this because the only actions you find acceptable require absolute ethical purity: Let he who doesn't use oil products cast the first stone. Sorry but the efforts to protect the environment are mostly not about your personal need to judge others and protect your imaginary ethical castle.
Roy
It is not the ethics. It is the hypocrisy. We always wish to point fingers at someone else. We want to pass an initiative like Prop 87, because it punished oil companies and removes personal responsibility. We now want to punish auto companies for enabling our habits. It is ludicrous. What I stand for is personal responsibility. That is one reason favor a gas tax. He who uses the most fossil fuels will pay the largest penalty. Individual accountability.
Incidentally, I will also point out that you are far off the mark. If I don't stand for what you stand for, it doesn't mean I stand for absolutely nothing. I stand for many things, among them higher gas taxes, conservation, solar energy, biomass gasification, additional research for cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, etc.
But I believe hypocrisy should be pointed out when it occurs, and that is the issue here. We do ourselves no favors by pointing fingers at others for our oil addiction. The problem is mine and yours, not the car company's problem. If I conserved and bought fuel-efficient transportation, the oil and automotive companies would have to adapt or die.
... maybe get rid of those pesky catalytic covnerters as well ...
No. Gas taxes, for instance, are not "individual action." But we could get higher gas taxes passed if individuals stopped looking to scapegoat others for this situation. Blame the oil companies, and raise their taxes. Blame the automakers, and sue them. But a gas tax? Political suicide, because the individual doesn't accept that he is the problem.
If we understood and accepted that the problem is on the demand side, we would have a real chance of implementing meaningful change. CAFE standards? A decent start, but meaningless if peak comes sooner rather than later. By the time the average mileage of all cars on the road is significantly impacted, it may be too late.
You insist that this is scapegoating, etc. Maybe. And maybe GM's bankrolling of hydrogen could be labled distraction. And Exxon's bankrolling of climate critics could be labeled as decept.
I think you are falling into the trap of demanding the perfect here. Are you really going to convince every actor in the economy to rational and moral action?
... maybe you ask for that, and maybe you ask for it "symmetrically" with moral vendors and consumers ... but will that "meaningful" if peak oil comes sooner rather than later? By the time the average consumer and company is convinced, it may be too late.
No, I don't demand it. Maybe the lawsuit does a bit of good. Maybe Prop 87 does indirectly reduce consumption. I am honestly not sure how I would vote on it, and if I demanded perfection it would be a no-brainer to vote against it.
What is frustrating for me is that we don't accept more responsibility for our personal contribution to Peak Oil and Global Warming, and therefore we have to settle for very tiny incremental changes. I don't know that we have time for that.
If everyone accepted personal responsibility, and were willing to take serious steps toward mitigation, we could postpone Peak Oil talk for a long, long time by slappping on a $4/gal gasoline tax. But such things are only possible if we stop pointing fingers at everyone else and accept personal responsibility.
I think you misinterpret that this means I advocate primarily individual actions. No. I favor mass action, but meaningful mass action is going to be tough to implement with today's climate of "not my fault."
FWIW, there were some who made the cycnical suggestion that I should not have bought my Prius at all. I just have kept driving my Subaru, and kicked half the purchase-price to movements like this that enforce broader action.
In a pragmatic sense, it might be a dollar better spent.
(BTW, my reaction to the old Forbes quote, as I think about it, is that GM deserves whatever it gets.)
Get that? They couldn't "have the car held hostage to the debates about energy dependence, resource usage, global climate change."
We will NOT deal effectively with Peak Oil and post-Peak Oil if public policy is based on falsehoods and misleading myths. We cannot make effective steps to mitigate Peak Oil if we place our highest priority on dead ends.
Keep up the work of doing good and build thicks walls. I think it is imperative that we have open, sometimes tough, discussions in order to get at the truth. I hope people don't take questions or counter arguments as attacks on them personally.
I much prefer discussing issues with people who disagree with me than having a cheering choir following me about fawning. I suspect you do too.
But other than that, I agree :)
Robert keep up the good work. You are expending the energy a lot of us don't have. Don't think we don't appreciate it. We'd even help, if you asked.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fawn
I was thinking of a deer for some reason. I would have never guessed dog. I learn a new thing every day. Thanks, buddy.
(Why the hell was I thinking about deer?)
http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=th&q=%22Jodi%27s+Fawn%22&meta=
But then again we always knew Stepback was smarter than us. I'm willing to bet it is some distant galaxy, a paradox in quantum physics, or remote science fiction reference.
What's your guess?
Sorry. I mis-rememberized.
The name of the movie was The Yearling.
The boy who cared for the fawn was named Jody.
Can we give Scarlett Johansson a haircut and recast her as the "boy." We'll name her Jody. We'll get a crocodile named "Irwin" to play the fawn. Whaddaya say?
Oh, yeah. This is going on my DVD list. Step Back scores again.
I certainly don't. But things like Roy wrote:
"you stand for absolutely nothing" are well beyond a counter argument. You should also see some of the hate mail I get from time to time. But, probably only about 10% of my e-mail is hate mail.
To those of us who undertake individual action, that always causes some concern. Jevons. Tragedy of the commons. Etc.
So I looked back at past actions, and do you know what I found?
I think I found that individual action really served as a foundation and stimulus, and that when things worked the second stage was broad acceptance, and yes, regulation.
Dolphin free tuna is a classic case. It started as a boycott and ended up as a law.
So where does this tie into your italicized text?
I think we are looking at a transition, one in which we monkeys establish new social norms, and enforce those norms upon others. This is the point where we try to eliminate the free riders, in the economic jargon.
So no, it is not "Why should I, the user, be held accountable when I can point fingers at the dealer?" It is "How can I leverage my behavior out to the society as a whole?"
If GM is a bad monkey, this is the way we scream and throw some .. er, leaves their way.
Here in the south, with 11% geothermal alone, I'd think we beat that 10% claim pretty handily.
Also amusing that by the SCE (or whoever's) rules, "large hydro" (itself 9%) is not counted as an "eligible" renewable.
It was below ten a couple years ago because CA, just like the rest of the country, built almost exclusively new natural gas generation. Anyway, I'm suspect how they managed to bring it up above 10, outside a few megawatts of pv, there's hasnt been much new renewables in CA.
What you are really looking at is a non-depletion argument.
You are looking at secondary environmental damage, which should be examined carefully. If hydro really hurts us more than coal, rip 'em out and build coal plants in their place, right?
I think we'd really be oh so lucky if we could worry about our dams in a coal-free world.
So I'm not on board. I can't drink all the kool-aid. I can't disbelieve SCE numbers on your say-so. I can't classify dams as "non-renewable" just because they have secondary impacts.
The question is how you define renewable. The big dams, well for one thing they are habitat destroyer, for one easy example, they've decimated the salmon population along the Pacific Coast. We still have to eat before taking a hot shower don't we?
The choice isn't between coal and large hydro. America's hyper-consumptive energy waste economy is despicable. We need to first look at the energy content of everything we do and figure out how to use the least amount energy and then second how we can provide the generation to do that. We'd soon find we don't need much coal and no big hydro. Doing the reverse, trying to figure out how to replace current generation to continue our immoral waste is a fool's game and already lost.
I really do.
But short of that, I think I have to play in the real world. If I want to tear down Hoover Dam, I have to name what will replace it.
To me it's not politics to demand impossible changes. It's dreaming.
I don't expect us to build any more big hydro in California, just because the good places are taken. The remaining possible is in Yosemite and even those conspicuous consumers agree building there would be a crime.
It is also very unlikely that we'll get much in-state coal added. Right now they have to build over the boarder or on Indian Reservations.
We could work out where we stand the opposite way, for the purposes of peak oil/gas. That is, calc the oil gas percentage of our electricity generation. It's less than half, which is good from a preparedness standpoint.
The question, as pragmatic citizens, is where to put our efforts. I'll back conservation as a first priority, and wind/solar second ... but don't expect those to do more than slow fossil fuel expansion.
But in this case, I think it is valid to point out that electricity consumers are making the choices they are.
SF would like to expand the existing power plant but the Park Service won't let them. So renewable energy goes to waste and we burn NG and coal instead.
I would like to comment more, but limited time ATM.
Now why 49.9 MW for this new, run-of-the-river hydropower project ?
Because 49.9 MW is "good" small hydro and 50 MW is "bad" large hydro. Absent such idiocies, the project would have been built as a 65 or 70 MW project. PC destroys renewable energy.
I agree with you in that Conservation, wind and solar seem to be the most agreeable solutions.
I'm also like you in that I don't think Hydro is a horrible option. It has problems, but the question is, are those problems better or worse than the alternatives. If forced to choose between coal versus hydro, which one is the better option. Coal I think is by far WAY more destructive both in feeding and polluting stages compared to hydro. People are going to demand a certain level of energy even if we do conserve. So to provide that energy we need as benevolent a method as possible to generate the needed amount.
