The Oil Drum

This is a guest post by Aaron Newton, who is working with coauthor Sharon Astyk on the forthcoming book, A Nation of Farmers. Aaron contributes at Groovy Green; he also blogs at Powering Down. Aaron is a land planner and garden farmer in suburban North Carolina, seeking ways to transform the current course of human land use development in an effort to prepare for the effects of global oil production peak and its outcome on automotive suburban America.

The notion of our standard work week here in America has remained largely the same since 1938. That was the year the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, standardizing the eight hour work day and the 40 hour work week. Each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday workers all over the country wake up, get dressed, eat breakfast and go to work. But the notion that the majority of the workforce should keep these hours is based on nothing more than an idea put forth but the Federal government almost 70 years ago. To be sure it was an improvement in the lives of many Americans who were at the time forced to work 10+ hours a day, sometimes 6 days of the week. So a 40 hour work week was seen as an upgrade in the lives of many of U.S. citizens. 8 is a nice round number; one third of each 24 hour day. In theory it leaves 8 hours for sleep and 8 hours for other activities like eating, bathing, raising children and enjoying life. But the notion that we should work for 5 of these days in a row before taking 2 for ourselves is, as best I can tell, rather arbitrary.

The idea of a shorter work week is not a new one to anyone old enough to have lived through the energy shocks of the 1970's. It should be fairly obvious to anyone interested in conserving oil that reducing the number of daily commutes per week would reduce the overall demand for oil. There are about 133 million workers in America. Around 80% of them get to work by driving alone in a car. The average commute covers about 16 miles each way.

So let's stop and do some math...and I'll try to argue for 16 reasons why a four day work week is a good idea.

The notion of our standard work week here in America has remained largely the same since 1938. That was the year the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, standardizing the eight hour work day and the 40 hour work week. Each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday workers all over the country wake up, get dressed, eat breakfast and go to work. But the notion that the majority of the workforce should keep these hours is based on nothing more than an idea put forth but the Federal government almost 70 years ago. To be sure it was an improvement in the lives of many Americans who were at the time forced to work 10+ hours a day, sometimes 6 days of the week. So a 40 hour work week was seen as an upgrade in the lives of many of U.S. citizens. 8 is a nice round number; one third of each 24 hour day. In theory it leaves 8 hours for sleep and 8 hours for other activities like eating, bathing, raising children and enjoying life. But the notion that we should work for 5 of these days in a row before taking 2 for ourselves is, as best I can tell, rather arbitrary.

The idea of a shorter work week is not a new one to anyone old enough to have lived through the energy shocks of the 1970's. It should be fairly obvious to anyone interested in conserving oil that reducing the number of daily commutes per week would reduce the overall demand for oil. There are about 133 million workers in America. Around 80% of them get to work by driving alone in a car. The average commute covers about 16 miles each way.

So let's stop and do some math...and I'll try to argue for 16 reasons why a four day work week is a good idea.

(See also the Finance Round-Up on TOD:Canada.)

Exploring for Oil in the Arctic's 'Great Frontier'

These days, the frontiers of oil exploration include the waters north of Alaska. Nobody knows how much energy is hidden beneath the Arctic waves. But oil companies want to find out.

A federal court blocked Royal Dutch Shell proposal to drill for oil in the Beaufort Sea, above Alaska's northern coast. But the company is still trying. And its story tells you a lot about the forces shaping the Arctic's future.

This summer, Shell assembled an entire fleet in an Alaskan harbor.

Crews were performing maintenance on a drill ship. It carries an oil derrick 190 feet high. That means it steams around with a tower taller than the Statue of Liberty, from its toes to its torch.

"This is the Frontier Discoverer. I would call it the state-of-the-art drilling rig, one of the very few that are capable of working in the Arctic today," says Vince Roes, who works on the ship, which has a reinforced hull.

This is a guest post by Christopher Smith who is a Captain with the airline BA Connect. It was first published in December 2006, the discussion generated then can be read here. The post is based on a presentation (pdf) made to the oil depletion conference held in London last year.

Aviation is one of the fastest growing industry sectors in the world, growing at 2.4 times the rate of world GDP. The industry consumes over 5 million barrels of oil per day worldwide, almost one tenth of all the oil used for transportation. In the UK, according to the Department for Transport, the UK aviation industry is growing at approximately 5% per year while its fuel consumption is growing at 3% per year.

Royal Dutch Shell Inherits Explosive BC Conflict

When Royal Dutch Shell's directors took the reins of Shell Canada earlier this month, they inherited a brewing resource conflict in a remote corner of British Columbia that bears a striking resemblance to Royal Dutch's difficulties in other parts of the world.