That being said, we still don't know what the full impact of large scale windfarms and solar farms might have on our environment either. They appear to be more benevolent to the environment, but then we have not implemented them on the same scale that we have with other technologies. What if it turns out that large scale Windfarms alter the weather patterns of a given region by interfering with the flow of low and high pressure fronts.
What if it turns out that massive solar farms cause unintended heating or cooling of the air, or ground which in turn impact the climate in the systems that surround that farm.
The law of unintended consequences has not been anywhere near fully tested in regards to these emerging alternative energy industries.
An article printed several years back in the Houston Chronicle(If I remember right) pointed to a study meteorologists were doing in tracking storms and how they interact with large manmade construction (primarily highways). It found that there was an impact on the heat released from highways, and the movement of small storm systems trying to cross them. On I45(4 to 8 lanes depending on which stretch you are talking about and if you include the notorious Houston feeder roads which flank the highway) it was found that small storm systems would actually change course in small degrees acting as if there was a wall being placed right over the highway. Temp. Readings found exactly that... compared to the ground surrounding the highway, the highway was several degrees warmer and that heat was escaping upward to form a warm wall barrier.
Whose to say these "renewables" don't also have some detrimental effect or at the very least an impact on our environment. Chances are that they do have some effect, and that the effect will be magnified as they become more prevalent. The question then becomes one of is this solution better or worse than the alternative. We can't mitigate all risks, we can just minimize them, and if environmentalists and peak energy critics don't come to grips with this fact, then its likely the worse options such as coal and natural gas are likely to be adopted to solve our energy needs.
but
I think the vast majority of evidence is the effects of wind and PV will be localised.
Wind the big risk is bird and bat strikes. In particular certain species of migratory bats seem attracted to wind turbines-- we don't know why.
Except in the very high risk migration corridors, I think we have to bite the bullet and take the risk. A lot of bird species are doomed in any case if global warming continues.
As to PV and wind changing the weather: well, maybe locally. But since they are exploiting energy that is already there, I don't see it making a huge difference. not even as much as the 'heat sinks' that our urban structures cause.
Exactly. When viewed from a risk management perspective, Solar, Wind, and even Hydro is less threatening to our futures than fossile fuels.
What bugs me about some environmentalists is that they seem too apt to shoot down any alternative if it isn't somehow "perfect". Problem for them and the rest of us humans is we don't have time or knowledge for "perfect" solutions. So we need to buck up and try to take the least imperfect solutions we have available.
It is our politics that is based on dreaming, on hallucinations of neverending and increasing growth in wealth and BTU availability, where every snag we hit can and will be overcome by innovations that grow seemingly effortlessly from our superior science and technological abilities.
What we conveniently overlook is that neither our science nor our politics is able to comprehend, and act according to, the most basic physical laws we know: thermodynamics.
That is the tragedy of mankind: possessing the brains to formulate what amounts to a pretty brilliant understanding of our surroundings, but not the ability to apply that same understanding.
And so is man smarter than yeast? Yes, definitely, but it makes zero difference in the end, because it is not our intelligence that drives us. If it were, we would not be in this mess.
We understand the real world, but we are unable to live in it.
Coal advocates do not get everything they wish for, as an example.
FWIW, I think I've seen an acceleration of response in the last couple years to energy problems. That would make straight-line extrapolations questionable. We need to know if the acceleration will continue, or fall back.
What if those solar stirling engines they are putting out in the desert really work?
When my grandmother was a child, the radio was cutting edge technology. She saw the invention of the home refridgerator. Antibiotics. Vaccines. TV. Jet planes. Landing on the moon.
The unthinkable was done over and over again.
I feel it is important to draw the distinction between fantasy and past history because it allows easier communication. You can say "I know your intution and experience say there will always be growth, let me show you the energy curve that has happened your whole life" and then show them the energy curve coming.
We know that the years of past experience just yield a mirage of the future, but those years are more real for most people than some dry graphs and equations.
http://odograph.com/?p=64
Mine would be expanding current hydro as much as feasible; extracting 5% to 10% more power from existing power plants and building more pumped storage, dams (fewer) and run-of-river schemes (more potential). In some special places, replace dams with run-of-river plus pumped storage elsewhere. plus wind, solar, geothermal & biomass with the minimum nuke needed (~22%) AND ZERO COAL !
Roughly (by energy and 80% of current North American generation)
52% wind
12% hydro
-19% Pumped Storage
+15% Pumped Storage
22% Nuke
18% geothermal, solar thermal, PV, biomass
0% coal
Some combined cycle NG kept for extreme cases of heat, cold & drought (perhaps 1/4 the CO2/MWh of coal)
North American HV DC grid to shift power around.
No this isn't true, all "local" ecosystems combine to form the planet. Again an easy example, the dams on the West coast have decimated the Pacific salmon populations, which then harms everything tied to it. We don't deal with complexity well and the enviroment is a complex system, which we still little understand.
-best
Sound trivial? Consider this: one of the main reasons New Orleans is sinking, aside from the rising sea level, is that silt no longer reaches the coast from the Mississippi river thanks to all the dams and canals.
Umm while I don't dismiss your earlier argument about the interconnectivity of river eco systems, you just undid yourself with the New Orleans example.
There is plenty of mud and crap coming out of the Missippi, so much in fact that I can go down to the beach here in Galveston Texas and see it. On satellite pictures you can see a MONSTER plume of mud and silt spewing into the Gulf of Mexico.
New Orleans is sinking because they built a levy system, and series of dams around the city to protect the city from Mississippi flood waters and GoM tidal/hurricane flooding. New Orleans is blocking the silt locally only. But that shouldn't be confused with the whole of the Mississippi being dammed up and not producing silt down river because that is out and out false.
For a real pretty picture of the Plumes check out
http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=54592
If that is the definition, then none of the supposed "renewables" are renewable. All will require maintenance to keep into operation.
Are Solar Panels considered renewable? I would argue that as dust and sand collects on them, that their eventual usefulness will be degraded. As such, I expect there will be workers whose jobs is to keep Solar Panels clean.
Perhaps the problem with Hydro power isn't whether or not its renewable (I think it obviously is), but rather how do we build them in such a manner as to be more maintenance and ecosystem friendly. If we could flush the silt down river instead of letting it build up, would that then solve the problem?
Yes, all renewables eventually fail, but large dams represent a massive investment of manpower, equipment and concrete. For those investments to be considered renewable, the structure must, in my opinion, perform for an extended period. Consider the embodied energy vs. power production over the life of the structure. Consider the difficulty in recycling the structure. There are solar panels from the early sixties which still perform quite well; approximately 70-80% of rated power with only very gradual declines in power production. No one really knows how long modern solar panels will last, but a century seems possible, maybe longer.
Certain sites are more siltation-friendly, and yes, dams can be designed to flush silt to some degree. Typically, flushing sediments obviates other dam functions like: flood control, reservoir, and steady power production because it is done during maximum flow periods. Indeed, flushing works mostly at the dam end; sedimentation occurring in the distal portions of the reservoir is extremely difficult to address.
Given that many desert dams are distant from end users, the transmission losses also effect the "renewable-ness" of dams. 4000 watts of rooftop solar may be worth twice the dam-generated electricity due to distributed generation factors.
That said, I am not against hydroelectric power; but I do understand why its renewable credentials are doubted in some quarters.
Dredging costs, either by clamshell or suction, are significant and the energy spent dredging most be "charged" against the dams production.
FWIW, I think the scale and types of damage that large dams do are incredebly dependent upon the environmental setting, and the type of pre-fill preparation that is done.
For instance, if you are drowning a forest, you want to harvest every stick of that biomass and use it effectively, rather than just soak it and let it bubble away as co2 and ch4.
In an earlier post, someone said (Alanfrombigeasy?) that a silted-up dam, rendered into a waterfall, could still provide power using run of the river technology. I would be interested if anyone has any comparative data on this. Certainly Niagara Falls generates a lot of electricity, and substituting rock for sand, it has the appearance of a silted dam.
Is silting ultimately a problem for electricity generation? I would think so since a reservoir allows for optimal control over the rate of flow through turbines and can therefore respond to fluctuating demand, as well as provide a 'reservoir' for fluctuating wind energy, as Sharman's paper on Danish windpower/neighbouring country hydropower demonstrates. Still, it seems logical that, since the work is provided by falling water, electricity can still be generated as long as the concrete/dam material endures.
Nonetheless, there are many reasons to question the ultimate value to society of electricity from at least some dams. For thousands of years, the Egyptians successfully used irrigation to support rich agricultural production alongside the Nile. Annual flooding replenished nutrients and flushed salts into the sea. The Aswan Dam changed this equasion and now salinity is emerging as a problem, as well as dependence on synthetic fertilizers. Is the electricity worth the price?
There's a topic for someone's dissertation.
It seems to avoid the downstream user problems of dams, yet provide localized power in the business/home that needs it.
Your idea would have a minimal environmental impact because it would only take a small portion of the energy carried by the river. This is why alot of us here favor scaling down energy consumption first, and then scaling up renewables.
Or so I remember from econ.
What kind of world is it where a strip mall has more value than a forest?
Unfortunately, as you pointed out the other day, the rules of economics consider natural resources to be infinite, so under those rules, the paddle wheel is probably not economically viable.
Step out side that box. I saying from econ we learn about externalized costs associated with large scale macro damage that isn't counted per unit b/c the margins are fuzzy. However when you aggregate that up to the system wide numbers and you see the big picture. Think of the damage done to the ecosystem through burning fossil fuels. The people who sell it don't bear the cost of damage that it does, we as a people and now planet, do. We pay in increased breathing diseases, problems ,illnesses etc.
The whole gammit of stuff that is caused by burning this crap is paid for by each individual, thus the true costs to burn fossil fuel per gallon isn't $3 it's probably significantly higher. How high who knows, but to even grasp at that kind of number you need good data that correlates well between past generation #'s compared to now. This is why there are few econ studies on what the true cost is.
The above link is about the silting of Lake Eufaula but it also contains a picture of the very silted up Falcon Lake. It is not much of a lake anymore, mostly silt.
The amount of silting depends on several things, primarily the amount of silt carried by the river. For this reason the Dams on the Tennessee river silt up very slowely. There are many dams on the river therefore the silt dumped in any reservoir must come primarily from feeder rivers downstream of the last upstream dam. That is the silt in the entire Tennessee River will be dumped in a dozen or so reservoirs, reducing the silt in any one reservoir. But this is not so for many other man made reservoirs. And yes some do silt up in as little as two decades, and many silt up in four or five decades.
Heh, heh. He could have just as easily said one cubic meter of silt displaces 61023 cubic inches of water ;^)
Few, in any, run-of-river projects do. Clean water rivers do not silt up (nothing measurable after 60+ years on the Sog in Iceland for example.
Others have good silt regimes and flush once a year to once a decade.
Karahnjukar has a 400 year life span and could, if they limited flushing turn a dead river today (all natural) into a salmon river by limiting flushing to every third year or so.
Even all lakes are temporary and after a few tens of thousands of years silt up. The Great Lakes, carved out by the last Ice Age, will silt up in about a hundred thousand years or so. If swift water carries silt to still water where it settles, it will eventually silt up. End of story.
And then there's this; what is most renewable about dams is their emission of greenhouse gases.
As for the Cree, their health problems relate overwhelmingly to cultural discontinuity and economic marginalization, leading to a loss of self-esteem and the consequences therefrom. Moreover, many suffer the effects of a disastrous adoption of the worst of 'western' food to their dietary regime, not necessarily from choice. These problems affect Cree and other native peoples living far away from any Hydro Electric watersheds or dams, as well as those of Northern Quebec.
There are problems with damming rivers, to be sure. Some situations are much worse than others. I favour the removal of many dams. But are we going to have a greater or lesser problem with lead, mercury and cadmium pollution without hydro-electricity?
The emissions are there to stay, and continue, that's what the article says quire clearly. No difference 10 years from now. I don't see how that could be unclear if you read it.
There are large mercury pollution problems in the population that lives close to these projects. Dragging in other 'cultural' problems is plain weird, and has no connection to the issue. This is a very specific form of pollution, that relates directly to hydro dams. Why not read what they have to say? They can explain their health problems better than you can, including this one.
The mercury is specifically released through the inundation of large amounts of land and land-based vegetation. It would under 'normal' circumstances remain in the soil and plants. Nothing ambiguous about it. Did you read it at all?
Doesn't this happen in every wetland every year?
The trees decay once and release greenhouse emissions once. After a number of years the amount of CO2 and methane emissions changes. Logically it declines at some point.
As is pointed out above, the reqrowth and death of plantlife on the shoreline involves sequestration and release.
On the other hand, the emissions from hydrocarbon generated electricity increase as the quality of the hydrocarbon decreases and as the amount of hydrocarbon consumed to produce the fuel increases.
Therefore overtime the equasion changes. The ratio provided for the dam in South America in relation to hydro-carbon generated electricity is not stagnant and logically changes in favour, from an emissions standpoint, of the hydro electric dam. So I asked you if you could provide information on the rate of change in this ratio.
I'm well aware of the adverse affects of mercury contamination from hydro development for Cree and others, especially those dependent on traditional fisheries. I am also aware that the mercury contamination is a relatively minor cause of poor physical and mental health outcomes experienced by first nations since Europeans began the rape of this continent. I was only trying to provide context and did not wish to diminish the nefarious effects of mercury contamination, especially for those people who were unaware that their traditional fish diet was post reservoir killing them.
Are we going to have a greater or lesser problem with mercury and other contaminants without hydro-electricity? I ask this question not in the sense of dam or no dam, but in the sense of hydro-electricity or coal-generated electricity, coal being the evident worldwide preferred option, when alternatives are denied. I should have been clearer.
I must say that I couldn't find anything on the link to the Cree website re mercury pollution. Perhaps I missed it. I did note comments from various representatives of the Cree relating to the economic opportunities presented by hydro development. It is perhaps regrettable that so much has been lost, but life goes on and I'm glad that the Cree are insisting on leading their own way out of the wilderness of despair that has afflicted so many of their communities in recent decades.
I would be interested in learning if the rate of methyl mercury formation declined over time, it seems logical that it would, and if methyl mercury deteriorates or is dispersed over time. Maybe someone has some leads?
Direct mercury emmissions from coal burning and fell in an area with few natural buffers/adsorption agents. And the acid rain allows leaching from the ground (this has been noted in the US NE and most boreal rains are naturally neutral. Add acid rain from coal burning > leaching).
I would be interested if you can provide evidence that undercutting is a real problem.
Done properly, the silt basin could turn into fine farmland.
I've got to believe that the equivalent megawattage in distributed small dams would have more environmental impact than one large one.
It's like thinking that once we go back to the stone age, we'll all just be camping out and cooking our dinners over six billion wood fires. Probably won't really be an improvement over fossil fuel...
I can see the utility of funding small hydro along with other alternatives, and I can see that for the purposes of funding and reward people would make that distinction.
BUT, as a consumer wanting to get off fossil fuels, do we really count large hydro as non-renewable? I hope not.
I've always enjoyed your posts.
Large hydro is a tough one. I think technically that it does fit in the "renewables" category. However, it is a renewable that is demonstrably highly destructive to ecosystems. This goes beyond fish runs. The reduction of salmon along many Western rivers apparently has had large-scale systemic consequences for the terrestrial ecosystems that the rivers course through. One set of links includes bears eating salmon, then carrying all that good fishy stuff in their gut as they travel inland, and finally expelling the associated nutrients (a bear processed "fish fertilizer", if you will) throughout the surrounding forests. If I remember correctly, there apparently has been a forest response to the loss of these nutrients, with reduced growth.
This is just one example of what large-scale changes on major rivers can do. Given the time scale of nutrient cycling, I think we're just beginning to see the kinds of effects that large hydro projects can have.
If you can locate a few, read some of these peer-reviewed articles.
-best
The current Tanzania situation should be sobering. 60% of their power is hydro, the dams are drying up, and the economy is devastated. This is real, not a concept or concern to be dismissed.
-best
Of course those who plan on getting electricity from their project for 100 or 400 or 1000 years and think climate change is on the same time scale, if it exists at all, can continue with their dreaming.
The point that the whole US was much dryer in the mid 1500s is fascinating and is part of the 'great mystery'.
To wit, it is now estimated that the population of North and South America in 1491 was 10 times what we thought it was- -there were substantial urban communities in the Midwest for example. Yet by the time colonisation began in earnest in the mid 1500s, and in the 1600s in North America, much of the population was gone-- the Midwest was governed by nomads.
Part of the answer is disease. Smallpox in particular. When George Vancouver toured the Pacific Northwest in the late 1780s (I think) he found villages that were abandoned, so many of their inhabitants had died of smallpox.
It is hypothesised that smallpox (and perhaps various forms of Asian flu) brought by the white man devastated native communities.
But perhaps climate change is another part of the story.
In the short run, the decision could be made to give up on agriculture in California. I read that actual domestic use isn't a big part of the whole picture.
Something similar will happen in the US southwest, the Ogala Aquifer states. The Aquifer is rapidly being depleted, and urbanisation is consuming all of the existing water resources.
But making the choice to give up agriculture is hard. Very hard. Politically and socially. I don't see it happening without a fight.
Thailand is going to 100% hydro in wet years, 95% in average years and 70% in dry years. They are planning on keeping their fossil fuel plants in mothballs for dry years.
In the specific case of Africa, the 44 GW of Grand Inga could support the shortfalls on the continent. The Congo watershed is split in half by the equator, so it has a uniquely stable flow. Worst case in 120 years is about 60% of average. Annual minimum is a bit more than half of annual maximum.
They are talking about seasonal production of ammonia with annual excess.
Wind has about half the annual variation of rainfall, and low wind years do not seem tied to low water years. Another part of the marriage of the two.
Reminds me of one more problem with dams. In tropical areas especially, but also anywhere the flooded area supported vegetation, there are large releases of methane.