The setting is a remote alpine basin southeast of Dease Lake, where the shared origin of the Nass, Stikine and Skeena Rivers gives the area its local name: the Sacred Headwaters. A stunning, expansive wilderness, it is the territory of the Tahltan people, who have hunted and trapped there for generations. It also happens to be underlain by one of British Columbia's largest potential coalbed methane deposits, to which Shell Canada -- and now Royal Dutch Shell -- holds drilling rights.

Trust tax linked to private equity buyouts

The income trust structure was a major impediment to private equity firms buying up pieces of Corporate Canada, the Finance Department was told one day before Ottawa slapped a crippling tax on the sector.

"Private equity firms generally find it difficult to compete against the income trust alternative, said an Oct. 30, 2006, memo sent to Bob Hamilton, senior assistant deputy minister of tax policy at the Finance Department.

The memo was obtained by The Globe and Mail under access to information law.

For anyone at Finance who knew the trust tax was imminent, one conclusion that's easily drawn from the memo is that taxing trusts out of existence would likely usher in even more private equity buyouts by Canadian and foreign investors, which is what happened.

What Price Victory? (scroll down)

It’s reasonable to assume that, as professionals operating within a government department nominally charged with understanding affairs of finance, the folks working for Flaherty would have some rudimentary understanding of the way key players in the private space—private equity, for example—operate.

That is private-equity firms find undervalued, cash-generating businesses, strip them down and load them up with debt. Interest expenses basically wipe out taxes owed. That’s the nutshell.

What was that about “tax leakage”?

Either the professionals have no clue about their business, or they engineered the destruction of the trust sector. Secretive, incompetent and stupid is no way to run a government.

Suzuki says Baird's climate plan 'not enough'

Respected environmentalist David Suzuki came out swinging Friday, calling the plan an embarrassment that was more of a sham than a strategy. Suzuki said the government must meet the terms of the Kyoto accord on time -- regardless of expense.

"Mr. Baird, you are the minister of the environment, not the minister of finance," Suzuki told reporters at a press conference. "Your job is to protect the environment."

He said Canada needs to set the example for other countries.

"If we can't do it, why should India or China or all of the other developing nations pay any attention to the issue of emissions reduction?" questioned Suzuki.

Sands are shifting for oil supply

The world continues to run rapidly out of oil and natural gas, which points to dramatically higher prices in a handful of years.

That was the message from Henry Groppe, a lanky Texan who advises oil companies and investors around the world about the world of prices. His firm, Groppe, Long & Littell, is based in Houston and was founded after he did stints as a chemical engineer for Saudi Arabia's Aramco, Dow Chemical, Monsanto and Texaco.

"The fundamentals always prevail, which is that the minute you start producing, you are depleting your resource," he told an audience of investors last week at a conference sponsored by Calgary's Pengrowth Energy Trust.

He showed production curves in the North Sea and Mexico that are catastrophically sudden in terms of their declines.

"This has a huge impact on the economies of Britain and Mexico," he said. "Britain became an oil importer this year for the first time in decades."

Oil production worldwide peaked months ago, but figures and prices don't reflect that yet because the production of liquids stripped from natural gas has been filling the gap, he said.

Clean up your own backyard, Stelmach tells Gore

Gore was in Calgary speaking at a sold-out Jack Singer Concert Hall about his Academy Award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which argues global warming, spurred by the use of carbon-based fuels such as oil and coal, is the biggest threat facing the world.

He has targeted the oilsands, suggesting far too much natural gas is burned processing northern Alberta's bitumen.

But Stelmach, who hasn't seen the documentary, said Monday in Calgary the province is merely feeding Americans' insatiable demand for energy, so perhaps Gore should look closer to home.

No easy fix on emissions: Conoco

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the oil sands will not happen quickly, said Kevin Meyers, president of ConocoPhillips Canada, one of the country's largest energy companies.

"We need to allow the time for technology to be developed so we can implement this without major economic upheavals," Mr. Meyers said in an interview at the company's Calgary headquarters yesterday.

Earlier this week, ConocoPhillips Co., the third-largest energy company in the United States, became the first oil firm to call on Congress and the President to pass legislation to either tax carbon dioxide emissions or impose a cap on those emissions, which are the leading cause of global warming.

The company's production, after royalties, was 1.96 million barrels of oil and natural gas a day in 2006, with about 40 per cent of that in the U.S. and 12 per cent in Canada. The Alberta oil sands is a major growth area, with the eventual potential of more than 400,000 barrels a day from several projects, up from about 30,000 a barrels a day now from its 9-per-cent stake in miner Syncrude Canada Ltd.