And one more obvious one: Every post above except for the guy who wants to keep his canyon (yes, it's personal) ascribes zero value to the flooded land. The people displaced. The critters displaced. How does this blindspot perpetuate itself? It's a normative blindspot in these discussions but I just don't get it.
We could also add back in the plusses. People built dams for a variety of reasons, well before there was electric power generation.
But there was a very ancient example of large scale water management in China. Something about an engineer who later became a saint, or something? ... Discovery Chanel.
Maybe this relates:
http://english.people.com.cn/200212/11/eng20021211_108307.shtml
Amusing snippet:
"Judging from these records, the dam's water levels during Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) were lower than in modern times, Li said."
Anyway, flood control, levies, irrigation, are as old as civilization.
Could you provide a link to the Thailand claim, which does not appear to be remotely accurate?
I don't believe Thailand is planning to build, or could build any more large hydro plants. The public goes nuts.
Thailand does import a fair bit of hyrdo electricity from Laos.
Thailand is also planning to build several new coal fired power plants. These have been slowed somewhat because of lower demand.
IMHO, NT II is an environmentally acceptable project (so does the World Bank in their first hydro project in decades) and MUCH better than importing NG from Mynanmar or oil for electricity.
I posted, late yesterday:
I got three replies. All three dealt with what an idiot John Bolton is. Hell, that is a given. Everyone already knows that. The point I meant to convey is that Iran themselves say that they are running out oil and natural gas!
Are they really telling the truth or are they lying through their teeth. Do they really want nuclear energy because they see that their oil and natural gas production is about to go into a tailspin.
Most "official" estimates put Iran's oil reserves at around 130 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. And they are currently producing around 4 million barrels per day. At any rate, doing the math with oil, but not natural gas, at current production rates they have a reserves to production ration of 89, not 300 or 400. Of course natural gas is a different matter.
But I have seen reports that put Iran's proven reserves at one half to one third what BP and others are reporting. At any rate, many industry insiders say Iran is definitely post peak. Will Iran downgrade their reserve numbers to justify their nuclear power ambitions?
Ron Patterson
They've been saying that for years. "Peak oil" is a concept Iranian politicians speak of openly and often.
However, few seem to take them seriously. They have an agenda, you see. They're trying to lower OPEC quotas and thereby raise prices.
The nuke thing is just lagniappe.
(FWIW, I think this is one reason Bakhtiari isn't taken more seriously.)
Hey, all I am saying is, shouldn't we be listening to the Iranians, like Bakhtiari as well as those still in power in Iran, instead of BP and The Oil and Gas Journal? After all, who knows more about Iranian oil than the insiders themselves.
The mainstream U.S. belief is that Iran is just trying to drive up prices and keep IOCs out of their country. And get nuclear weapons to use against Israel, of course.
Iran says they don't want to use high-tech methods to produce their oil. Producing their fields slowly will leave some of their one-time legacy for their children.
I think there's likely truth on both sides. Iran is clearly past peak. They struggle to meet their OPEC quotas, so of course they are not in favor of increasing them. That would only lower prices, decreasing their profits, since they cannot raise production. They don't trust IOCs, and don't want them in their country.
I think they are planning for a future without oil. They do want nuclear power. They need to provide energy for their large and growing population. And any oil or gas they do no consume domestically can be sold for a profit.
But I think they also want nuclear weapons. Can't blame them, really. They live in a tough neighborhood. They may see nukes as a way to avoid being "Iraq'ed."
Wooo Wooo! VERY NICE! A new word for me.
1. Chiefly Southern Louisiana and Southeast Texas. a small gift given with a purchase to a customer, by way of compliment or for good measure; bonus.
2. a gratuity or tip.
3. an unexpected or indirect benefit.
While some folks would consider that unethical, I'd like to remind them of the Biblical injunction "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the grain".
People don't know much about the Spanish contribution to Creole/Cajun culture, but it was very substantial. And be careful of them-if you don't watch out, coonasses will get you drunk and make you dance all night!
From my Quechua/English/Spanish trinomial dictionary:
"Yapa" - an extra amount; increase; addition.
Thanks, Leanan, I did not know that term had passed (sort of) into English.
There are less than a dozen words of Quechua origin in English. "We can thank Quechua, always courtesy of Spanish, for the English words coca (1577, the source of cocaine), condor (1604), guano (1604), pampa (1704), and quinine (1826); the camelids llama (1600), vicuña (1604), and guanaco (1604); and even jerk (1707) and jerky (1848) referring to dried meat."
http://www.answers.com/topic/lagniappe
http://www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster Online) has a nice audio pronunciation feature wherein you press a speaker icon and hear the word pronounced.
Bolton's statement is doublespeak at its finest.
Lemmings are smart.
We burrow our way to prosperity.
Humans are dumb.
They deplete themselves into a dead end corner.
Oil's good when it trends toward the singularity.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5004309,00.html
The FasTracks commuter train to Denver International Airport should be electric rather than diesel-powered, planners said Monday.
In a decision that could appease residents who fear diesel pollution, managers of the environmental impact study for the $702.1 million airport train said electrifying the 23.6-mile line would save money in the long run.
Electrified commuter rail costs about $39 million more to build than diesel between Denver Union Station and DIA. Lower operating costs of electric cars, however, will save nearly $73 million over a 30-year life cycle, according to an analysis by John Shonsey, chief engineer for the Regional Transportation District.
...
Shonsey said while RTD would have to pay more to put in overhead electrical lines for EMU cars, there is a net savings over DMU.
First, the electric cars can climb steeper grades than diesel cars. That allows planners to design shorter approaches to bridges. Such structures tend to be the most expensive parts of construction.
The electric cars accelerate faster than the diesels, cutting the travel time to DIA to 29 minutes instead of 34 minutes. The five-minute difference would save RTD the expense of buying the additional diesel cars needed to maintain a schedule of departures every 15 minutes.
[Not to mention more paying passengers with the extra 5 minute savings]
flynnk@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5247
How much is air travel likely to drop off over the next 30 years? If the drop off is substantial, then this may not be the best use of taxpayer funds.
Since DIA is located in a remote area a commuter train built just to service the airport would seem to have limited future use. Wouldn't it make more sense to just expand or promote the already well established RTD SkyRide express bus system?
The general FasTrack plan for light rail in the Denver metro area looks to be a good plan overall. Given that CO has had the highest SUV per capita ownership for some time now, FasTrack is a step in the right direction.
At least with fewer SUVs driving around I will be able to see the road ahead once in a while and I won't have to back out of parking spaces at the rate of 1 cm a minute when flanked by a wall of metal on either side.
smile Then the trains will be used to get people out to their community gardens on the old airport grounds.
Balloon type vehicles just need to ensure they keep themselves buoyant enough to stay afloat which has generally been seen as more fuel efficient than planes/helicopters.
In fact sometime in the next two years we should hopefully be seeing a scaled prototype of the Walrus airship which will be able to haul the same load as a C-130.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/walrus-heavylift-blimp-getting-off-the-ground/index.php
The eventual goal of the Walrus program is build an airship capable of hauling 500-1000 tons (enough to move a military force into a theatre)
This technology could very easily be ported to civilian uses. For shipments via UPS,FedEx,etc, how attractive is it going to be in a post peak oil environment to be able to move 1000 tons of freight to anywhere in the world in 7 days? Scalable solutions downward could certainly be doable if they wanted to keep a less centralized distribution pattern.
I could also see air travel adopting this technology and turning cramp passenger jets, meant to get you to your destination in only a few hours of uncomfortable travel, turn into a more cruise ship oriented package in which you enjoy more spacious accomodations, but longer air travel times. For inter-state travel, it may be that business trips take an extra day to accomodate the travel, but in exchange, air travel companies enjoy lower overhead due to fuel costs, and travelers enjoy a more pleasant travelling experience.
The other advantage of Airships over ground transportation including rail is less infrastructure and therefore less environmental impact. The only thing needed for Airships is a place to launch and land. No miles upon miles of road,or rail needed and much more localized maintenance requirements.
As a side note, another article I read on this project was looking at the use of Solar power generation onboard the backs of these ships. Its always sunny above the clouds after all. In fact one of the research initiatives is looking at ways to make the material used to create the balloon to also be used as the solar gathering material (i.e. blending photovoltaic capabilities into the fabric).
On cloudy days you might need stored energy in the form of liquid fuels or batteries, but once in the air, solar powered heaters could do the rest of the work.
A spy/communications variant also being looked into by DARPA is supposed to be designed to remain airborne and in theatre for days at a time. The solar energy generation technology is being aimed to help solve this requirement.
Obviously the draw back of balloon based Airships is that they are not quite as fast as their more fuel intensive cousins. But then I expect in a world of powerdown options, overnight delivery and sameday business trips will become more of thing of the past.
But to say air travel is doomed, I think is being very shortsighted, and very unimaginative.
Another technofix Silver BB to provide an alternative to a piece of the lifestyle we enjoy.
http://boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q3/060828a_nr.html
Seems Boeing is looking to get in on the Solar market at some point, both for in the field energy generation and civilian home usage.
You've got to make the morning last..
Frankly, the older I get, the more I want to keep my feet planted on terra firma.
Now London surrounds it, and each expansion is a 10 year battle because of the noise. Airliners land over the main inhabited portions of London.
There will be some air travel, just not as much as today. Perhaps 1970 levels in 2036 ?
I've been told you'll finally end up eating the metal particles coming from the wheels and electricity quides...
The growing of crops for fuel is an option....
In round numbers: Yergin's predicted long term index price was about $40, and oil is currently trading in the vicinity of $60, down from recent highs in the vicinity of $80.
Key Point: Yergin was predicting about $40 because rising oil production would result in falling oil prices, in order to equalize supply and demand.
Reality: Exactly the opposite has happened, as falling production resulted in higher prices, in order to equalize supply and demand. Since late 2005, oil prices have been trading in a range that is 50% to 100% higher than Yergin's predicted long term index price.
Yergin Versus HL: Score one for the HL method. As predicted by the HL method, world oil production, Saudi oil production and production by the top net oil exporters are all down from 12/05 to 6/06 (EIA).
Absent a severe recession/depression, IMO higher oil prices in the fourth quarter are inevitable as importers have to bid against each other for declining net oil exports.
Just a thought...if they are forced to give up on the Iran idea, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a quick shift of focus to Venezuela.
Fun.
- the SecDEF asked for a plan including the possibility of nuclear strikes on Iran. The planners felt trapped into providing one to 'cover all the bases'. The Joint Chiefs of Staff made it clear they would resign if that option went to the President.
- the civilians in the Pentagon including SECDEF and Office of Special Plans, or possibly in Dick Cheney's office, want a war on Iran a la the bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo war. the uniformed folks (and the career CIA people) are much more cautious.
US special forces people have already been on the ground scouting Iranian installations. In addition, there were reports in Iran of UFOs, and the Iranians asked the Russians to investigate. Turns out they were US drones, overflying Iranian air defence and nuclear installations.The US was hoping the Iranians would turn on their radars, when the drones buzzed them. However, this is US Air Force standard doctrine (get the other guy to reveal his air defence radars). As one Iranian Air Force general put it in an interview 'we are all trained at Colorado Springs in the 70s, so we didn't fall for the bait'.
Lebanon was supposed to be the prototype of the US attack on Iran, and the groundwork. Iran's closest ally in the Middle East, Hizbollah, finished off by Israel.
In practice the Israelis discovered they couldn't finish Hizbollah off with airstrikes. So the civilian hawks are interpreting it as a great victory, limiting Iran's freedom of action. And the military analysts are seeing it as a shocking defeat: over 10,000 sorties couldn't finish off a small guerilla movement, representing 1.2 million Lebanese Shia muslims.
The military is terrified of being ordered to attack Iran, with no clear plan of what to do after the initial strikes-- a repeat of the Iraq situation. Do the US forces in Iraq become de facto Shi'ite hostages-- the Shia sit across their supply lines?
Does Iran attack Saudi oil installations (Saudi Arabia's oil producing province is Shia)? What happens if the US has to occupy Iranian naval facilities long term? What happens if the air strikes don't destroy the facilities.
Basically the military is maxed out in Afghanistan and Iraq, and doesn't want to have to carry the can again for bad politics.
There is a window to go to war with Iran, from October until about April-- long nights play to US advantages in sensors. If we get through that, then we enter again into that danger zone next fall.
While we may have not yet hit the bottom on oil prices, with both Chinese demand still exploding and prices falling (which will fuel more demand everywhere), I am expecting an ugly price rebound in oil somewhere over the next 8-12 months. A good guess would probably be next spring, as both seasonal demand start to climb at the same time as the switchover to summer blends (thanks for that explanation Robert!) kicks in.
Excerpt of an e-mail message:
"Do you know anybody who knows something about undersea manifolds and would be willing to venture a guess as to just how serious this problem might be for the future of deep sea oil production."
This is for a proposed commentary on a website. Please contact westexas at aol.com.
Another factor to consider in future analysis is the huge increase in NGL's which are due to very low NG prices.
Unleaded gas has shed a few more cents today.
Gas here in NE Atlanta is as low as $2.16 - I expect below $2.10 next week and we should break the $2.00 barrier following week.
Only one thing can stop the downward mommentum now - that would be if the terrorists changed tactics from shooting nuns in the back and actually stage a successful attack on an oil/nat gas facility.
But what the hell has this to do with supply and demand. If supply and demand is what sets the price of oil, as RR and OilCEO maintain, what does it matter what the fund managers do?
You know I started out over two years ago, on Energy Resources, arguing strongly that the NYMEX was a follower of oil prices, not the setter of oil prices. Now I am having second thoughts.
Ron Patterson
How does that guy stay on TV - he so wrong so often.
Lots of people lost a LOT of money in 1999/2000 listening to him.
However he is probably right this time. $60.00 is a psychological barrier - when markets break them they usually gap lower pretty quickly.
Traders on these exchanges are trading IOUs, not physical oil, so the price which is reached is determined by the supply and demand for IOUs, not the supply and demand for oil. Then, it just so happens that OPEC and most other exporters have agreed to set their price according to the prices determined by the Nymex and the IPE, so this becomes the oil price.
If the makers of BMWs were to declare that the price of BMWs was going to be determined by the price of a Big Mac through a particular formula, then, no matter how illogical it would seem, the price of a Big Mac would determine the price of BMWs. And so it is with oil - because oil exporters have agreed to allow IOUs to determine the price oil, the IOU price becomes the price of oil.
This is explained in an article which starts on p. 24 of this document (pdf).
or from p. 9 of this document (large pdf).
When SelfAggrandizedTrader said a few weeks ago that the price of oil was going to fall to around $58 dollars because the graphs said so, not many people believed him. However, although I don't believe that graphs really say that much at all, if traders believe in graphs, then it is a self-fullfilling prophesy, as it is traders (and perhaps some central banks behind them) dealing in bits of paper, not oil, who determine the oil price. I note that SelfAggrandizedTrader seems to have got it right so far.
Of course, if the price of oil falls too low, then exporters who are now very aware of world supply constraints may become more and more unhappy about letting people who have nothing to do with buying and selling oil determine the oil price. They could start withholding oil from the market, which would, in a sense, be a way of reintroducing more importance to supply and demand. Another possibility would be to start set up their own oil exchanges, which could give greater importance to supply and demand.
It is worth pointing out that Chris Cook, who originally suggested the Iranian oil bourse, was concerned about the way intermediaries were manipulating the oil market for their own benefit. He wanted a market where people who actually buy and sell oil were the main actors, and where oil, not oil futures, was the main thing being traded, ie. what he wanted was a market where supply and demand for oil, not IOUs, would determine the oil price. See http://uk.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/13/71557/8571#more
I have studied the oil market for years and now must admit that I haven't a fucking clue as to what is going on. Why does the NYMEX and the spot price for WTIC close at exactly the same price for 17 of the 20 trading days in each month? That just don't make any damn sense.
I just wish someone would do a study of the situation and tell us what determins the price of oil? What influence does NYMEX traders have on the price of oil? What effect does world supply and demand have on the price of oil on the NYMEX?
I just don't fucking know and it is really pissing me off!
Ron Patterson
What I mean by this is that once you know the futures prices for Brent and WTI, then there literally exist formulae which are used to determine the price of particular crudes being sold around the world.
The European Commission paper I quoted above says:
"The current price regime for oil in international trade was introduced in the second half of the 1980s and is known as "reference pricing". The concept of a `market-related' system which involves a formula linking the price of a given export crude to a reference price (or a set of reference prices) arising in a particular market was pioneered by PEMEX in 1986. The pricing formula has the following form: Export price of crude X = Marker price (or prices) R plus or minus adjustment factor F.
Initially the marker prices were spot WTI, dated Brent, or spot ANS, all prices for physical (wet) oil barrels. The logic is that a marker price must be generated in a physical market where the transactions are sales and purchases of barrels of oil. However, these spot markets of marker crudes have problems: they are very thin; the number of price quotations for actual transactions is very small; they can be more easily squeezed than very liquid futures markets. Most exporting countries have therefore replaced dated by futures Brent, and spot WTI by the NYMEX price of the contract for light sweet crudes. So Brent, WTI, Dubai/Oman etc. remain the marker crudes but the relevant prices of the first two are taken from what is in essence a market of financial instruments."
(see http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/doc/2005_04_eurogulf_kuwait.pdf )
This paper then goes on to contrast the way in which the oil price is determined compared with the way the prices of most commodities, goods and services are determined:
"The economic price of a commodity, a good or a service is the price that arises from the interaction of the supply of and the demand for this commodity, good or service in a market where sellers and buyers offer and purchase them.
In contrast, for oil the price of a physical barrel in international trade is linked very closely to that of a futures contract. This price results, of course, from the interaction of supply and demand; but of the supply and demand for this item, which is a futures contract, not a physical barrel of oil."
So what they are saying, and I agree, is that the supply and demand for certain futures contracts determine the price of oil, not the suppy and demand for oil. They conclude that 'decoupling' between price movements and supply and demand can occur. Again, I agree, which is why I am not as surprised as you are to see the oil price plummet.
That's like saying the painted line down the middle of the road determines which way the road goes. Because, if you follow the painted line, you know where the road is headed.
In most international financial transactions, the price of the tranaction is set at the futures rate. For example, if I offer to send you a chair from Thailand in six months for $50 and will deliver in 6 months, we will typically set the price according to the future $/baht exchange rate.
So if the futures market expects the baht to appreciate, the contract may be for $55. So what has determined the price for the chair. Supply and demand. The adjustment to futures rate is out best effort to adjust to our expectation of the future.
As I noted elsewhere, almost any commodity-type product sold on liquid markets has a futures market of some sort. Would you make the same claim for other products with futures markets: corn, curencies, stocks, treasury bonds (in effect via various maturity lengths), etc.? If not, why is oil different.
Supply and demand determine both spot and futures prices, but futures prices are adjusted based on the perceived likelihood of future changes.
Once you know the futures price of any commodity, you have a lot of insight into the spot price. However, there is no formula that can take you from one to the other. The futures price can be higher than the spot price (referred to as contango) or lower (called backwardization).
Unless you think for some reason the oil market is completely different than all other markets with futures, it is not useful to look at the oil market in isolation.
What is peculiar about the London oil exchange and NYMEX, is that there is virtually no physical oil being sold on the exchanges.
The overwhelming majority of world oil exports are not traded on any exchange. OPEC does not trade its oil on any exchange and does not arrive at an oil price by dealing directly with buyers. OPEC, and other exporters, allow two futures exchanges to determine their oil price.
Buyers and sellers of oil are not the main actors on these exchanges. Pure speculators, ie. actors who have no particular exposure to oil prices (not hedgers) such as investment banks or hedge funds, are far more important traders.
I am not completely clear on what role the spot prices of Brent and WTI play in the system, but it appears to be purely symbolic - the system worked as it is currently working when and ANS oil was a reference oil instead of WTI, despite there being no ANS physical oil being traded at all. The fact that there is now 0.01% of world oil being traded on the NYMEX instead of 0% is probably not important.
Thanks for two very good responses. I would like to reply to these with the depth they deserve, but don't have time now.
I do assert that "speculators" are minority players on global oil futures markets, pending solid evidence to the contrary. I was not able to open the EC document and am not willing to take Chris's word for it. You will notice I had a bit of discussion with him in the comments following the TOD link in your other post.
I believe that a lack of understanding of the role of intermediaries in bearing risk is what leads to the conclusion that their is manipulation and profiteering in the market. I am not sayiong the market is perfect or withiout manipulation, only that it is overestimated, both in quantity and significance.
One question: If the futures markets are lightly traded, how do you account for the massive hedging done by airlines, refineries, transportation, etc?
I have some trouble believing that meaningless manipulated markets could really lead Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. to sell oil at prices unrelated to what the market would bear. Is the claim that somehow speculators force the price down and the producers sell at a loss because they are powerless? Or is it the other way around, and the producers gain?
Finally, I still think the clearing union idea is very soft and not well formed. Chris hedges his comments quite a bit in the interview and doesn't address questions of liquidity, etc. I think he is still at the stage of "There's got to be a better way", and by the time he creates mechanisms to deal with credit risk, liquidity, standardization of contracts, etc is going to wind up with something that looks a lot like NYMEX. The plan to ban speculators doesn't seem to make any sense. He doesn't document what harm they are doing and how they would be identified or barred from participation.
I like Chris's ideas, but don't think he has been able to lay this out clearly or document his assertuions regarding speculators and manipulation in any convincing manner.
If you can track down a better link to the EC document, please post it and any other links you think are helpful. I will also give this a think and look for some facts to support my case. I also want to take a second look at Nate Hagen's recent TOD futures piece and would love to hear his opinion - Nate, are you out there?
Neither of us are experts, but both seem to have a keen interest and general understanding of the issues at hand. I think we have a nice, clearly defined topic to discuss and hope to pursue it further. Perhaps we could make it a post here at TOD.
In the meantime, I will be dogding army tanks on my way home. I have this little matter of a miliary coup here in Bangkok where TPTB have come out of the shadows and one does not any additional proof of their existence.
I hope you got home safely. Seeing tanks on the street must be a chilling sight.
You ask: 'If the futures markets are lightly traded, how do you account for the massive hedging done by airlines, refineries, transportation, etc?'
but I didn't say that the futures markets were lightly traded (they're not). I said that very, very little oil is traded on the NYMEX or London oil exchange. NYMEX themselves say that 'deliveries only represent a miniscule share of trading volume' and that 'Most market participants, however, choose to buy or sell their physicals through their normal channels' [ie. not through NYMEX]. 'Normal channels' for oil importers presumably means directly from oil exporters and at a price determined by NYMEX futures and Brent.
You then go on to say that you don't believe that the markets are manipulated. This, however, is a separate point to the point I am arguing, which is that oil prices are not determined by supply and demand. As it happens, I also tend to believe that the oil prices are manipulated, but this is a separate point for which I have no absolute proof.
The European Commission document that you weren't able to open argues that oil prices are not determined by supply and demand, but unlike Chris Cook and others, they don't say anything about price manipulation. They say:
"In a futures market the trader will buy or sell not because he has a physical need for the item but entirely on the basis of expectations about subsequent price movements.
There are other determinants for transactions on futures markets that are not related to the oil situation. This is because the futures oil contract is a financial
instrument, held by many economic agents (particularly hedge funds, banks, other financial institutions) in a portfolio of various financial instruments. The aim is to optimise the composition of the portfolio. Funds move in or out of a financial market, be it oil, bonds, foreign exchange etc. etc., depending on relative expectations.
Hence a decoupling between price movements in the futures market and the economic fundamentals of the supply of, and demand for, the physical barrel may occur from time to time."
Because OPEC and others decided sometime around 1986 to use the price arrived at NYMEX and in London as their reference prices, then what determines the price of futures on these exchanges, now determines the price of oil exports.
On the manipulation question, I certainly don't expect to convince you, but one article that I found interesting on this topic was written a few years ago by Peter Warburton:
http://www.prudentbear.com/archive_comm_article.asp?category=Guest+Commentary&content_idx=8763
So when SW is hedged at 80% for this year @$35 a barrel, they bought a future for say this Sep06 three or five years ago, so that even if they actually PAY the equivalent of $60 a barrel. On the balance sheet the increased value of this months contract is a cash inflow since it will close out and they will get whatever the closing price is. The actual purchase only cost them $35 a barrel when you realize the gains from your true HEDGE. Wonderful financial tool.
Actually, I don't dispute that there is some level of manipulation of oil prices (althoguh i know that is not your point), nor that they can temporrarily diverge from supply and demand fundamentals. I would claim that at any given time, the prices do not represent fundamentals, but over time they track them. I presume that we disagree on the scale, impact and possible mitigation strategies for these phenomena.
I did get home safely. I was in Thailand for the last coup in 1991. That time there was serious damage in the streets, great volumes of gun fire and days of chaos. It wound up (accidentally) with a highly successful civilian government that may have been Thailand's best. This coup has been very quiet and almost a relief after months of strife. Now the hope is the next step goes as well.
Well said. Best one sentence answer so far. The fundamentals definitely accounted for the move from $30 to $40 and from $40 to $50, but then other factors took over and pushed the price to $78 - speculation, geopolitical hype, whatever.
At a certain point the market realized $78 was overblown based on what was vaguely known about the fundamentals and the price has moved to where it is now. At a certain point in the future the market will decide oil is undervalued and it will move in the other direction.
Nobody knows at any given time what the fundamentals actually are. Nobody really knows what demand is and we only have a rough guess as to what supply is, probably plus or minus 2 million barrels per day.
Besides, the 85 million barrels we consume is actually made up of as many types of crude as there are producing countries - and more. There's not one supply/demand curve, there are dozens.
The reality is that all that oil that cost $78/barrel was produced for $5/barrel just like the stuff that sold for $20 6 years ago. At the same time, that was just a benchmark price. Most oil sold for less. And if we are running out of the cheap/easy oil, at some point the harder to find stuff has to be paid for through increased exploration and drilling costs. And also, there is some oil which will be delivered 6 months from now, when the spot price may be $40, that has already been paid for at $78. What goes around, comes around.
That's why the options and hedging are so important.
Anyway, I had nothing really to add. It has been a great discussion.
The question I have is: When Stuart determined some months back that oil was not in a bubble, was he wrong?
I guess it is proof this was not caused by a quarrel over Thailand's natural resources.
This (pdf) document by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland answers your question:
"When most major U.S. newspapers
report the spot price of oil, they are
referring to the one-month NYMEX
futures price. A NYMEX crude oil
future is a contract for 1,000 barrels of
domestic light, sweet crude oil. To be
included in the contract, the oil must
meet specifications on sulfur content
and density. Because WTI meets these
standards, it is often traded in NYMEX
contracts. Therefore, the one-month
NYMEX crude oil futures price and
WTI spot price are nearly identical. An
exception to this is at the end of the
month, when the NYMEX futures contract
expires three days before the WTI
spot contract."
There is something in the above I don't really understand: is the 'spot' WTI actually a one-month contract? If not, how come it has an expiry date?
Thanks for the information the way oil prices are set based on the futures market.
The article you link to indicates that the transactions in the futures market are tiny compared to the total oil market - only a small fraction of 1% of the total. Because the futures market is so small, it would seem like it would be more easily disrupted by a bunch of hedge funds selling to get out before quarter end statements, or by some group manipulating the price of oil, for political reasons.
One would think that if gyrations get too wild, sellers of oil will get disgusted and refuse to sell at the price determined by the futures market. I would wonder whether the system might de-couple, if the out-of-balance with real world supply and demand becomes too great.
The price determined by the futures market is nothing more than the price that sellers of oil have agreed to sell oil at some future date.
It is wrong to think that the futures market is detached from sellers. If the price in the futures market falls below what sellers think the price will be at that time in the future (say six months), they can just wait and sell at the spot market in six months.
If they were right, they earn more than they would have by selling on contract. If they were wrong they lose. In the bigger picture, if all sellers think the future price is too low, they will not sell. This will cause people who want to lock in prices to increase bids, driving the futures market back up. In reality this process is almost instantaneous.
Futures markets exist for currencies, stocks, commodities, etc, not just oil. They are risk mitigation options for those who want to lock in guaranteed prices (buyer or sellers) in advance. If they gyrate too much - i.e. if there is too much volitility, oil sellers can just wait for high points and sell contracts then.
I hope this helps answer your question. I don't really see how the system could de-couple, so I may be missing something.
Yes, the amount of actual oil traded on the Nymex is absolutely tiny, but the WTI and Brent spot prices are no longer used as reference prices. The two main reference prices used to determine the price of most oil exports these days are the futures prices of Brent and WTI.
The European Commission paper I quoted in a previous post said:
"Initially the marker prices were spot WTI, dated Brent, or spot ANS, all prices for physical (wet) oil barrels. The logic is that a marker price must be generated in a physical market where the transactions are sales and purchases of barrels of oil. However, these spot markets of marker crudes have problems: they are very thin; the number of price quotations for actual transactions is very small; they can be more easily squeezed than very liquid futures markets. Most exporting countries have therefore replaced dated by futures Brent, and spot WTI by the NYMEX price of the contract for light sweet crudes. So Brent, WTI, Dubai/Oman etc. remain the marker crudes but the relevant prices of the first two are taken from what is in essence a market of financial instruments."
(see http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/doc/2005_04_eurogulf_kuwait.pdf )
Apparently, before the WTI became a reference price, the Alaskan North Slope (ANS) delivered into the Gulf was used as a reference price but declining production ultimately led to no actual ANS oil being traded at all - the only ANS oil that made it to the Gulf being an internal company transfer. Paul Horsnell said "The quotation became based entirely on journalists' summaries of traders' perceptions of the price that ANS in the Gulf would be trading at, if there actually was any. It may sound bizarre, but this normally produced reasonable numbers. It is after all rather hard to squeeze a market that doesn't exist."
This shows, I think, how unimportant and symbolic the actual oil being traded on these exchanges is today. What is driving the oil price up and down is not oil trading, but financial bets.
I agree with you that the system could be abandoned if exporters decide that they can do better than to allow speculators determine the price of their oil. Abandoning this system is what Chris Cook was suggesting with his proposal for an Energy Clearing Union.
If exporters abandoned futures markets, what would they do to assure a steady, predictable future income? Is there an alternate mechanism for sharing risk among market participants? I presume this is what you and Chris mean by the clearing union? How would it work?
By the way, one of the main places where I presume we disagree is "What is a speculator?" I don't think it is easy to define the term, but do think it is central to your claim.
To me a speculator is someone who has no underlying exposure to energy, but is betting on price movements in order to to profit if they are right. I think that they take the opposite side of many non-speculative transactions and bear risk that others don't want. Hence they are useful. Sometimes they make money, sometimes (see the Greenwich Hedge fund this week), sometimes they don't. I think they are a minority participant in futures markets.
Most participants in futures markets - of all sorts - have an underlying exposure that they want to hedge. An airline needs to use fuel for the next few years and so locks in the price buy purchasing a futures contract. A refinery does the same thing. If there were not specualtors in the market, many of these transactions would not be possible.
Some of the benfits of futures markets could be done by direct linkages through the clearing union Chris proposes, but it would be extremely difficult to match all of the over the counter transactions, mitigate credit risk and ensure a functioning market.
If someone doesn't understand risk, I can see why they would not understand the value of futures and other hedges. This could lead to the impression that there is profit being made without risk being taken.
However, this should be kid's stuff for Gail. Hedging is much like insurance. A small town could all agree to drop their fire insurance policies and instead all group together to rebuild anyone's house that burns down. An "exchange" so to speak. But what if they all burn at the same time? Whatif someone decides they are busy that week and can't pitch in. I makes much more sense to let an insurance company speculate on the risk that house will burn down and make profits if they don't.
If you read the European Commission document that I have already posted (http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/doc/2005_04_eurogulf_kuwait.pdf ) from p. 9 to p. 11), you will see that the proposal being discussed in the document is for developing 'active new physical oil markets'. They say that 'order to ensure that fundamentals play a more important role in price formation, the active participation of oil producing countries will be necessary.' I don't see anything here which argues that there shouldn't be futures.
Similarly, in Chris Cook's proposals (see http://uk.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/13/71557/8571#more and http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE27Dj01.html ), I haven't seen him argue that there should be no futures trading.
Regarding your claim that pure speculators are a 'minority participant in futures markets', Chris Cook, who was formely a Director of the IPE and so should know, and the European Commission document disagree. Both say that investment banks and hedge funds are important participants.
It's interesting that the Cheney Administration supports the warlords in Somalia while describing the Islamic Courts as friends of terrorists. Meantime the Islamic Courts who now control Mogadishu decry the nun's death and speculate that the murder may have been the work of agents out to discredit them. They have arrested suspects. The slain nun's religious order states that it does not believe the murder was linked to the pope's lecture in Germany, a view held by others. The nun was shot in the chest, stomach and back. Her bodyguard was also killed.
Time may tell if her murderer(s) were linked to terrorists, were ordinary criminals, or mentally deranged persons.
Maybe they were 'contras'. It is well known that the nuns killed some two decades ago in Nicaragua died at the hands of 'contras', or, as the gang Cheney now leads described them, freedom fighters.
Beechdriver, you should attempt to work from the known facts, instead of your prejudices. You won't get the facts from Fox News or its ilk.
The US military will always find a way to have enough power to feed the machine of war. Hopefully technologies developed will be available for the masses, but I wonder.
Gee. I wish I could be around for that, especially the excitement part.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
This is billed as good news, but check out this part:
Pardon? That doesn't sound like good news to me.
But this is probably partially behind the drop in gas prices:
Comments anyone?
The Diesel Dilemma
Gasoline usage is down in Europe while diesel is up, they have spare refining capacity for the former, and it shows up as increased stocks here (and lower prices). We don't import any diesel from them, hence diesel shortages, but it doesn't make MSM because the average commuter isn't affected.
So the idea would be that people are suddenly finding that oil is no longer an appreciating asset, hence they are clearing their inventories. This selling pressure is driving down prices. This would be going hand in hand with market speculators closing out their long positions as well, all adding to the downward price trend.
Prices dipped as low as $59.80 today before settling at $60.46.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1745360.htm
If the administration truly believes that Iran has 300-400 years of oil and natural gas, then Iran's nuclear program wouldn't make sense. If, on the other hand, Iran's future energy supplies are limited to decades, then it certainly makes sense for Iran to pursue nuclear energy.
Anyone have any suggestions what a third rate engineer who's working on a masters in psych can do that isn't engineering? Thanks.
And, I do love the idea of giving orders to a CEO!
sorry to let you in on this little secret.
there's no such thing as be your own boss.
you always answer to the customer.
a mirror you can get a job as a landman right now.
The running joke in Health Physics circles is "what did you do wrong to become a HP", since nobody dreams of being one in high school.
http://www.hps.org/
http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/
and search for Health Physicist
We will always need good air conditioning men (and women).
Best of luck.
Let us know how your job hunt is going.
Many of us are only a short, grace-of-God away from your situation.
Good luck!
Anhydrous ammonia is currently derived mostly from natural gas and as a result, it's price is tied to natural gas prices, which have been high in the past few years. However, new ways of extracting anhydrous from coal through a gasification process, are becoming more common.
So much for the "green" claim in the preceding paragraph:
This ammonia system looks pretty promising because you don't have the emissions issues you have with diesel, it's a green cycle.
So, any reason why coal-to-ammonia might be any better than, e.g., coal-to-diesel? I suppose the lack of carbon emmisions at the tailpipe. But that matters only if all the carbon is sequestered at the conversion plant. That will never be done, because it costs real money. The whole crux of why climate change is not being met with real action is that the real problem is greed, and the only solution is a drastic voluntary reduction in our consumption of "stuff".
That said, how about shipping liquid ammonia (made from NG) across the oceans rather than shipping LNG? Safer and less loss of energy?
Being that anhydrous ammonia is combustible, I have not doubt that it could be burned in a properly modified internal combustion engine.
The problem, however, is with the emissions from that engine. The products of combustion would include water vapor plus various oxides of nitrogen (the relative ratios of which would depend on specifics such as flame temeperature, air/fuel ratio, and combustion chamber configuration.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are considered an air pollutant because they contribute to photochemical smog. Because of that, such an engine would not be viewed favoravbly in those regions of the country that have difficulty meeing ambient air quality standard for 'oxidants'. Furthermore, NOx can react with water vapor to form nitrous acid and/or nitric acid, both of which are highly corrosive, as well as toxic above a certain concentration.
I really don't see how an ammonia engine makes a whole a lot of sense, as ammonia's main value is as a fertilizer, not a fuel. And if we're going to be growing all this extra corn for ethanol, we're going to be needing all the ammonia we can get, and burning it as a fuel clearly runs counter to this need.
I don't think this is a good idea.
If an ammonia engine is used in California, the NOx emissions from that engine will be affecting California air quality, not someone else's.
The notorious Los Angeles smog has been a direct result of NOx emission from autos, and California, particularly southern California, has some of the strictest measures in the US aimed at controlling NOx emissions. For that reason, I don't see how an ammonia engine would be at all welcome in California.
I may be mistaken, but aren't nitrogen oxides also considered a greenhouse gas?
Why not propane? That's a good source of stored hydrogen, relatively safe, etc.
I need experts!
Can anybody explain this?
Propane at 97.75, down from an already low $1.01, coming into winter?
To say this is astonishing is an understatement. This is the hardest fuel to find market/contract/futures information on...so where's the bottom? What's the deal? I recently read that in China propane is the fastest growing fuel source, in particular in the countryside...anybody want to set up a string on this subject, and round up all the info we can muster?
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
If natural gas prices are high, they tend to sell the liquids as higher BTU gas. If natural gas prices are low, they tend to extract and sell more liquids and sell the residue gas as lower BTU gas. Given the spread between oil and natural gas, I assume that gas plants are cranking out propane like crazy.
It's all a question of what mix of liquids and residue gas maximizes the monthly net cash flow from the plant.
I am not a "downstream" guy, but this explanation makes sense to me.
FYI--natural gas is bought and sold on the basis of BTU content, i.e., the price per million BTU's (MMBTU's).
Thanks Westexas,
As it happens, I have a contact who is a "downstream" guy, but he is as baffled as I am!
Apparently, all the infrastructure on the consumption side is built around natural gas, and no one in the U.S. at least has shown much interest in changing it. I mean, how would they know that propane could not take off on price tomorrow, and wreck the investment?
Still, it is a tempting fuel. It is clean, very low carbon content, and it is cheap for now. It transports and stores so much better than natural gas, and can be stored for long periods without any degradation.
On the natural gas measurement for market of MMBTU's, I was very aware of that, but what I have more trouble with is BTU equivalent of propane to gasoline. In other words, how many gallons of propane would equal the energy content of one gallon of gasoline?
Remember, that the Propane does not require complex refining in the way gasoline does to be high quality and clean, another advantage! There seems to be no refining or processing bottleneck.
Let me say as a disclaimer that I am not in the Propane business, so I am not "pumping" something I'm selling, but I am sure thinking of going into it at these prices! :-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/pdfs/iran-e.pdf
I wonder though how Hindu's respond to this statement:
"He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ(peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of
human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?"
It is interesting to me that only one of the four mentioned prophets, the latter, is actually verifiably an historic figure, which doesn't of course diminish the relevance of the others (though I never thought of Adam as a prophet).
For some reason, the official text of Chavez's speech isn't posted at the UN site, but here's a link to an unofficial transcript, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0920-22.htm
Those wanting more of these can get a start at finding them here, http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/index.shtml
Given all the lies Bush has said at the UN, I'm surprised he didn't speak to an empty hall.
This Amaranth thing reminds me of that FinancialSense.com story, The Day After Tomorrow. Only it was bad investments in GM that threatened hedge fund disaster, not natural gas.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/bs_nm/environment_autos_dc_13
As far as i've seen the Norwegian support for Morales' move hasn't been reported in international media. The Norwegian minister of International Development, Erik Solheim, visited Morales circa one month ago. Apperently Morales wants advice on how to nationalize the resources and to demonstrate willingness to cooperation with western countries. The current Norwegian government seems positive to assist him. It's been fairly covered in Norwegian press.
" - It's obvious that Bolivia has been raped by foreign companies. Their wish for a bigger share of the wealth is quite natural, says Solheim."
http://www.oilinfo.no/?id=96773&tpl=nyheten
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5358486.stm
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
http://tinyurl.com/oddx5
Let's discuss??
==AC
==AC
If you want details point by point on the loose change video go here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html
What really turns me off about loose change is mostly about the Pentagon. There is simple more evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon than evidence saying it didn't so when a film focuses on the no plane it hurts their credibility.
I have watched a lot of these videos and the one I posted is in my opinion the best. Do I agree with absolutely everything? No. Is there some arguable flaws? Yes. But I never have seen anything I agree with 100%.
==AC
==AC
Actually that was what clinched it for me. The smooth symmetrical six second collapse and the tape of Silverstein saying "we decided to pull it". The rest of it, Alex Jones and the others, are all just so much noise. I hadn't seen any 7 WTC footage until about a year ago.
But I said I wasn't going to get into any more of these threads on TOD, so I won't. Any more. No really.
I see we're below $60 today on the little CLX06 chart btw ... look for it to rise again oh, about the second week of November ;^)
I don't recall any movement for Reischstag fire truth arising from employees at I.G. Farben or for that matter from the great mass of the German people. (Their view of reality didn't change until their country was defeated, occcupied, and re-educated.) It isn't going to happen in the US either. A thousand earnest people marching in T-shirts in a country of 300 million people is not a movement. Due to the isolated nature of the North American landmass, the Homeland can never be occupied by outside powers. Five years ago is ancient history. The world has changed and it isn't going back. Time to adapt and move on.
"Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
~RFK
==AC
Do you post over at www.otherpower.com?
Marco.
They show that in August production was up on July by 20,000 bpd, to 3,252,000 bpd. This is, however, down on August last year by over 150,000 bpd.
I am not pro GOP or Democrat, (and I can't wait to vote against any incumbent this election).
Collectively, the American public has a very short memory and have probably forgotten paying $3 a gallon already. They are focusing on gasoline going below $2. I bet we see an upsurge in SUV, Hummer and Truck sales soon. and record Xmas sales this December.
I think i can hear the public singing now........"Happy days are here again!"
Ahh, but then after the elections are over then we will hear someone from the GOV singing.... "Turn out the lights, the partys over!"
Their thinking is "we have to focus on micro-marketing to the different consumers tastes" or "we just have to be more creative and innovative with our products". What they don't want to admit is that people are buying less "want to haves" in deference to "need to haves".
I see alot of people preparing for the nameless storm. Fixing up their house instead of selling. Making choices on more efficient vehicles to buy. I don't think the public has gone 180 degrees backward just yet.
It is about the cost of my mortgage payment.
They are still pushing 4.6 to the 3rd decimal place mortgages. They are still pushing old folks to cash into their home's value in equity or even when the home is paid for to get a loan for X amount of the value of it to have spending money. People are spreading the word that the Credit Card debt is not a fun place to be at the end of the month.
2 years ago, at an elders retreat (Lutheran lay minster= elder) the talk was about house prices and how much people were going in over their heads and soon it was going to hurt them. All but two of us had their own businesses and most of them tied into the Housing sector. They were worried for themselves as much as the General new home buyers.
I know three ladies in the Real Estate business, One is in a booming market, the other two in failing and declining markets. As they look at the houses not sold, or the asking prices going for less and less they wonder what their paycheck will buy. Wal-mart just announced that this year will be the last year they have Lay-a-way as a service. Claiming more up-town customers don't need it. What it says to me is they are wanting to hire less people in the long run and they just found a way to cut staff without saying so on the record.
You are seeing the affects of the housing market slowing.
Money that was there for the taking is moving off, going away. People are thinking about staying home when the budgets get run and they are in the hole, no trips this year, no going out to eat every weekend.
The one cheery thing might be that gas for looking for a job in your car will be cheaper than 6 months ago.
In one of the more telling findings, the report comments: "peak oil proponents have criticized official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The Committee is not aware of any official agency publications that attempt to rebut the peak oil arguments point by point in similar detail."